The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-30

.
by the Government Of the United States that there
can be. that there has beoa supposed to b.
the slightest doubt that her maiestyss government
ae not only entitled, bat bound, 70 maintain that
distance free from eucroachment.
Lord Malmesbury remarks that the encroach.
ments OF the French wdfe included With those Of
the Americans, in the notice given by Mr.. Cramp-
ton to the lats Secretary Of Of the 9Th Of July
last This certainly showed that NO exclusive &C.
ton was contemplated against American fisher
men, and was accordingly calculated to mitigate
the alarm which for q short time prevailed. The
importance which Lord Malmesbury Justly attaches
to the joint mention Of the supposed encroach
ments, both Of France and the United States, in
the notice given by Mr.. Champion on the 9Th of
July, makes It matter Of some regret that in the
Queens speech, at the opening Of the present
sion of Parliament, the American encroachments
only are mentioned az the cause Of the naval move
| ment.
i have already discaimed the intention of going
into general discussion OF the fishery question,
| but think it proper to allude to one important
misrepresentation in the British argument, which
though it has, no doubt, had the chief agency in
producing the difference of opinion between the
| two governments to the true intent Of the con-
venton Of 1915 has not believe, been pointed out
| in the diplomatic discussions between the United
! States and Great Britain. Lord Aberdeen, in his
note Of the 10th of March, lo45, announcing the
relaxation az to the Bay of Fondy, thus expresses
| himself: cher majesty's government must still
maintain, and in this view they are fortified by
high legal authority, that the Bay Of Fundy is
| rtgntully claimed Oy Great Britain az bay within
| the meaning of the treaty of 1918. And they
equally maintain the position which was laid down
in the note Of the undersigned, dated the 10Th of
April last. that with regard to the OF her bays
the British American coast, no United States fab
| erman has, under that convention, the right to
fish within three miles of the entrance of such bays
as designated by hne drawn from headland to
headiaud Of that entrance"
| The "high legal authority" here referred to was
not communicated to me by Lord Aberdeen, and
10 believed never to have been communicated to
the Government Of the United States. But think
l do not in supposing the allusiou to be to the
opinion signed J. Dodson and Thomas Wilde,
then the la officers Of the crown. given on a re-
QUESTION of Lord Palmerston in 84l. In this opin
ion, which has been published at Halifax, these
distinguished Jurists say 'that no right exists on
the part of American citizens to enter the bays OF
Nova Scotia there TO take ish, although the fishing
being within the bay may be at a greater distance
than three miles from the shore of the bay, 9
are OF opinion that the term headland is used in
the treaty to express the part of the land have
before mentioned, excluding the interior of the
bays and the inles Of the coast"
Now, neither the term "headland,' nor any
thing equivalent or synonymous, occurs in the
convention of 1918; and this legal authority, which
no doubt, was mainly instrumental in leading the
Home government to adopt the colonial construc
ton of the treaty, rests in this respect upon an
ina ginary bass. The law officers of the crown
| appear to have mistaken sentence in the er porte
| case made up at Halifax, in which the word head
land appears, for a partof the treaty between the
Z
| required to expound. The Government of the
United States cannot but regret that an official
opinion which had the effect of reversing the con
struction of the convention which Great Britain
had acted from 1918 to 1912. which excluded our
fishermen from some of the beat fishing grounds
after the undisturbed enjoyment of quarter of a
century. and finally brought the countries to the
| verge of a deplorabe collision, should have been
| given by the law officers Of the crown without a
| more careful perusal of the text of the treaty
wish, before closing this DESPATCH to call your
attention to very important point connec ted
with this general subject In Lord Aberdeen's
letter to of the 10th of March, l545, announcing
| the intention Of the queens government to allow
our fishermen to enter the Bay Of Fundy, his lord
| ship says:
| "In thus communicating to MIR. Everett the Ii.
beral intentions of her majesty's government, the
undersigned desires to call Mr.. Evereu's attention
| TO the fact that the produce of the labor of the
British colonial hshermen is at the present moment
excluded, by prohibtory duties on the part of the
| United States, from the markets of that country;
| and the undersigned would submit to Mr.. Everett
that the moment at which the British government
| are making liberal concession to the United
States trade, might we'll be deemed favorable for a
counterconcession the part Of the United States
to British trade, by the reduction Of the duties
which operate 30 periodically TO the in terests of
the British colonial fishermen"
Having no instructions on this subject, was
able only to reply to it in general terms, that the
Government of the United States, l was persua ded
would gladly make any reduction in these dut az
men; but that the encourage of this portion
OF the seafaring community had always been con
sidered in the United States, as in Great Britain,
as resting on peculiar grounds of expediency
In the following year, however, and notwitb.
standing the colonial opposition. had in the mean.
time led the Home government to abandon the
liberal intention of opening all the other outer
bays to American fishermen. the prohibitory spe.
cifc duties of which Lord Aberdeen complained
| were reduced to moderate and uniform ad valo
rem duty. By the operation of another law call ed
hat,, ~ .A ~
our ports in bond, duty free. In this condition il
can be afforded cheaper than our own fish, owing
to the enjoyment by the colonial fishermen of those
superior fishing grounds, and superior facilities
for carrying on the business, which thew secure
with 30 much jealousy to themselves. They con-
sequently now monopolize the foreign trade in our
ports. Other domestic regulations to the disad
vantage Of our own fishermen have contributed In
the same end. In this way sudden and power full
impulse has been given to the importation of colo
NAL fish into the United States. X was stated in
the House OF Representatives in debate last sum-
| mer, by very well informed member (Mr
Scudder. of Massachusetts,) that the annual vaIue
| of the imports Of Goldfish during the four ven rs
next preceding lS46, averaged FIVE thousa nd eight
| hundred and hfty dollars and the average value
annually, during the next four years, was ffty-
FIVE thousand one hundred and seventy eight dol
lars. The annual value of the imports of mac erel
for the four years previous to 1876 two bun
| dred and nineteen thousand six hundred and
twenty-six dollars and the annual value for the
four years succeeding 1886 was four hundred nd
sixty hve thousand eight hundred and six dollars
wing that since 1886 the importation of colona
Goldfish had increased tenfold and that of mac ker
more than doubled The import of mac kerel for the
year 1880 81 was five hundred and forty-nine thou
sand five hundred and twenty-three dollars, bein Q
increase of eighty three thousand seven dred
and nineteen dollars over the average of the pre-
cedinR four years.
Such was the treatment of colonial fish in the
ports of the United States, while the fishing inter.
eat in the colonies was steadily urging upon the
Home government those complaints OF the en- .
croachmenis Of the American fishermen which led
to the naval movement Of last summer. IT. as
Lord Malmesbury intimated TO Mr.. Lawrence the
late ministry were somewhat remiss in putting a
stop TO those alleged nts it was proba.
bly, because they saw that the colonies were rain.
ing hundred fold more in the markets Of the
United States than they could lose from an Ameri.
can fisherman occasionally, by inadvertence, or
even design, passing the line of the convention
} in the eager pursuit of shoal of mackerel.
While the United States were reducing duties on
, colonial fish, and opening their markets to its
importation, II was probably deemed in ex pedient
to allow the colonies to enforce too keenly their
monopoly of the best fishing grounds. Admitting
them, as We did, to a competition with our fisher.
D men, which has given them in our own ports the
exclusive possession of our foreign trade the Uni.
ted States seemed to have earned a title TO some
little indulgence, insead OF increased strictness in