Daily American telegraph., 1852-07-22
The Fisheries.

" Ion, tho intelligent correspondent OF The
Baltimore Sun, who has the happy faculty Of
condensing much information into small space,
thus places before us the grounds Of the present
misunderstanding
"The question which has arisen between this
country and Great Britain, in regard to the fish
ing rights of the citizens of the United States,
the shores of the British American possessions,
is one of great Importance The fishing interests
are of recognised Importance, political and com
mercial The North American fisheries have, for
two centuries or more, been to France, England
and the United States, alternately, great source
of naval power. After the Revolution, our fishing
rights were secured by the treaty of 1888. But
the fishing interest Jagged until ii was encou
ragged by bounties, which it still enjoys from this
government.
"The rights secured under that treaty were held
by the British government to have been abrogated
by the war Of 1872. The treaty of Client was
silent ON the subject. But n convention was
made with Great Britain, in 1918, which Defined
though il somewhat circumscribed, our privi-
leges A difficulty arose prior to 1S45, between
our fishermen and the British colonial authori-
ties, as to the construction of the terms of that
convention, in 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 Yam
KEGS, on the contrary, insisted upon the right of
sweeping along the coast within three miles Of
the shore. This difference Of construction makes
a difference between fish and no fish. If 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 nlets, where
cod and mackerel most abound. Mr. Stevenson,
our Minister in England in 1916, 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 il appears that
he was in favor of the American construction.
The decision of the British government was, ul-
timately, adverse to the American construction:
1t 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 heddtands.
"Our fishermen had also the right TO land and
dry fish on certain unsettled and uninhabted
shores. They may, it is said, have abused this
privilege But it is known that the authorities
of Prince Edward Island were desirous that the
Americans should be allowed to 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 to allow the Americans TO land and
cure their fish, and trade, &c.
"The people of the British provinces do not,
it seems avail themselves, to any great extent
of their fisheries. The people of Newfoundland
are not much concerned in the fisheries on their
own banks; and they attribute the success of
the Yankees to the encouragement which they
receive from the United States government, not
only in bounties, but in commercial treaties, Sc
curing to them foreign markets for their fish
" Mr. Rush negotiated the convention Of 1918,
and he can, no doubt settle some Of the oues-
tons that have arisen rs to the construction of
| its terms.
"An arrangement could be easily made with
Great Britain, partly by litigation and partly by
treaty, altogether by treaty, for the adjust
ment of all the questions concerning all the rela-
tions between the United States and the British
American provinces Sir Henry Bulwer, when
he was here, proposed negotiation with view
to such q treaty"