The daily union., 1852-08-03
The Fisheries.

We think that the fisheries question is assuming
more favorable aspect for the National insRigsne.r
which week ago leaned decidedly 10 he British side
o The question, has a, length given lis sanction the
view We presented on the Goth OF July. This fact we
take TO be an indication that The difficulty exaggera
ted, that negotiations have taken turn which prou
ses 10 cad III for II would be singular indeed il tie
Iehgen should be found The side Of the unled
States in serious controversy with foreign power
and that power Gfeal Britain Jast one week ago lhat
Journal undertook 10 remove misapprehenson and en-
tighten the public with regard 10 the point involved in
the question relative To the fisheries. In dischargirg
that task spoke advocate of British interests and
presented most views and conclusions in
manner well calculated TO msead The public asd preja
dice the claim of the United States The British inter.
prealion OF the treaty OF 1915 was clearly and distinctly
presented; but the Interpretation given to il by the
United States withheld, and the real matter a, issue
did no. appear to The reader II he had other informa-
ton 10 guide him. IL distinctly intima,ed that the
government of the United States surrendered the right
TO fish within any OF the bays harbors of portion
OF the British dominons in North America. no matter
how large such bays or harhors might be, and also
within three miles OF them. The important concession
made by Lord Aberdeen, mentioned in Mr. Essrs,rs de-
spach OF the 23l OF April, lsl5 disposed OF by the
statement that the British government permitted our yes.
sells TO fish in The Bay of Fundy ia isl5 as matter of
grace and having disposed OF tina, difficulty, The Ints
geneer quoted the terms OF the treaty Of lsls and ponl.d
out the difference between its phraseology and that
of the treaty OF 1883, SO to sustain the Brit
sh claim TO the right Of excluding our vessels from
fishing within three miles OF line drawn from headland
10 headland the entrances OF bays and harbors
within the disputed district We contested that view of
the matter, and conlended that vessels could only be
excluded from fishing within three miles OF the shore
not within three miles OF bays harbors-in the dis
puied district; and made distinction between the
right which we enjoy to fish anywhere in the sea
three miles from shore, and the liberty to dsh
within three miles of any Of the coasts, bays, creeks
harbos which is mentioned by the treaty Of 1918 as
liberty hereofore claimed enjoyed by the inhabitants
of the United Siaes, and which is relnqushed by that
treaty as 10 portion OF the British possessions. con-
sidera,lon OF the acknowledgment and confirmation
OF the liberty TO fish on the shores OF certain oh,r
portions OF the British possessions. The National
nsfgener, we are glad 10 see, has abandoned it's for.
position and adopts reasoning touching the con.
cessons we made by the treaty Of lsls and tn conces
sions we did not make by that treaty AS an independ
ent nation, We have the right to fish in this sea three
miles from the shore. where jurisdiction extends By
the treaty of 1883 acquired the liberty TO sh within
three miles OF the shore Of the British possessions on
this continent within the British jurisdiction. We con-
tended that the. Of 1912 did abrogate that right
but the British government took the opposite view,
and the difference led TO negotiiiaons, which termi
mated in The treaty OF ISIS, by which the United States
yielded up the liberty claimed enjoyed ,hereioiors
as to par, OF the British North American possessions
in consideration of its being confirmed the residue
retaining, as we contend, the rights enjoyed in
dependent, government, which not the subject Of
negotiation. and were not contemplated by the treaty Of
1918.