Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1852-07-29
The Fishing Troubles.

Some OF our contemporaries, in comment
ing upon the recent acts Of the British Gov
ernment III relation TO the colonial fisheries,
have treated the subject us though the claims
OF Great Britain We're now made for the first
time. This is Il mistake. Soon after The
convention of 1918 was concluded, (which
convention it will be recollected confirmed TO
the fishermen of The United States their
right 10 fish in any part Of the coast, bays,
&C., OF The British provinces beyond three
miles from the shorel the Nova Scotans
took the very ground which The Derby min
istry is now attempting 10 enforce, viz that
the lire within wh'ch The American fisher
men should not he allowed 10 pursue their
avocation should he drawn from hcadidnd 10
headiaad. Several American fishermen were
from time TO time seized for fishing within
the bays, although III greater distance than
three miles from land.
In 1871, Mr.. Stevenson. who was III, n
our minister 10 England, addressed note 10
The Blush Secretary for Foreign fairs.
complaining Of ihese proceedings on The
part Of the Nova Scutans. The subject of
complaint was referred 10 The authorities OF
Nova Scoti,. The House oil Assembly took
measures TO obtain The opinion of high legal
authorities 10 England, who sustained The
government Of Nova Scotia in their view Of
the stipuIaIiOns Of The Convention. Accord
ing 10 their opinion, the prescribed distance
of three miles is 10 be measured from the
headlands, or extreme points of land, or Of
the entrance of the bays, and not from the
interior of such bays, or indents of the coast,
thai, independently of treaty, no foreign
country has the right to use or navigate The
passage or Strait Of Canso that the Con-
vention did not expressly, or by implication,
concede any right Of using the passage in
question and that American citizens have
no right TO land or conduct the fisheries from
lhe shUreS of the Mastlalen Islands.
This view OF The terms of the Convention,
would shut out the United States from the
most productive fisheries, and would force
our fishing vessels TO make detour in order
10 reach the fishing grounds. Attempts were
made 10 enforce this decision,
and American fishermen were frequently
driven off their fishing grounds, and in sever
al instances their vessels were seized and
confiscated. This gave Use 10 new com
plants, and finally in 1915 the British gov
eminent deemed it advisable to relax the
strict rule Of exclusion exercised against
American fishermen entering the bays Of
British North America.
We have reason to believe that the recent
action OF the government VI the British prov
inces has heen adopted more with view to
force the United States into reciprocal
treaty fla treaty can be SO called where the
reciprocity is all on one side-;han from any
real interest in the fisheries. The Canadi-
ans, Nova Scotians and New Brunswickers
desire TO procure the admission into the Unit
ed States free of duly, of their bread stufTs,
lumber, and similar agricultural productions
OF which they have a surplus, in return for
which they will admit only similar articles
OF produce Of The United States Koowing
that this can offer no inducement, they have
threatened TO close the ST. Lawrence to
American vessels. Failing TO force the
American government to conclude The de-
sired treaty in this way, they are now, we
suspect holding the fisheries over our heads
as a ROD 10 coerce us into submission TO their
demands.
However this view of the case may be, the
time seems TO have arrived when the terms
of the convention OF 1918 should be strictly
defined, and all further misundeIstandn
and difficulties prevented. We are glad
that Mr.. Webster has taken the subject i'm
hand, and we feel confident that he will ably
and successfully maintain the rights Of our
Journal