The daily union., 1852-08-07
"JoHN QUINCY ADAMS,
-. A BAYARD,
"H CLAY,
"lONA. RUSSELL,
"ALBERr GALLATIN."

j. "A
"ioNA. RUSSELL,
"ALBERr GALLATIN."
Vattel. in speaking OF the jurisdiction OF any one ma
tion over fisheries, says:
all has acknowledged the right Of other
nations and fish there, II can no longer excade
hem from IL has left that fishery IN It's primitive free
DOM al least Ia respect 10 those who have been IN posses
| sion OF H." ~.e UIH
And he cites the herring fishery on the coast OF Eng
land. being common them with other nations be-
they had not appropriated II TO themselves from Tie
beginning So far was this principle carried thai II ID
sai the Dutch in the possession and of these
fSherirs Al a lime when they were al with Great
Britain. But is maintained that the great highway OF
outside OF three miles from the shore, the distance
OF national urisd con, is open to all who may desire 10
use That is the doctrine which be sustained by
US. We can admit nothing which shall limit the free
dom OF The seas IN time OF peace unless clearly denned
by treaty
Thus stood the question after the treaty Of Ghent in
1884, until the convention with Great Britain, which
sed IN the treaty of 1875 containing the article under
which both governments now acting. Before, how
ever proceeding he examination OF that article to
certain what is s and correct neprelaonwhat is
It's scope and meannghe history OF the action OF both
goyprnnents should be scunized between the treaties
OF 1914 and ISIS. That shows that the British govern
ment did not claim anything but Jurisdiction Of
league along her coast She made claim 10 right
to exclude our fishermen from the great bays or inland
seas, the Gull OF st Lawrence really is Her claim
was to jurisdiction OF three mil es from ths shore In 1915
British soop OF warned of the coast OF Nova SEQ
tia, and about fory-ve miles from Cape Sable, Amer
medaey brought 10 the attention of the British minister,
who promptly dsavowed the act, will appear by his
note to Mr.. Monroe: .@ a# "t#a
s'Mr. Baker to Mr. Monroe.
"PHILADELPHIA, August 81, 1915.
"S1R have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter OF the lsh umo together with It's enclosure
eaing the warning off TO the distance of sixty miles
vessels by his Majesy's brig Jaseur This was.
as you have lnsy presumed in your not totally ananhor
zed by his Mnlestys government; and have the salts
by he
naval commandment chief on the Halifax and Newiound
land stations which wi eectualIy prevent The recurrence
Of any similar interruption the vessels belonging 10 The
United States engaged in ashing on the high seas"
have examined with great all the cases ef
seizure by the British government and believe may be
correctly asserted, that made outside OF three
miles from the coast, and no distinction is drawn at
tempted 10 be drawn, between the coast of the and
the coast of a bay These acts are all significant,
showing that no claim preferred for anything but
jurisdiction within three miles OF the shore On the other
hand, We maintained that we were entitled to all the
rights secured in the treaty of 1888.
On the 10Th OF June, 1916, an order was issued by
Admiral Gnfith 10 the British cruisers to remove our
fishing vessels IRON the coast OF the provinces. This
order. however, was revoked, and nothing done
der 1t. Ia May following order issued by Rear
Admiral Milne TO Captain Sumuel Chambers for the pro-
lection OF the revenue also the fisheries the coast
of the provinces That order shows that vessels were
not 10 be disturbed unless
Fshiug anchor in any of the harbors or creeks
in his Msestys North American provinces Or within our
maritime jurisdiction"
That is, within three miles oil the shore. Captain
Chambers did seize several American vessels The har
Dor Ragged island and within British jurisdiction but
they all discharged by the provincial court These
the transactions which took place upon the fishing
grounds. During the same time the same subject
under discussion between the two governments Mr.
Adams, with his great ability and comprehensive knowl-
edge OF the whole matter, was our minister who
Quoted the correspondence on our part He maintained
the same doctrine that was advanced at Gheni, that
rights fully secured by the treaty of 17S3 and that
the war OF 1912 did not abrogate them This denied
~ Earl nm hph Of tha
Each party maintained its former position But from that
correspondence, from the interviews between the min
Isers Of The respective governments and from The o-
tocol of the contracting parties when treaty con.
cuded, we sha learn precisely what claimed by the
British government and what were the intentions OF the
parties. There is sounder rule OF law than that the
intention OF law is to be learned from the discussions
of those who enacted IT, And so of the formation OF
treaties. The conferences and protocols oil the parties
will guide Us 10 correct conclusion. And we find
markabe OF evidence TO show beyond doubt
that all Great Britain claimed was 10 exclude from
within marine league OF the shore; not 10 exclude
from inland seas whether called bays CULTS This in.
yesgaon all becomes important and necessary, TO show
that such is the construction which should be given to
our treaty OF 1918
Mr. Adams writes to Mr. Monroe. September 10, 1915,
giving account OF his first interview with Lord Bath.
INST and be gives the language used by Lord Bathurst
He, Lord B said
Great Bnau could permit the vessels Of the United
the Brush 50, the other hand, il by
means her intention interrupt them in fishing anywhere
IN, "a
marine league from the shore"
THIS shows clearly that all that was demanded or
claimed simply that our fishermen should not exer-
eise the rEhl TO take h'h within "marine league OF
the siort" No claim preferred 10 exclsde from
bays or gufs All that was required was that
should keep three miles from the shore. During all the
correspondence that took place between our govern
nent and Great Britain that right only insisted
upon.
Under ibis state OF the each government adhering
10 rights already advanced and discussed and beng
unable 10 agree, Mr. Monroe says, 10 his Lord
Bagot, December 30th, 1915, and note from
Lord Bsgot OF November 27lh, 1916:
" concur 10 the seutnen thatits desirable avoid
discussion OF their respective tights 1.-THE United States and
Great Britain the hsheries and proceed in spirit of
concilauon examine what Will be adequate
O. the object fue discussion which has already taken
between COVE emmens has is presumed, placed
The claim of each parry in Jast light"
And Il was under that suggestion that convention
was finally agreed upon which negotiated the treaty of
1913. The first article OF that treaty is as follows:
Whereas differences have arisen respecting liberty
claimed by toe Urted States for the inhabitants thereof
take dry. and oh certain COASTS bays harburs
and creeks OF his Britannia Ma domnions Amer
ca, IL Is agreed between the bsh contracting parties that
tie inhabitants OF the Uned States shall have forever
common With the subjects OF his Britannia Majesty the
liberty take fish OF every kind that part the
coast OF Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray TO
the kameau Islands; the western and northwestern
coast Of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray the
Quirpon islands, the shores Of the Msgdaen islands
and also the coasts, bays harbors, and creeks from
Mount Jolly, the southern coast OF Labrador and
through the straits Of Belle Ise, and thence nohwardly
indefinitely, along the coast, without prudice. however
TO any OF the exclusive rights OF the Hudson's Bay Com
psnyi
"And that the American fishermen shall also have lib
ery forever TO dry and cure fish in any OF the unsettled