The daily union., 1852-08-07


uatons was, that we should be excluded from coming
within three miles OF the Shore not BAYS thai were
leagues IN extent Had such been the Intention OF ans
party TO the treaty. we should find somewhere such
claim None such made Had there been, il would
have been promptly denied. That clause which says,
that the United States hereby renounee. forever, any
liberty heretofore enjoyed claimed by the Inhabitants
thereof, 10 take, dry, or cure fish on within three
marine miles OF any OF the coasts, bays, creeks har
bos &c IS 10 exclude us from the great hays and CULTS
Was such the intention OF Great Britain She never
made any such petensons during all The negotiations
and when we renounced right 10 the shore fisheries
as we did in the treaty and OF taking fish within three
marine miles OF the coasts, bays, creeks and habors
that language became necessary 10 exclude us from the
small bays, creeks and harbors wha three miles oil
The shore--wIhin the jurisdiction OF Great Britain and
which we had formerly enjoyed-clamed as right That
such was The intention OF The parties must be inferred
from the facts 10 which have alluded, which took
place during the negotiations
But the last clause OF the article. contained n the pro-
yso at the end will explain what bays creeks and harbors
were surrendered up by our government The article
says
"Amercan fishermen stall be admitted TO enter such
bags and harbors for the purpose Of shelter and for repair
ing damages therein, purchasing wood, and obtaining
Americans are The bays and harbors into which the
American fishermen may go find shsr, rspair dam.
ages purchase rood, and obtain water All these things
could only be doie in the small harhors which would
AFFORD shelter and where damage could be repaired But
10 allow fishermen 10 go into the Gulf OF ST Lawrence
or the Bay OF Fundy for repair shelter! They might
Tor with sufficient they might be safe, while in
such bays the Bay OF Fundy they would be sure OF
destruction upon lee shore Better far better, seek
The broad and trackless for shelter, repair, for
wood or water The very which these bays and
haroos are 70 DC appropriated must show what was in
purposes named. The same Interpretation of the word
hay in the treaty when applied to Fundy, Chaeur, ST.
Lawrence, should be understood when applied the
Bay OF Blscay or the Gulf of Mexico
Another view of this question will, is believed fur
nsh us with what s the true construction OF the treaty,
by which we are restricted in certain bays, creeks and
haroors. therein named. What the rights enjoyed
by our fishermen under the treaty Of 1888 They had
the right, and did use, what is known the shore she
res. inside OF three miles from the shore, and in the bays
creeks, and harbos, with which the who lecoast
denied These were what occupied and for many pnr
poses, they were very valube. To them were claimed
right, and these the privileges which renounced
line drawn from jndentation ndeniation along the
coast, has always been contended by goyernmen
would exclude from the shore fisheries, which were
and called in distinction from the fisheries
more than three miles from the shore.
Besides, the intention OF our ministers who negotiated
the treaty, and the evidence which the protocols furnish
as the negotiations progressed, all concur 10 aid us in
our construction These protocols and this evidence of
that time OF great importance, and cannot fail carry
conviction along with them to what intended by
the language used in the treaty, and the for
which II was placed there. Let Messrs Gallatn and
Rush speak on this matter In their despatch, dated
London, October 90 1Sls-the very day on which the
treaty was sgned-to the Secretary of State, communi
eating the convention or treaty which had been
Guided, they say
1--WE succeeded in securing besides the rights taking
and curing fish within the limits designated by
of the Magdalen islands, and Of the New
oundand and the privilege of entering for shelter wood
Both were suggested important fisheries, the
comm unications that subject which transmed
sve rights of the Hudsons Bay Company did not OBJ
ject as II was virtually implied the treaty of 1888 and
we had never, any more than the British subjects enpyed
any right therehe charter OF that pany having been
granted 10 the year 1870 The exception applies only the
ha nf Ha,t
in Hodson's bay ond three miles from shores-a
gh ohieh could not eresivey belong 10, be granted by
any nafon
t will also be perceived insist on the clause by
es ronqulshed by the convention that clause having
omitted in the hrst British profit We insisted on
fisheries secured to grant, and OF placing
pemanene OF the rights secured and of
ted only to The distance OF
three miles from the This last point the
important as with the exception OF the fisheries in open
boats within certain harbor appeared the coinu
neations above mentned that the hshingground the
whole OF Nova Scotia than three miles from
the shore, whilst, the contrary, is universally
close TO the shore the Of Labrador Ii point
of view that the privilege OF entering the ports for shelter
useful, and is hoped that with provision consd
cradle portion OF the actual fisheries that of Nova
served"
The first paragraph of this despatch which invites our
attention is the description which they give OF the rights
which we surrender in the fisheries Ii explains what
was their Intention They state within what limits we
are to sb aud in audng 10 The prior rights OF the Hud-
sons Bay Company, IA Hudson bay they say EXPIRE ssy
hat we have the right TO sh in thai bay outside OF three
miles from the shore, and that "wAs RIGHT WHICH
COULD NOT EXCLUSIVELY BELONG TO- OR GRANTED
BY ANY NATION That is and precisely the Ameri-
can doctrine, and hence cannot be excluded from
other bays more than three miles from the shore Such
Il the true meaning of the treaty OF 1915 Such the
lentlon OF the parties who negotiated 1t.
The second paragraph OF this despatch shows from the
protocol that remuneration OF government the right
OF the shore fisheries inserted by ministers, and
or what purpose u put there-to show that rights
were renounced and that in The treaty of 1918 admit
ted grant to fish elsewhere by forming treaty
Aud, secondly that expressly stated that
nunciaon extended only 10 fisheries t1tiin three mills
from me coasts. But let us hear what Mr.. Adams has
ad on this question: man better acquainted with the
whole subject, IN all its ramications than any other
man, He was one OF commissioners who negota ed
structions to Gaatn and Rusband in those Instructions
referring to the fisheries, he said:
"The Britsh government may be well assured that not
particle OF these rights will be hoaly yielded by the Unit
ted States without struggle which will Great Britain
more than the worth OF the prize"
Again; John Quincy Adams's construction OF the fret
article OF the convention OF 1918, and the for
linquishing any right by our government:
In that nsuument the United States have renoupced
forever that part OF the fishing lbeuies which they had
enjoyed or claimed certain parts ot the exclusive urs
dlctou OF BRUSH Provinces and three .ne miles
OF the shores The first article cf this affords
signal testimonial OF the OF The principle
somed by the American pen pot nafcs Ghen for
10y accepting the by the United
OF small OF the privilege in question: and by
hmIng and enlarging all the remainder OF privilege
forever the British government having picity
edged that the liberties oil the thd article Of the treaty