The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-07-29

The National Inleiigsnesr has al length spoken with
regard 10 the fisheries IL hardly necessary that
the Iasigsneu layors the claim OF England. nasmuch
as would be false long line OF consistent anteee
dents If II should be found the side OF the United
States in a controversy with foreign power and espe-
cally with Great Britain Admiration of arsocratc in
sulons dislike and distrus OF own, and inability 10
realize the great we have made under democratic
auspices growing OF incredibly In the OF
xpemen have combined 10 array the federal party
against our country whenever il has been involved in diff
hculies with other nations As The organ OF that party the
National Iniegenesr has always planted itself against us
in all difficulties with Indian tribes with foreign
governments II opposed the last with England up TO
The time when the enemy invaded shores II opposed
us on the Northeastern boundary question 1t opposed us
on the Oregon question 1t opposed the annexation OF
Texas and advocated the claims of Mexico 1t opposed
the Mexcaa war; and espoused the Of the enemy Ii
aided the Mexican minister in absurd attempt up
protocol to vitiae the treaty by which acquired Cali
fornia. Ii sympathized with Spain when Rey was alb
Quoted. justified the Cuban authorities when our c-
put TO DEATH without trial, in defiance of treaty
sipuations, and again when Thrasher imprisoned
II justified England and France in establishing police
in waters. II uttered complaints when Great Britain
abogaed treaty with US, and OF her vessels fired
into American passenger ship TO enforce preensions
which had been relinquished And now, when the Brit
ish government sends fleet to break up fisheries
plea Of justification is nothing than expected
from that quarter.
The National Iategenesr pretends to speak for the
purpose OF removing Misrepresentation, and explaining mat
ter at issue between the two governments But il seems
to forget that the demands OF the United States suf
cent importance to be mentioned in its history of the
matter. The British claim, and the Interpretation which
the British government gives to the convention of 1915
are fully set forth but, by strange oversight the
American Interpretation is entirely overlooked, omis.
sion which hardly COMFORTS with impartiaty. Without
any treaty the inhabitants OF the United States in
mon with the citizens and subjects OF all other
TONS have the right TO fish in the three miles from
the shore of foreign country. By the treaty of 1883
they had the right to fish on the shores OF the British
possessions in North America After the OF 1912 the
British conended that that liberty abrogated by the
war and finally convention was made in 1918, which
conceded the right to fish portion Of the shores
the British possessions designated by certain bounds-be
United States stpulatng renoance any liberty here
oiore enjoyed claimed by the inhabitants thereof 10
take dry or cure fish on, within three marine miles Of
any of the coasts, bays, creeks harbors of his Br
iannic Majesiy's dominions in America not included
in the above mentioned limits" We contend that the
liberty hereby surrendered the liberty claimed
enjoyed by our citizens under the treaty of 's3-whch
was TO fish the shores OF portion OF the British
not the right which the citizens OF ths
United States enjoyed TO fish beyond the British uris
diclion which extends only three miles from land. Bu
the British government contends that within certain
limits have surrendered the right to take, dry,
fish within three miles of any bay harbor-not only
within such bay or harbor, no matter what It's extent
may be, but within three miles of it. In other words
runs line from headand to headand and refuses
permit citizens to fish within three miles OF that line
thus excluding them from waters enclosed by that line
which are far beyond the British jurisdiction