The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-02

Il, ~ AZ AMT sa;ries rs ali ash bbsrsin on Ibe
same terms. e.., =,
Il The United States desire 70 take 6,h thence hob
.hsm 40 ~ on the saos fec sipg rs British h-hers
"a wttnout aoy bounty on the lake. III they want
provisions aud ibd from ihe bsy, let them reesf,e
4 without tax on its irnpor.ation no Ssyor caught
or however brought into their ports Otorwise, N
,et,ipy .bem into The bay, We sheii drive our osn
fishers out; otherwise, 10 gain credit with the Sta'es,
We shall ALLEVIATE the affections OF our own eoOna,ts
The notion OF .he North American PROVINCES CIV
ing their fishers equivalent bouniies, which Sir
John Pahington lie ready TO sanction b simply "a
assuyoHs- Where are New Brunswick, Prince 81
wards Island. and Ne .ioundland TO get the mon
ey? The United States Is great coanssy,, with
compete in bosn,ies with it. The avogcd object Of
bounsies is 10 create and maintain q crest naval
force What iced have the colonies Of England
Of any such force And why should tae.r agr.eui-
tnre have to pay bounties to force and foster their
fisheries Z Already tho fisheries Of New Brunswick
have to pay more than double for their -four what
their rivals in the State Of Maine 90, and for al
othsr articles Of provisions in the Ike proportion
AID because New Hunswiek a,rnultureis protected
10 this extent, Sir John Pakington is going to in
dolge in another round in tho same vicious circle,
and project The fishers By means Of bounty.
Firm the london Times, August IS
eries has been greatly ebscured if not distorted, by
its occurrence a. period whom 10 Parliament was
sitting 10 this country, and when statements offact
no less than expressions Of opnion, in the United
Of a political crisis. Ministerial communications
are made 70 the American Congress through the
circuitous means Of messages only, and tho fur more
summary " egplanatons,'' which in our own House
Of Commons woald be promptly evoked at any mo
mcnt Of session, superseded daring the recess
by such partial pstanents OF the truth IS govern
men. prints find The means 20 cbsa.n, or me capacity
to express. At length, however by refulcompE-i
ef those very persp;aaous authorities, with
the evidence Chained from the other side o. the
Atlantic, we think We may succeed in presenting an
intelhgihle view or these unpleasant Transactions
Yhe rel1ey is aware that by the treaty OF 1873,
The Americans ars coLiessediy p-eoilded from hsh
ing within three Mlles Of the british COASTS, and
further forbidden BY clause which We maintain,
though they dispute 70 enter, for fishing purposes,
there Ens NJ difference Of Interpretation, but the
latte- III always been called in question by DE
Americans; AMI. though the British government
LITERAL rights, the colonies had Enormously opposed
any concession, anu urgently petitioned for the
strict enforcement az III stpulatcns Of the treaty
Witt he change of administration in February last,
We ara told, bat our ,colonists should NO
| longer be deprived Of the protection to which
they we're entitled. Sir John Pakington a.
ccrainsly., on the assA of May lass. addressed
rican dependencies, app-isDg them that sufficient
naval force would be despatched to enforce the OBJ
servasce of the convention of lSlS, and 'renlove
all grounds OF complaint on the part Of the colo
Mes" II should be borne in mind, that though we
interpreted the terms of the contention a. plainly
excluding the Americans from our bays, We had not,
practically speaking, insisted on our rights, and the
! fishermen Of the United States had pursued their
ealing without much hiudrance in these parts Of
the British waters The proceedings, therefore, of
the Derby administration would take their charac.
ter wholly from the degree species OF enforce
mont" which it was now intended to apply. If it
was proposed 10 do more than protect the coast
fishing within the three miles limit, the Amer
leans had no just reason to complain, for about
our rights, 10th literal and reasonable, in this
respect, there could be no dispute at ALL II,
insisting on our full claims in respect Of
tho "bay' proviso, the measure would receive
very different aspect, for it would have been an
abrupt withdrawal Of : practical concession at an
exceedingly unreasonable period, and under crcutn
stances well calculated to incense friendly people
and Government. Accordingly, no sooner had
| disclaimer was communicated to q Ministerial
print, and il declared OH this reflected au.ho-
rity that Lord Derby Cabinet contemplated merely
.he preservation of such rights ms the Americans
| debated Interpretation OF the convention exactly
~her5 it was;-il other words, they had waved the
| ebay question, and had merely determined %
1 keep the in-shore fisheries in better order. The
ouy points 10 be decided, therefore, the sim
ce,rty OF this declara.ion and the propriety OF the
! character given 10 the proceedings
few days ago Tie authentic evidence for this
portion Of the question was confined TO an important
| paper issued IRON the American Department Of
| state. on receipt OF cicial Communications tcom
tne british government: In this document, which
possessed all the authority of royal proclamation
azlong ourselves, Mr.. Webster gave the people Of
AmoTis 20 understaal that tho British government
intended 70 enforce the convention of ISIS by carry
Dg out the wishes Of the colonies, and closing the
bays Of The colonial coast against American vessels.
lie further predicted the co'apete interruption of
the New England fisheries, and, in his capacity rs
Secretary Of State, put, all his countrymsn on
the4r guard. There could, in fact, be no possible
lQuOt which nl
naturally or wifuly, was put by an Anne
Iican minister on a communication OF the
| British government; and what remained to be as
| certained in exculpation or conviction Of own
administration. was the justice or injustice of Mr.
We5sters inference 1t was perfectly plnin that
The people of the Union hal been led through their
authorities, to bcievs exactly that which the Eng
lish public was advised b. its own government {,
diseredit, and the question was, which government
had the right In elue;daton Of this point, we
nov appeal to two other important pieces OF eati.
mony--tho actual letter Il which Mr.. Webster re.
eeived information of Lord Derby intentions, and
a second communication, which was elected by his
own manifesto
As respects the former Of these documents, we
are OoEId to say that it contains nothing which
could Justify lir. Webster in concluding that the
measures of the British government were directed
to the preservation Of the inshore fisheries ex'
elusively. 1t loertiies, on tho eontrary, the in
tenton OF our authorities to prevent q repetition
o. the complaints 50 frequently made Of the en-.
croachment Of vessel belonging to citizens Of the
United States AMI oSfrance upon the fishing grounds
reserved by the convention oflSls" audit in,mates
That force will be maintained on tho station
sufficient to prevent the infaot,on Of the treaty"
Now, these Preserved fishing grounds" according
to the Interpretation sustained by our goTernment,
and demanded in tho "cempla,f.s' of the coioniss,
undoubtedly include the waters OF the great bays
so that il the absence Of any parent limitation in
the terms &c the note, Mr.. Webster might assume
thai the 'lay'' hing .as pointed AZ, though there
was something not whcily ingenious in his entire
suppression OF the point touching our inshoo
privileges which he must have felt were neon
testeoie; ard which he knew bad been iniringed
His man;festo, to which we have referred abovs,
was, however, iGsuel the 9th Of July, the
day after the receipt OF The British note bat
on the very next mcrn,sg, the 1th. ii vas
notified to him, collect tron the colonial pa
pers, THAI he had meconeeiyed the nreu,ion Of tae
British government which was dire ted only TO the
border fisheries Of tho coast Now, if this be the