The Sun.
London, England, 1852-08-14 00:00:00

LONDON; SATURDAY

SPIRIT of Vie PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM TLIE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DIY.
TI lante ;rig bet an eceitrainereee with Trans-
Illitle-hYPerb .I!, C.Uld present alarm at the exceed-
ingly bellicose tone adopted by the American journals,
and especially by one of them which claims an autho-
rity fee surpassing the " slow action and meagre re-
ports " of the Supreme Government. The New York
Herald, proceeding upon the "disputed interpretation"
of the Treaty of 1818, announces as subjects of imme-
diate exposition the present and future available strength
of the United States navy ; the resources of the Union
for a " long and bloody naval war with the first naval
Power upon earth;" the extensions required in its
system to enable it to "compete successtully with th,,
world in arms," end the "train of consequences " which
must ensue when all other "Powers and interests" have
been duly embroiled in the contest. These momentous
and absorbing contingencies, irreverently classified as
" the Codfish troubles," the journal in question pro-
festes its resolution cf illustrating by documents and
papers " more full, more accurate, more reliable, and
produced with greater dispatch than what the old
fogies at Washington (i. e. the supreme autho-
rities of the United States) can produce in
this hot weather." We should regret the loss
of these very remarkable chapters of prospective his-
tory, but the anticipated text we may confidently hope
will never b 3 delivered. A squadron from the British
Channel will, no doubt, come in view of a squadron
from the American ports, off the coasts of Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland, but even the version given by the
Herald itself to the instructions of the American com-
manderscingoinnafoi
rightsvnt
ooettounushnrr,
wiybrnfir
:81
neighbours
:bsagisehhlenhirrbdtbhapye
ol ratsl preclude the possibility of disagreement.
Orders to " protect the undoubted rights" of
mnwratgepnl
hto,etsuahf
oUtwreirsehnflaaiitelenohel
which
they
:re nsyu commerce,"dnenetnl royec
collisiont
have
ol
aolved called
ccao withhowevern
qmnu eitVst eetirdoo untbrhr emphatically
are suggestive o
af
withindo dispute.utbhtre three
miles
andil
eThevs eAreyfm
doubtfulee rn ircannn srt
tcsar
hgih
tonlya;n t
hufi
ens
yh.
doubted wrong. They have probably been doing both,
but in neither case can they claim the protection of
their fleet. Government
anyanroer confidentlyaethteepfe
ohostilityp le po etrstthread persuaded that neither
the
Union
tahbel e tct We
great
misconception
theof
our measuresfisherie takena and
ljenhcieronacwhimllenhet
i n
dthoufegrhthe
manage-
ment ha
s
certainly occurred, we are sure that in the adjustments
now rendered necessary, the Americans will encounter
no captious or illiberal spirit on the part of Great Bri-
tain. The rights and liberties of both countries over the
waters in question are determined by a treaty less than
forty years old, which treaty has never been invalidated
by any surrender, or modified by any concessions except
that of Lord Aberden's note in 1845. This convention '
stipulates that no American fishermen shall come within
three marine miles of the British colonial coasts, except
in specified places. About this clause there is no " dis-
pute," although it has, no doubt, been occasionally vio-
lated, both wilfully and without intention. The con-
vention further declares that the A • mericens shall not
come within three marine miles of any of the " bays"
of the dominions aforesaid; and this is the • provision
which is " disputed." Now, as we on Thursday ob-
served, we think it impossible to maintain that a ves-
sel confessedly forbidden to approach " within three
miles of a bay" should be entitled to sail into the middle
of it. A bay, like every other piece of land or water
with a distinct name and character, must have a distinct
circumscription. There must clearly be a line, for in-
stance, on one side of which the waters of the Bay of
Biscay are those of the bay, and on the other those of
the Atlantic Ocean. The geographical converse, if we
may so speak, of a bay, is a peninsula, which is land
protruding into water just as a bay is water penetrating
into laud. No person would deny that the eine separat-
ing the territory of the peninsula from the territory of
the main land would be found, if required, by continuing
the main line of coast straight across, and it is obviously
the same line similarly continued which would define
the extent of a bay. The doctrine does not depend on
any capricious or conventional rule of public law, but
is manifestly a deduction of reason and common sense.
If the word " bay" has any meaning at all, it must
obviously mean the space between two projecting
headlands, and the waters of that bay, as distin-
guishable from the open sea, must be included
within a line drawn from one of these headlands to
the other. The point, perhaps, when expressed in
technical terms, may appear abstruse, but when put in
plain language cannot possibly admit of honest dispute.
No American skipper would pretend to doubt when be
had got clear of Chesapeake bay, or whether he was or
was not in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. IF, then,
a bay is a piece of water included between two head-
lands, and defined by a line drawn from one to the other,
and if American fishermen are forbidden in notorious
terms to " approach within a league" of British bays,
it is perfectly incontestable that this distance must be
measured from the defining line, for nothing could be
more absurd than to maintain that a vessel bound to
keep three miles from a bay should be at liberty to
enter it. The convention stipulated for our own ex-
clusive property in the waters three miles from the
coast, but as the " coast" of a country, according to
legal definition, is marked by a line drawn from
its chief headlands, and is therefore, in some points, a
line of sea and not a line of land, the treaty provided for
this recognised view of the case by adding to the term
" coasts," those of bays, creeks, or harbours, as posses-
sions from which also a distance of three marine miles
was to be kept. To show how undoubtedly the intention
of exclusion was hero entertained we need only cite the
very next clause of the treaty, which, after enacting this
exclusion in respect of fishing purposes, proceeds to enu-
merate purposes which shall be regarded in a different
light; providing, intifect, " that the American fishermen,
however, shall be admitted to enter such bays and har-
bours for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages
therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water;"
after which Specifications is added, " and for
no other purpose whatever." Now, this treaty and
agreement, so conceived and set forth, James Monroe,
President of the United States, on the 30th of January
1819, did '" cause to be made public at Washington
under the seal of the States, to the end that
the same and every clause and article thereof might be,
observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United
States and the citizens thereof." A plainer case of law
and right could never be made out. The truth of the
matter is, that the Americans, with their characteristic
and not unnatural spirit of encroachment, soon began
tacitly to assume, without warranathose privileges which,
by this formal convention; they had failed to obtain.
Whether this failure resulted, as Mr. Webster intimates
in his manifesto of July 6th, from " an oversight" on
the part of the American negotiation, or whether, as is
a good deal more probable, it evinced simply their in-
ability to get better terms, we need not inquire. The
very expression above quoted, coming as it does from
the pen of an American elinister, is of itself a sufficient
acknowledgment that the fact so stands, and that the
Americans are precluded from entering our bays and
harbours for fishing purposes. This exclusion, however,
They have commonly disregarded, so commonly, indeed,
as to appeal now to their systematic trespass as consti-
tuting a species of prescription. But their encroach-
ments have by no means passed without remonstrance.
The British construction of the treaty, which is not
only, as Mr. Webster admits, its "strict and rigid con-
struction;" but, in point of fact, the only possible
construction permitted by its terms, has always been
maintained, and even periodically enforced. As lately,
too, as 1845, the British Government, actuated by pure
good feeling, relaxed its rights in respect to the Bay of
Fundy, and, while specially reminding the American
authorities that the three miles distance from the entrance
of other bays was to be observed, admitted the fishermen
of the States into this particular bay, saving only the
ordinary privileges of the shores. Now, as this notifica-
tion was published in the Government organ at Wash-
ington as an "Important Concession, " and received
accordingly, it is as obviously incompetent to the Ame-
ricans to plead a right of prescription as a right of
treaty. Restrictions of which a partial relaxation was
thankfully accepted only seven years ago, cannot with
any reason be described as wholly invalidated by " thirty
years' disuse." The fishermen of the States have always
craved these privileges, have often assumed them, and
are never unwilling to make inveterate trespass pass
muster for a right. Not only, however, do no such ad-
vantages pertain to them, but, in as far as any natural
title on their parts ever existed, it has been solemnly
renounced. Every quotation we have given has been the
expression, by the Americans themselves, of what they
were debarred from doing. They "renounced for ever"
(we are writing from an American text of the document)
" any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed to take, dry,
or cure fish within three marine miles of any of the
coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours" in our colonial do-
minions, and formally declared that they might " enter
such bays or harbours " for shelter and refitting only,
but " for no other purpose whatever. About th© " ins
teepretation " of such provisions as these we do not ate
how there can be much genuine " dispute," but if the
Americans desire to repair their " oversight," by open-
ing a new negotiation, we trust that they may be met
in a becoming spirit of conciliation and liberality, if
the measures of our Government have been abrupt, let
them recollect that the provocation given by their own
fishermen has been notoriously great. If our Ministers
have acted rudely their own senators have not been far
behind. The interests of the two countries, and of very
d are so dependent on our mutual good will,
many beyond, each ,
and are so easily reconcilable with
he
pacific adjustment ought scarcely to the work of a
day. It is out from England in 1852 that America will
fail to receive the considerations of amity.
CHRONICLE.—The London and North-Western
shareholders who assembled yesterday at the Euston-
able address from Mr. Glyn
square terminus, heard an
ofline; -
their and
on the general position and prospects ve• h the proceedings
they were also made acquainted
which have taken place with reference to
Great
proposed
amalgamation of their own and the Western
Companies—a project which, whether feasible or the
reverse, may be regarded oe one of the most
Thursd important
On
movements in our railway history. aeh the
Great Western proprietors held their halt yearly meet-
ine—not, however, at Paddington, but, by a somewhat
infelicitous arrangement, at Bristol. Mr. Russell, the
Chairman, made all the amends in his power for the
distance which the greater part of his audience had
travelled, and for the exceedingly disagreeable weather
they had enceunterui, ieying before them a
lucid and skilful statement of the position of their
affairs. It cannot be said that, so far as regards
the financial condition of these two great companies,
and the gradual development of their resources of
traffic, there is any tour: dation for the sudden
depreciation which has effected the value of their shares
on the Stock Exchange. If it be urged that the dividend
of the London and North Western, for the first six
months of the present year,'is only at the rate of &ve-
tted a-1-alt per cent- per annum, while every one was
looking for six, the answer is two-fold. In the first
place, there is no Exhibition this year to give an extra-