The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-09 00:00:00

The Civil Rights Bill.

We have been frequently asked about the pro-
visions of the " Civil Rights Bill," and the following
excellent synopsis will give an intelligent concep-
tion of the main features of the important docu-
ment

Sec. I.—All persons born in the United States,
and not subject to any foreign power, excluding
Indians not taxed, of every race or colour, are
declared citizens of the United States, and all alike
have the right to make and enforce contracts, sue
and be sued, give evidence, hold and dispose of
real and personal propexty—are entitled to full and
equal benefit of the law to these ends, and subject
to like punishment, pains and penalties, for offences
against law.

Sec. 2.—Any person who shall subject any in-
habitant of any State or Territory to deprivation of
any right secured by this act, shall, upon convic-
tion, be punished by fine not exceeding one thou-
sand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one
year, or both, at the discretion of the Court.
Sec. 3.—Provides that the District Courts of the
United States, to the exclusion of the State Courts,
shall have cognizance of crimes and offences against
this act, and also concurrently with Circuit Courts of
the United States of all causes affecting persons who
are denied or cannot enforce their rights in the
tribunals of any State or locality.
Sec. 4.—District attorneys, marshals, deputy
marshals, commissioners, officers and agents of the
Freedmen's Bureau, and others who may be spe-
cially empowered, are authorised and required to in-
stitute proceedings, &c.
Sec. s.—Said commissioners shall have concur-
rent jurisdiction with judges of the United States
Courts to issue warrants, and, upon examination,
to discharge, admit to bail, or commit for trial.
Sec. 6.—Defines the duty of Commissioners, and
imposes a penalty of $l,OOO on marshals who shall
refuse or neglect to perform the duties prescribed
by this act.
Sec. 7.—Provides for punishment of persons who
hinder or prevent the execution of any process or
warrant.

Sec. B.—Prescribes the emoluments of officers
who carry out the various provisions of the act.
Sec. 9.—lt shall be lawful for the President to
direct the Judge, Marshal and Attorney of any
district to attend at any place at any time he may
designate, for the more speedy arrest and trial of
persons offendina; and it shall be the duty of such
officers to attend the requisition.
Sec. 10.—It shall be lawful for the President to
employ the land and naval forces of the United
States or the militia to enforce the act.

Sec. 11.--Upon all questions of v law the, final
appeal shall be the United States Supreme Court.

British Amer ca and tho Fisheries.
_
The abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty of
1854 imposes upon the Government of the United
States the duty of protecting a class of American
citizens in the possession of certain rights, which
belong to them according to the common view of
the lawyers and statesmen of the United States,
while they are disputed by Great Britain and the
British Provinces in North America. We refer to
the fishery question—a controversy bet seen the
United States and British America of more than
fifty years' standing, and now once more engaging
the serious attention of the country.

An able report on the history of the controversy
was submitted to the House of Representatives, on
April 10, by Mr. Raymond, from the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. Mr. Raymond showed that the
original right of the Americans to partake of the
fisheries on the coast of Newfoundland had been
enjoyed in common with the other colonists previous
to their independence, and had been recognised
as an existing right by the treaty of 1783.
The people of the United States continued
in the undisputed exercise of the right until
the war of 1812. The treaty of 1814 made no pro-
vision on the subject, the American Commis-
sioners at the Peace Conference being expressly
instructed not to allow the right of fishing on the
coast to be brought into question at all. Disturb-
ances took place, however, between the rival
fishermen, which led to the Convention of 1818.
By that treaty the Americans received the right
which heretofore they had claimed as conform-
able to the law of nations, of fishing within
one marine league of the coast, and they re-
ceived the right to fish within three miles of the
shores of the British provinces. New disturbances
arose in 1851, when the Provincial authorities put
upon the Convention of 1818 a new construction,
namely, that the line by which the three miles were
to be measured was to be drawn from headland to
headland of all the bays along the coast, includ-
ing the great Bay of Fundy, the Bay of Chaleur,
Northumberland Straits, the Straits of Canso,
&e. This construction of the treaty would have
excluded the American fishermen from some of the
most valuable fishing grounds. The law officers of
the English Crown had previously decided that the
claim to draw the.line from headland to headland
was a good one ; and, also, that the treaty of 1783
had been for ever annulled by the war of 1812 and
the treaty of 1814. This decision the Government
of the United States refused to recognise, and the
English Government waived it. The Americans
consequently remained in possession of what they
claimed to be their right until 1854, when the Re-
ciprocity Treaty was agreed upon, and the Americans
again received an absolute right of fishing all along
the coast. The abrogation of the Reciprocity
Treaty revives the controversy as to the rights
which American fishermen can claim. The Ameri-
can Government, claims that if England regards
the treaty of, 1783 abolished by the treaty of 1818,
then, for exactly the same reason, the treaty of
1818, in its turn, would have been abolished by
the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 ; so that the
Americans were thrown back either on the origi-
nal concession in the treaty of 1783 or on the
rights which were enjoyed previous to that time.
This is the present stage of the controversy. Mr.
Raymond stated that both Governments might
agree upon returning to the treaty of 1818, but that
Americans could not yield further, since that year
has been regarded in the United States as the cor-
rect interpretation of that treaty and the rights of

-------...-------....-----
American fishermen, which in consequence oft tha
construction have always been asserted, and were.,
without interruption, exercised from 1818 to 1854
—Anglo-Americana Times'
_____

A Wedding Ceremony Stopped.,

Yesterday morning unusual excitement was occasioned
at the church of St. Paul, Deptford, by a wedding, will
was being proceeded with by the rector, the Rev. 13'
Ffinch, being forbidden, the intended bridegro om being 6
man who has attained the age of 67, and who Nino afte,r
wards given into custody on a double charge of bigamP
his first two wives being in church to greet him. On reach-
ing the outside of the church the disappointed bride (we'
ho,
has reached the ago of 90) and her gay deceiver wain
mat
has
by a large mob of persons, and thebridegroom being
hands of the police they set upon the unfortunate bride, 0
being rumoured that she well knew the man to whomshe
was about being wedded was already married, but seP6*re
y rated from his wife. Later in the da he was taken bef°
Mr. Trail at the Greenwich police-court, and gave the Dania
of James Naylor, an out-pensioner of Greenwich Ilospital
The first wife, now an inmate of the Greenwich ITi°nl
said she was married about 35 years ago to the prisoner al,
Frinsbury, near Strood, Kent, and they lived together n!
Chatham. They afterwards removed to Greenwich, but
"
years ago they separated.
The second wife, Ann Young, of 3, Robin rfood-lanef
Poplar, said that between 18 and 19 years ago, after three
months' courtship, she was married to the prisoner, but
she
left him five years since owing to his cruelty towards she
There were four children by such connection. ug re
The prisoner here asked that the first wife might 1""
called, and, in answer to a question, she admitted that PO t
to their marriage takingplace she was married to a sergta
of the Royal Marine Artillery, but that he having a td
living at the time, and her friends discovering this, she-

never lived with him. ded t°
Mr. Trail informed the parish officers, who atoll
°gut
watch the case, that in prosecuting the prisoner. it
be necessary not only to prove the first of the mars tip
with the two women then present, but also that at the tne.
of this marriage taking' place the man to whom shut
mitted having been before married had a wife living
time. Without all this could be done there was liLlife
evidence as to which of the two women was his law'— the
—and if the first of these two marriages was void, then
prisoner, not having actually completed the weadinhaog
intended that day, had not, in the eye of the IS/V,
guilty of an offence. ob-
It was intimated that this proof was not likely to beAig,
tamable, and the prisoner, after being cautioned, vtas '-
charged.
On reaching the public streets the old man Was ° Dee
and yelled at by a large number of females, but er"7.
injury.