The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-07-29
! THE DOWN EAST FISHERIES.
STATEMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES.
American Vessels Of War Ordered to
the Fishing Station.

dlfhcuity This assertion il bold, but made without
apology The original treaty Of 1918, concluded by
Messrs Rush and Gallatin, subsequent negotiations
by Mr.. Everett, the despatch Of Sir John Packing
ton, and the recent manifesto Of the honorable
Secretary Of Stateal these papers we will assume,
from the frequency Of their recent appearance in al
most every paper throughout the country, and tho
discussion which thereon have arsen to be 20 well
understood, that we excuse ourselves and readers
from other repetition than recurrence to their
spirit and common sense meaning.
Now, what are the grounds assumed by the vari.
papers engaged in the discussion Of these dis
putes which have lately arisen in reference to the
North American fisheries!
Z !. Some papers, with the ingenuity Of a
especial pleader,'' endeavor to nullfy che
Gallatin and Rush treaty Of 1918, because
Of its verbal ambiguity others, by appeal
to the higher law Of natural right, with pi-
ratical boldness, make the sweeping assertion
that though the common sense meaning of that
treaty QSlS is, undoubtedly, with certain excep-
tions), that American fishermen shall not fish, Sc.
within three miles Of the shores OF the British North
American possessions still the higher law aforesaid
and the vested natural rights Of American citizens,
should prompt them even to go out of their way to
indicate these principles in violation OF pledged
national stipulation. Thus, under this first head
the same results arrived at by different methods
to wit: the one by special pleading, the other by
vindication of inalenabe and natural right.
2. 1t is assumed that although the treaty Of 1913
literally forbds American citizens to fish within
three miles of British North American territory,
that the British governments are wrong in their pre-
sent construction of that treaty, viz: TINT this for
hidden ground (water rather) shnll be formed and
included in a line drawn from point three miles
distant from one headand to another, where any
curvature or ndentation of the seacoast may exist
). 10 is assumed by many Of more warlihc
temperament that the act Of sending an armed and
warke fleet into the waters surrounding this part
OF The British dominion, for the acdged purpose OF
protection to their own rights, is Of itself national
insult, and provocation sufficient to constitute q
cdsns beii and an immediate slender of pass-
port to the British Minister at Washington, is do
mandedas the only rational and manly course to be
adopted forthwith.
Now let us review these grounds briefly. With
the special peaders, and those who ego in for the
violation of national credit, when it may conflict
with their own conceptions of natural right (a
right wherein nature and self interest are often
found in wonderful proximity with-and to these
we say, we prefer common sense common English,
and common honesty, to any or all Of THAR Wanted
theories, or dauntless assertions. And we have not
the slightest doubt that the good sense and tho
common sense, and the undoubted honesty of the
majority OF American citizens, when they read the
following extract from the treaty of lSlSa treaty
admitted to be lawfully made ahd agreed upon be-
tween the British and American governmsnts-to
wit as follows:-"And the United States hereby re-
nounce forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or
claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or
cure fish, on within three marine miles of any Of
the coasts, bays, creeks harbors of his Brtani,
Maiesty's dominious In America, not included in
the above mentioned limit"-will say that at all
events American citizens have thus by the action
Of their own government precHded themselves from
any right to fish in these waters, within at least
three miles from the shore, surprising such line to
follow its course That if national troa.ies arc
hinlinp nj ~ 10 taI o,
the British government should not only be allowed,
but supported in, the right to protect its own SUBJ
jects in the enjoyment of privilege which the
American government have guaranteed not to inter-
rupt or interfere with.
Now as to the second point, the construction Of
this treaty Of 1918 as to whether the three miles
only follow tho indenture of the shore, or whether
they embrace the space within line drawn three
miles distant from the point Of one headand to
ther.
This is fair question Of dispute but il is neither
new or preposterous Mr.. Everett, in his negotia-
tions, has admitted the assumption Of the right
since lois and there is no record Of any protest by
the American government against such an interpre-
tation on the part of Great Britain, while in fact
Mr.. Webster's recent manifesto admits that the CO.
lones have contended for the enforcement of such
construction of the treaty since 1871, and by the
following extract he has precluded himself from dis
putting such an Interpretation without swallowing
hissown words He says-"T The British authorities
insist that England has right to draw line from
fishermen who may follow their pursuits inside Of
that line. 1t was undoubtedly an oversight in the
convention Of 1878 to make 80 large concession to
England, since the United States had usually cons-
dered that those vast nets recesses of the ocean
ought to be open to American fishermen as freely
as the sea itself, to within three marine miles Of the
shore.'
Mr.. Webster thus admits the concession was
made. What concessioni Why, the concession
spoken Of in the preceding paragraph, "that Eng
land had right to draw n line from headland to
headland, and to capture all American fishermen
who may follow their pursuits inside Of that line.
This is the concession Mr.. Webster admits was
made. but excuses this government from being
bound by it, Why! Because it was an oversight
on their part.
II Mr.. Webster was a merchant, and was known
to have adopted such principle in the construction
Of his private and personal contracts, what would
his paper sell tor on the street, how would foreign
merchants, knowing this, look upon his correspon-
dence! But, melancholy to think of, individual and
national integrity are differently regarded by too
many.
But what protest have We on the part Of the
American government against the assumption of
such construction of that treaty isis by Great
Mr. Everet.'s negotiations are sorry instance;
they are hut bargain for their REIMBURSEMENT,
admitting not only their assumption, but their le-
gafty Mr.. Webster's manifesto only makes the
matter worse
But it is contended that Great Britain has lost
the right 10 enforce such construction of the treaty
from her previous negligence, and admission Of
American fishermen TO the wa ters in dispute
This argument IS incapable Of logical support
Because you may allow man o temporary priyi-
lege, bnye you thus Invested yourself Of all control
over said privileges. In certain cases. within the
jurisdiction Of the same country, party may
luire an adverse right against another, who may
have been originally the only lawful pcssesscr. But
sucb cases settled by prescribed laws regulating
the number Of ears and everybody knows it, and
guards himself accordingly. .
Where is the international law regulating this
matter! We confess ignorance of its exis.encc;
bu. then we may, undoubtedly, be in error, and
this seemsto be tie only reasonable point OF dis
pute- If any such lay can be established, ard this
case can be brough. within H. then lc. the matter
be so decided, and negotiations to that effect be
CONNIE heed forthwith. Cls
But as to the third objection "a, presence Of
British force upon their own waters for the protec-
lion Of their own intcre sts--as . cds,,s beg, Tho
writer s no partizan Of British authority or AFRO.
gAnce,l He j. not even m fnglishmnn, strictly so
called, but q colonist-a Now Scotian-born within
the jurisdiction Of thbss % netty cDIonal trihuna1s