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

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,
&c. 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-
, red interpretation of that treaty and the rights of

American fishermen, which in consequence of that
construction have always been asserted, and vreM
without interruption, exercised from 1818 to 1854'
—Anglo-American Times'

A Wedding Ceremony Stopped•

Yesterday morning unusual excitement was oceasionee
at the church of St. Paul, Deptford, by a -wedding, Which
was being proceeded with by the rector, the Rev. B.
a
Ffinch, being forbidden, the intended bridegroom being
man who has attained the agd of 67, and who was itar"
wards given into custody on a double charge a bigaral'
his first two wives being in church to greet him. On (who
ing W
ach'
ing the outside of the church the disappointed bride O,
has reached the ago of 40) and her gay deceiver were
by a large mob of persons, and thebridegroom be thingl.t
e.
s
hands of the police they set upon the unfortunate bride,
being rumoured that she well knew the man to but he
was about being wedded was already married, but sePa"
rated from his wife. Later in the day he was taken before
Mr. Trail at the Greenwich police-court, and gave thenaalrae
of James Naylor, an out-pensioner of Greenwich hospit'
The first wife, now an inmate of the Greenwich ITni°n't
said she was married about 35 years ago to the prisenerBt
Frinsbury, near Strood, Kent, and they lived together !t_
Chatham. They afterwards removed to Greenwich, but
26
years ago they searated.
The second wife, Ann Young, of 3, Robin hood lane'
Poplar, said that between 18 and 19 years ago, after tin!?
months' courtship, she was married to the prisoner, but sue
left him five years since owing to his cruelty towards list.
There were four children by such connection. re.
The prisoner here asked that the first wife might ""
a
called, and, in answer to a question, she admitted that Pe'
to their marriage taking place she was married to a serge;
of the Royal Marine Artillery, but that he having 9' vf:
living at the time, and her friends discovering this, 511°
never lived with him.
Mr. Traill informed the parish officers, who attended to
watch the case, that in prosecuting the prisoner it Wealcis
be necessary not only to prove the first of the marriage°
with the two womenthen present, but also that at the tirad,
of this marriage taking place the man to whom she! t
mitted having been before married had a wife livingatligli
time. Without all this could be done there was un Je if°
evidence as to which of the two women was hie lawful/be
—and if the first of these two marriages was void, then be
prisoner, not having actually completed the w.orld'ilt%o a
intended that day, had not, in the eye of the lAA -
guilty of an offence.
It was intimated that this proof was not likely to be
tainable, and the prisoner, after being cautioned, was
(L'
charged.
On reaching the public streets the old man was ,a
col pea
and yelled at by a large number of females, but
injury.