THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1887.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7921, 13 April 1887, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1887.

The ■ fisheries dispute between the United States and the Canadian authorities has -for some time past been attracting considerable attention, and, though it is said to have been described by General Lord Wolseley as " a miserable squabble over a kettle of fish," it yet involves serious issues, and, unless wisely handled, may be followed by unfortunate consequences. It appears that no fewer than thirty-five American fishing vessels have been seized by the Canadian authorities for alleged violation of treaty rights or port rules, and have consequently become the subject of somewhat embittered negotiations between the respective Governments. The contention of the Canadian authorities is that they are acting strictly on the defensive, and while the United States authorities dispute this contention they maintain a significant silence respecting their own action on the Pacific Coast, where they have captured two British vessels, condemning one of them to forfeiture and her captain and mate to imprisonment. This proceeding is much in excess of that taken by the Canadian officials, as in no instance, so far as we are aware, have the officers of the vessels seized by the latter been subjected to any loss beyond that of property. Regarding the matter from their own point of view, however, and apparently refusing to recognise that the question has two sides, the "United States Government instructed their Minister in London to write to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the effect that the United States would hold Her Majesty's Government responsible for all losses sustained by American citizens through the action of the Canadian authorities. At the same time, as the cable messages have at intervals stated, retaliative measures have been taken by the two Chambers of Congress, which empower the President to make reprisals, and virtually pufc an embargo on all trade from Canada to United States ports, not only m the matter of fish, but in articles of trade generally, whether brought by railway cars or other vehicle or means. A very large and unußual measure of discretionary power was evidently, and prudently intended to be vested in the President in this matter. It must have been foreseen that such legislation S would have a direct tendency to punish the Americans more than it would the Canadians. And, according to yester- ' day's message, the necessity for such prudence is already manifesting itself. The Fisheries Unions of Gloucester and Massachusetts have suggested to the President that the reprisals law should be only partially enforced. The President's reply was to the effect that the reprisals, if enforced, are intended to uphold the national honour, and protect national interests. This, it must be allowed, is not very explicit, but it may yet be accepted as denoting that the power vested in the Chief of the State will not be exercised without very careful consideration. Of course, a dispute such as this is sure to be made the the stalking horse of aspiring politicians, and it is in view of the next general election that so much belligerent talk concerning it has been indulged in by certain members of Congress. There need really be no insuperable difficulty in settling the dispute, if on both sides there were a disposition to be reasonable. But it does not at present suit the political aims of the party in the United States now out of power to be reasonable in. this business. They are really fishing for the anti-British vote, and being bound to make the most of the misunderstanding which has arisen, they by so doing impose on the Government the necessity of countenancing a national attitude which they cannot heartily sympathise with. It is, moreover, very doubtful whether the proposed retaliatory law is constitutional, and there are many in the States who are not at all clear that it can be enforced, unless it is meant to serve the sole purpose of foetering an implacable enmity between the two neighbouring nations. Even the Secretary to the Treasury, in his reply to a request for a statement of his views on the Retaliation Bills, is far from being clear on this point. Indeed he virtually admits that the United States have no rights or liberties of fishing within Canadian waters save those provided in the treaty of 1818, the same treaty which the Canadian authorities claim to be now acting under. The history of this question as embodied in this treaty may be briefly stated. From the Declaration of Independence up to 1818 the same state of things existed that is now being witnessed, and it was to put an end to the strife over the respective fiahery rights that the treaty of that year was framed. According to its provisions " the inhabitants of the United States are to have for ever, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, rights of fishing in certain waters prescribed, while the United States renounced for ever any liberty till then enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of Her Britannic Majesty's dominions in North America not included in the above-mentioned limits." Then follows a proviso, which ought to go far towards settling the present dispute, but which, strange to say, furnishes matter for contention. The stipulation is thus expressed: "Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever." At. the time the treaty was being drafted the United States delegates in-

sisted on adding the words " and bait " after the words " purchasing wood," but the proposal was rejected by the Commission. This circumstance forms an important element in the present dispute, and the negotiations that are or may be resorted to for its settlement. For the reason alleged in justification of American vessels being found within Canadian waters hag been that they were proceeding to some port for the purpose of procuring bait. This the Americans contend they are entitled to do in virtue of what are termed the commercial rights of United .States vessels in Canadian ports. To this, however, the Canadian authorities* demur, and maintain that, inasmuch as all the treaties and agreements which have been at various times made in modification of the treaty of 1818 have been gratuitously terminated by the United States, they have no option but to fall back upon the engagements of the original treaty. The consequence is that the .Canadians claim the right to exclude all United States fishing vessels from entering their ports for any purpose whatever, save those , mentioned in the treaty of 1818, which vessels are, therefore, obliged to make a voyage of considerable length to American ports as often as may be necessary to dispose of their fish, or to procure bait, stores, or provisions. On this footing the Canadians are quite content to have matters remain, despite the reprisal law the Congress has passed. They hold that the American fishermen have been reckless in their methods of catching the fish in their own waters by a disregard of the seasons, &c, and they naturally enough have no desire to see the supply in their waters spoiled after the same fashion. It is, of course, quite possible that by stringent regulations this might be prevented ; and a law of reciprocity might be framed which would prove advantageous to the fishermen and general population of both States. And these might be easily attained if the wish to make political capital of the disipute which seems to be dominant in the minds of some American statesmen, were honestly laid aside. It must, however, be admitted that- the passing of retaliatory laws does not tend towards so desirable a result; and at present the hope of attaining it depends in a large degree if not wholly on the good sense of the President of the United States. Mk. Gladstone, who has evidently thrown himself heart and soul into the Irish cause, has issued a manifesto appealing to the working men of England to bestir themselves on the subject, and denouncing the Irish policy of the Government in terms which recalls his Bulgarian atrocity crusade. It is more than doubtful, however, whether hia efforts to enlist the sympathy of the masses for Home Rule will prove successful. The demonstration in Hyde' Park is a significant criterion. It was largely attended, but, as our cable message informs us, "the majority were indifferent to the objects of the demonstration, being merely sightseers." Mr. Gladstone was able to bamboozle the English people on the Bulgarian atrocity business, because they knew nothing of the merits of the question. They are much better informed, however, on the Irish subject: hence his voice ceases to charm them. While ready enough to support orthodox and constitutional remedial measures for the grievances which exist in Ireland, they are not prepared to follow Mr. Gladstone across the Hiberniau Rubicon, or to destroy the golden bridge which spans the Irish Channel. And Lord Hartington well and clearly expressed this view in his recent speech in the House of Commons on Mr. Parnell's amendment to the Addressin Reply. "We none of us, ,, he said, j " object to a reform of the law or system of government which would satisfy the needs and secure the confidence of the Irish people. I retract nothing of what I have said as to the conditions under which I think it is possible to make an attempt to satisfy those needs and acquire that confidence, but I refuse to be a party to a veiled resolution which would pledge me perhaps to do that which I could not perform, and I refuse in particular to vote for a resolu* tion which faile to recognise by one single sentence, by one single word, that there are securities, that there are conditions which are required, justly required, by the people of Great Britain, and which must be secured before they can assent to any such legislation as is contemplated by some of my right hon. friends near me."