The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1852-08-21
THE AMERICAN FISHERIES.

To the Editor Of the London Times:
StR-The leading article in the Times OF the
al inst. on the subject of the British North
American Fisheries, involves maritime ques-
ton of such vital importance TO the perma-
nence of our naval power, that hope you will
devote the corner of a column in your paper
(perused and pondered over by civilians and
staiesmen) to convey, in as few words as pos
sible, the real cause of the progressive decay,
and now total abandonment OF that once inn
portant nursery for seamen, with which the du-
ties of my late naval command required that
should make myself intimately acquainted
with.
The result of authentic information. derived
from official documents, most of which were
oblgingly furnished by the Jealous and inde-
fatigable Governor then presiding in NewfOund
land, prove that the British bank, or deep sea
fishery, formerly employed AGO sail of square
rugged vessels, and Il, 900 seamen, and that How
not one of these follow their vocation, in con"
sequence of the ruinous effect of bounties
awarded by the French and North American
governments. The former pay their fishery
10f. for every quintal Of fish debarked in the
ports of France, and 81. additional on their ex-
portation in French vessels to foreign States,
once exclusively supplied by England-a trans
fer which cannot be viewed simply as mer-
camille transaction, seeing that the substitu-
ton of a greater number OF transatlantic fish
ing VESSELS, having more numerous crews, con-
stitutes a statistical difference amounting to
2G 900 sailors against Eng gland. without includ-
ing the United States-a fact that ought not,
and, being known, cannot be looked on with
Indifference.
Transatlantic steam packets receive national
| support, amounting to hundreds OF thousands
of pounds a year, without complaint being
made, even by the most Jealous free trade adj
vocate, because such vessels may prove use
full in war. How then, can the policy Of grant
ing premium, thus forced upon us, in order
to preserve our nursery for seumen, be consis
dered otherwise than the cheapest means of
manning our ships of war? Such premium
for the deep sea fishery vessels resorting to
Europe, ought TO be accompanied by immunity
to our inshOre colonial fishermen from the tax
on food from which the parent state is, happi
ly, free), and by a release from other imposts,
from which the French isheruan under naval
authority, is wholly exempt.
Brevity being essential 10 admittance in your
columns, reference may he made for important
details to "Morrce's Fishery of Newiound-
land" containing petitions and remonstrances
of the inhabitants, which assuredly have never
been read by our colonial administration,
| though pTessingly urged for consi Iteration.
Vessels of war are obviously not required
| for the protection of the deep sea fishery " hich
has ceased TO exist; nor are they necessary for
| the security of the undisurbed colonial punts
which fish inshore. The stationing more yes
sells of war to guard the fishery is therefore a
mistake originating in want Of knowledge of
facts. Fish caught by British subjects cannot
be sold with profit either in continental Europe
or in the United States. In 1649 the duty paid
on British fish in the ports of the United States
was $l63000 while the premium awarded to
their own fishermen was $243, 432.
Those who desire further insight into the
circumstances of our Western colonies. espe-
cialIy as regards The fisheries of Newfound-
land, may consult a pamphlet published by
Ridgeway, containing statistical map, which
ought to be brought to the knowledge of those
who possess the power TO avert impending ma
tional mischlefs. am, Sir, your often obliged
and obedient servant,
London, Aug. 4. DUNDoNALD.