The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-08-19
The Fishery Troubles In ngland.The Dee
bate In tho United States senate.

.
When the Senate Of the United States proceeded,
on the 2'd Of July, to discuss and to adopt Mr..
Hason's proposition with reference to the fisheries
on tho coasts Of tho British colonies in North
America, that body had received no official iofcr-
nation on the subject beyond Mr.. Wsbster's COM
muncation to the newspapers; and by its constitu-
ton, no member Of the government could be pre-
sent to explain what had actually taken place. Tho
consequence was, that considerable amount of
hasty invective and erroneous imputation was dis
charged against the British government Tho facts
ard the law OF the case were alike misrepresentede
and debate ensued Of 20 dcsultory and Incorporate
o character that We cannot but express cur regret
that such spirit should BIO manifested on 30 little
prOvocation by the most sedate and statesmanliko
assembly in the United States.
Tho question was, in the first place, entirely mis-
stated. It has mover been the intention Of tina
British government to contest the rights which
American fishermen have been enjoying under tho
treaty Of 1878 for upwards of thirty years, but
merely to protect the rights reserved to our own
fisheries and expressly renounced by the United
States by that convention. Mr. Cass went so far as
to assert that "the treaty was now over thirty
years DID, and that it clearly recognized the right
of the Americans to fish within three miles Of any
shore" If he had looked at the convention Tho
would have seen that it is just tho reverse. The
United States thereby renounccd, and forever, any
liberty to take fish on or within three marine miles
Of the coasts bays, &c., not specified in the treaty.
It is dspiorablc to see popular prejudices inhamed
by such gross Measurements ne this
The convention Of 1918 was not q limitation Of
rights previously enjoyed by tho fisheries Of the
United States, but, on the contrary, il was COM
ceasion to the United States of the right 70 fishing
on certain parts OF the coasts of Newfoundland and
Labrador, British possessions, in lieu of the right
OF fishing granted by the trenty of l7S3 which had
been abrogated by the war Of 1873. The British
government of tho day was strongly attacked for
conformity with the proposition made by the Ameri-
can plenipotentiaries in London; and having OBJ
tanned what they asked for they solcmnly renowned
oil the rest. Upon this point we have dircc. eyi.
n w0rds IF Mr. Rrah
ncan negetator on the occasion lie States in tho
narrative Of his residence ut the court Of London
that the most difficult part Of his task was to secure
the permanence Of this arrangement, by the inseY.
tion Of the words s'for ever" and he adds
was by our act that the United States rcnounced tho
right to the fisheries not guaranteed to them by
vention That clause did not find place in the British
counter project We deemed proper1 to exclude tho
implication of the fishcres secured to being new
the same footing Of peranencc o that might express
ly APPEAR that our rcnuncation was limited to three
miles from the coasts,
Nothing cnn be moro conclusive. The question
now raised is not about the rights then conceded TO
the United States, which undisputed, but about
the right they formally renounced. But they cam
not lay claim to the one without admitting the re-.
nunciation of the othor SO much is this tho case.
that when the right of the Americans to iish off
Newfoundland was disputed by the French Govern
ment in 1921 and 1923. corrcspon ience took place
between Mr.. Monroe aud NJ. de Chateaubriand, in
which the American government took its stand on
this very convention OF 1918 and insisted on its ex.
ecution, and the British government as sovereign in
Newfoundland concurred, in that view. But the pre-.
cent discussion arises with reference to the fisheries
of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, to which no alu-
sion 10 made in the convention Of 1873 except I'M
der this general remuneration, and Newfoundland
seems to have been needlcsly mixed up with the
question
This is not the first time that discussions have arr
sen with reerencet to fisheries off these coasts that
American vessele have been seized by British cruis-
ers Tor intrudiDg into British waters In 1916 fer
instance correspondence took place with reference
10 lhe seizure Of the Washington and of the Argus
under similar circumstances; and IL appears from q
despatch Of Mr., Everett, then American Minister in
London. that Lord Aberdeen minated to him. OK o
note Of the 10th Of March, 1915, that "the British
government would concedc to American hsnermen
the right ofpursuing their occupation IN the Boy OF
Fundy." To judge Of the full force and value ottais
communication u would benocessaryto see the whole
corrcspondence; but the fact that this permis-
sion TO sh in tho Bay Of Fundy was so conceded By
the English government and accepted by the Ame-
rionns Clearly denotes that they went there By per-
mission and not by right, and that the night OF
granting or Withholding such permission Jay with
the Briiith government Since, however, TIE Brit
sb Secretary Of State for Foreign AFAirs .nos..aa