The daily union., 1852-08-07

pfoysons IN relation 10 the not necessary 10 DE-
i seIloe. But not word is said 10 said act which
gives construction 10 said treaty, OF drawing line
from headland TO hsadland OF the great bays That is
the only act ever pas sed, so far | can learn s
March ~ 1896, The province OF Nova Scotia passed
an ae lot lhe preservation of The fisheries, and the first
and third sections Of said are conclusive evidence
as 10 what must have been their undoubted understand
OF our just rights under the treaty and what was and
the true intent aud meaning thereof. These sections
are follow:
Sac. l. Officers o. the colonial revenue. sher. mav
irates, aud amy other duly or thst
purpose, may 20 on board any vesse boat within any
Of the coasts harbors thereof aud stay board 20
long as they may remain within such place or distance
nayisaled according the laws OF Great Britain and Ie
lsqd and shall have been found fishing, preparing
coasts or habos such vessel boat and the cargo shall
be forfeited"
Mark the language of the first secon"O Officers OF III.
colonial revenue &C., may go on board any vessel boat
coast or HARBoR."
The third secton'f any foreign boat shall have been
found hshng, or preparing 10 fish, within three marine
mules Of such coasts or hayb0rs." The description and
terms given in these sections prove beyond doubt that
up 10 that time rights we'll understood That
language conforms TO what and is our CONSTRUCTION
OF the treaty: we were debarred from fishing within
three miles OF the shore, and line drawn from nden-
taon TO indentaon, as we contend is just in accord
ance with this law OF the province and just in accord
ance with our use and occupation SO we have conin-
aea 10 occupy and use these grounds according 70 our
years, and virtually and essentially up to this time
Since 1871 the fishermen have been much annoyed by
| the colonies. Laws have been passed which are in
plain and unmsakable violation Of the treaty The
right OF entering her harbors her by the fish
emen for shelter repair water secured BY the treaty
law, the owner OF vessel, when seized for violation
OF law, is required to prove his innocence According
TO our maxms OF law, man is called to prove his nno-
after proof OF guilt has been offered Our vessels
have sometimes been wrongfuly seized and con6scaed
and il would be strange il instances could not be found
where they may some Of them, have nfringed upon the
terms of the treaty Still the practical Of these fish
cries has been in accordance with the construction for
which contend.
In May. is4l, the governor Of Nova Scotia in a de-
spatch TO Lord John Russell, said:
'In point of fact have been able learn that any
have been made when tue vessels have been
within three miles OF the distance prescribed by statute
or considered SO to be- although IS true that the Bay Of
andy as we As mas. bays on the ooa,. Of this provinces
Of the exclusive jurisdiction Of the Gown"
Here, them we have unequivocal proof of our use Of
these bays up to ls4lus our construction Of the treaty
Nor can lind the evidence OF the seizure OF any vessel
up to this day outside of three miles from the coast
whether IN !, The great bays or ou! OF them.
In lS4l, Mr.. Stevenson, then minister al London,
called attention of the British government TO the true
intent and meaning of or the construction which should
be given to- the frs. ACT OF the treaty Of ls1s 10 his
despatch dated March 81 1871, 10 Lord Pamerston then
principal Secretary OF State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Se
venson says:
g" also appears from information recently received by
hoes right exclude The vessels the United
States from all their bays teven including those Of Fundy
three miles line drawn 1om Asaaass eadaaS
instead of from hs nden shores Of the provinces
British ports, in actual Distress warning de-
part or under way and leave harbor the pro.
vtncia house British naval officers shall ppoe
that they have remained there reasonable timeand this
wn9u , iull esamaa,on Of the crcnMs,ances snder
men of the United States believe Qf uniform practice
prophecy Jake fish anywhere on the coasts Of The British
PROVINCES NOT than three miles from axd
nor has This claim Is believed ever been seriously di.
pu,ed based il Is The plain and obvious of'he
only American fishermen In the pursuit OF their
employment the right of fishing. but likewise insure him
neghborng coasts OF British settlement might be
sd0s a , wn ds inc rights and d. Gl British subjects
The construction therefore, which has been attempted
Of Nova Scotia is dsrecy 10 cooc. with iheit objccs and
entirely snbvesye o the rights and interests OF the c'i
would lead to the abandonment, great extent. ofs
highly important brapch OF American Industry, which
the United States"
Mr. Stevenson thus states, with great clearness and
power what is the construction placed upon the treaty OF
1918 by his government and that such construction
had been acquesced in up TO that time by the British
government, Term OF more than twenty years. This
was the first correspondence OF the two governments
10 the true Interpretation of the treaty None other but
the one which had adopted, and Great Britain had
assened 10 bya quiet acquescence is TO be found prior
70 this time The answer Of the British governmenito
opinion OF the crown officers of Great Britain case
was prepared by the governor of Nova Scotia, MAY
s. lS4l submitting certain questions the intent and
meaning OF the first act OF the treaty OF 1918. All that
part OF the material TO inquiry al this time 10
embraced in two inerrogatores; First whether the war
OF 1912 abrogated and annued our rights to the hshe-
res secured by the treaty OF 7s3i And second whether
line is to be drawn from headand 10 headand OF the
great baysi The of j. Dodson and Thomas
Wilde, Queens Advocate and Attorney General, August
80, 1s4i, is very explicit. II says;
we of opinion ,ha, ths treaty Of 1888 was annu
led by the war of 1914" .l4
To the second point they answer:
"The prescribed distance of three miles is to be meas
ured from the hesdands points of land nest tho
OF the OF the the bays and not
from the interior OF such bays inets coast aad
consequently that right Amcrioan
cz TO enter the bays Of Nova Scotia, fish,
although the fish being within the bay may be at greater
distance Than three miles from the Of bay as
express the part Of land we have before mentlosed
excluding the interior Of the bays and the inets OF
coast" He.5 tnHl .@Has a
Thus Il will be observed that the question whether
rights under the treaty OF 1888 were abrogaied or not
Is most summary disposed Of The manner OF running
from headiand TO heaanJ is also disposed OF in the sams
way. The reasoning for these profound conclusions
are not permitted TO All that we can know s upon
case made up BY the of Nova Scotia the
Attorney General and Queens Advocate have 10 decided
There Is one expression used in the opinion OF hese Off
GERS which is significant and which may we'll sup
pose aided II IT did not control the result to which they
came. They say that the I" term headisrd Is Wsd In he
treaty 70 express the pn Of ta,d" de There is such
word "a headand used in The treaty Had such been the
he Jason he lnaion