New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-27

s,,;.r ne negotiations. The consultations DC.
s-sen Mr.. Adams and Lord Bathurst commenced
=. the basis of requiring Of US the remuneration OF
AZ. hoaf ar shors fisheries, and Of no others. AT
shs srst interview, his Lordship used this distinct
ana emphatic language As, on the one hand
S;r.nt Britain could not permit the cesseis Of the
Usited States 10 fsh rithia The creeks ana e'oss
10 the shores ofhe British Territories, so' on ms
stker hand, IL ras By no means her ttef'''" 70 '"-
,ery,.t tb,m in fishing aRyrhere in the open sea,
- .,;,bo,t N. territorial jurisdiction, marine
,..o,e from the shore" Again, and on a subse-
.,,snt occasion he said it is not OF air compet-
,:on that His Najesty's Government complain, but
.f the pre6ccupation Of British harbors and
srr,,k,n The negotiation proceeded and termi-
mated on this suppostion, that we relinquished
the inner grounds, as they are termed, and re-
tanned the oster, or vessel fisheries, anywhere,
and everywhere three miles from the coast. Did
space allow, it might be shown from both sides Of
the correspondence, that this original thought OF
Lord Bathurst was kept continually in view AMI
that the Bays" named by Lord Stanley are not
once referred to.
Contemporaneous exposition Of paper IS
case. claim that it is decisive. 1t is OF conse-
quence, also, to know whether the renuhciaoo'y
clause on which Lord Stanley relies was intro
duced by our diplomatists, or their opponents
II was brought forward by Messrs. Rush and Gal
latin far special objects and is in no sense appll-
..ble tn the purposes for which it is now used.
On the day the treaty was signed, these gentle
men wrote our Secretary of State, that they had
ainsisted" upon the insertion of that clause ana
vhys "With the view, first, ofpreyenting any
implication that the fisheries secured to us were
n aep grant, and of placing the permanence OF the
rights secured and Of those renounced precisely
on the same footing. Secondly, Of its being ex
pressy stated that our remuneration ertended
only 10 the distance of three miles" And they
add, that from communications received by them,
It appeared that with the exception of the open
boat fishery, the fishing ground on the whole coast
of Nova Scotia is more than three miles from the
shores; and they conclude with the remark, that
notwithstanding the three mile remuneration, ut
rs hoped that considerable portion Of the actual
fisheries on that coast (of Nova SCOTIA will be
preserved"
II, as Lord Stanley contends in these dis
Colony, what did the American Ministers, who had
Just signed the Convention of 1918, mean Under
circumstances highly interesting to his fame with
this generation and with posterity, the late Presi-
dent Adams declared that that Convention Sc
cures essentially and substantially all the rights
acquired by the treaty Of 1873 and that it has
secured the whoLe coast fishery Of ecery part
of the British doninions, excepting within three
marine miles OF the shores" Is it to be believed,
in view of the course Of MIR. Adams and Mr.. Gala
tin at Client, and of the remarks of Lord Bathurst
at the opening conference, which | have cited,
that after three years of negotiation, a treaty
should have been framed which took from us very
much more than the British Government required
us to surrender at the outset The thing seems
not only improbable, but utterly impossible. Our
Statesmen have been accused on the other side of
the Atlantic of limited knowledge of interna-
tonal law, but never Of yielding up our interests.
Indeed, the standing charge against them is, that
they overreach and drive too hard bargains. But in
the supposition that the right of fishing has been
abandoned in the bays" Of New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia, those negotiators who consented to
the Treaty of 1918, allowed themselves to be most
scandslously overeached, and never discovered
the cheat.
And it must not be said, that the relinquish-
ment of the boat or shore fisheries was too ncon-
siderable an object to be so strongly insisted on by
the British Government. Practical men under
stand their value quite too we'll to allow any force
to such a suggestion. The Colonists, secuYe in
these, have vast treasures at their very DOORS and
may dispense with the use of vessels. Oftentimes
they have but to cast, turn and draw seines and
nets to take hundreds of barrels of mackerel and
herring; and years have occurred when no less
than forty thousand barrels of the former fish
have been caught in single season, on portion
of the coast only twelve miles long. And as for
the shore fishery for the kinds usually dried that
in the region of Darlington is of itself, mine Of
wealth. Colonial fishermen, here and elsewhere
along the coast, can take of their little farms,
and may sleep in their beds in their own homes,
after every days toll.
And now, what has been the British construc-
ton of the treaty. have documentary evidence
on this head that is entirely satisfactory, but can
not adduce it all. "On meeting with any foreign
vessel fishing or at anchor in any of the har6OrS
or creeks in his Maesty's North American domn-
ions, were the orders of Admiral Milne to Capt
Chambers, DOR within our maritime jurisdiction
you will seize," sc. And Captain Chambers re-
port Of his doings shows that he did seize or mo-
lest vessels found fishing in creeks and harbors
and in the interdicted limits Of three miles, and
no others. The Commerce, one of our fishing
vessels, was seized in the Gulf of st. Lawrence,
and sent in for trial, by Colonial cutter; but it
was released after ahearing, because, though with.
in the body or "headlands" of the Gulf, no of.
ense had been committed within the shore prohi-
btion. In the official letter of the commander of
another revenue vessel, whose chief duty it was
for considerable period, to attend to the fisher
les, find it stated that " from 600 to 200 sail OF
American fishermen drive into the Gulf annually"