Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1852-08-05

correspondence Of the Baltimore sun.
WASHINGTON. July lOth, 1851.


WASHINGTON, July sOtb, 1851.
The question which has arisen be.
tween this country and Greai Britain in
regard to the fishing rights Of the citi.
zens of the United states, on the shores
of the British American possessions. is
one Of great importance. The fishing
interests are Of recognized importance,
political and commercial. The North
American fisheries have, for two centu-
ries or more, been to France, England
and the United States, alternately, a
great source Of fnaval power. After the
revolution our fishing rights were Sc
cured by the treaty of I7s3. But the
fishing interest Jagged till ii was encour-
aged by bounties, which il still enjoys
from this government. The rights So
cured under that treaty were held by
the British government to have been alb
rogated by the war Of 1879. The trea-
ty of Ghent was silent on the subject
But convention was made with Great
Britain, in 1918, which defined, though
it somewhat circumscribed our privile-
ges. A difficulty arose prior TO ls45,
between our fishermen and the British
Colonial authorities, as to the construc-
ton Of the terms of that convention in
an important particular. The British
insisted that, by the privilege given TO
the United States to fish within three
marine miles of the coast, we were not
permitted to come within three miles of
the headlands. The Yankees, on the
contrary, insisted upon the right Of
sweeping along the coast within three
miles of the shore. This difference of
construction makes difference between
fish and no fish. IL the headlands are
to be the boundaries, and there is to be
no fishing within three miles of them,
no fish can be taken in the bays and in
lets, where cod and mackerel most
abound. Mr.. Stevenson, our Minister
in England in 1915. urged upon the
British government proper regard to
our construction of the convention of
1918. He was so far successful that
Lord Stanley requested Lord Falkland
to suffer the question to lie till it could
be further examined, and. it appears,
that he was in favor OF the American
construction. The decision of the Brit
ish government was, ultimately. adverse
to the American construction. Ii is this
question which is now the chief origin
of the present difficulty. The British
authorities will seize American vessels
fishing within three miles Of the head
lands. TaE
Our fishermen had also the right to
land and dry fish on certain unsettled
and uninhabited shores. They may, as
is said, have abused this privilege
But it is known :hat the authorities of
Prince Edward Island were desirous
that the Americans should be allowed 10
land there; for by that means alone
could they derive any profit from the
fisheries, which they were not them
selves engaged in. They Petitioned the
British government 10 allow the Ameri
cans 10 land and cure their fish, and
trade, &C. -.r u-f .s. ....
The people of the British provinces
do not it seems, avail themselves, TO
eny great extent, ofiheir fisheries. The
peop'e OF Newfoundland are not much .
concerned in the fisheries on their own
banks; and they attribute the success of
the Yankees 10 the encouragement which !
they receive from the United States gov /
errment, not only in bounties, but in
commercial treaties, securing to them
foreign markets for their fish.
Mr.. Rush negotiated the convention
of 1918, and he can, no doubt, settle
some of the questions that have arisen
as to the construction of its terms.
An arrangement could be easily made
with Great Britain, partly by litigation
and plrIly by treaty, or altogether by
treaty, for the adjustment Of all the ques-
tions concerning all the relations be-
tween the United States and the British
American Provinces. Sir Henry Bul-
wer, when he was here, proposed ne
gotiation with view TO such treaty.
lon.