The New York herald., 1871-03-20


England This Is shown from the statemen; that
the total catch of mackerel from ali the fisheries OF
the United States in the year 1870 was \
little less than 400 600 barrels. OF these
THE VESSELS or GLOUCESTER
caught 10000 barrels only o. 800 barrels being
caught In The waters east Of Maine less than
sixth. In hs connection 1t f. stated that when
fishermen had iull license to fish within the three
mile line. under the Reciprocity treaty, not more
than one-Gfth OF their catch was taken within that
line, SO that really the privilege OF fishing would
amount to the one-ith OF one-sXth or one twentieth
OF the whole eaten, or about 500 palrels only As
mere ..-v-.a., = 49,
- ;..s QUESTION OF rEoUNTARy vALuE
our fishermen Seem TO care nothing about the three
mile ltnc. but the annoyances ana troubles put upon
them by Canadian laws are so considerable as 10
render the settlement Of the questions Of the basis
oil Tree fishing IN their waters very desirable Yet 1t Is
said that II 1t be purchased by the opening OF
our markets to the products of the British fisheries
free OF duty 1t Will be substantially ruinous to our
fisheries. Therefore the Gloucester flshermen ear
nestiy protest against barter OF their interests IN
exchange for SO slight pecuniary privilege. and
right only made valuable by the annoying crcum-
stance under which it exercised IL is represented
that the advantage OF markets 10 the Canadian
fishermen would be very great, because the macke-
rel can only be sold on this Continent in ports,
for the reason that three.fourths OF the catch,
at least, are known as No. 1s and No.
2'S-that is fat mackerel which cannot be so cured
as to bear expectation to a tropical cmate-N0. g.
the other fourth only being poor enough to bear
thai eXportation; so thar, at whatever duty, the
Canadian fishermen are obliged TO send their mack
erel TO our market, II they catch them ut
all for sale. II is claimed that our al
lowing bait for mackerel catching TO be
exported 10 the provinces is more than on
equivalent TO them for the privilege of their mshore
fishing One barrel OF bait Is used on average to
the catch OF eight barrels OF macSerel This fish Is
the fish menhaden, which do not touch the Canadian
shores and are wholly in our waters. and restrc-
tion upon the export and sale OF bait TO the Pro-
vlnccs would erectually shut them out from ali
COMPETITION WITH Us
because They have only very much interior bait.
The herring, with which they cannot successfully
compete. The amount OF duties pad ON Canadian
fish in the port Of Boston alone last year far
exceeds the value OF any FISH taken by MS In
British waters when the fish In the
water, FOR the value OF the 1sh when brought to
market is quite equaled by the expense and cost OF
taking, curing aud packing and the interest upon
the capital employed, het there Ia no margin in
the business that represents any value Of the
hsh when swimming In the water. Upon
the general question OF the fisheries the British
claim Is that not only does the treaty of 1918
EXCLUDE AMERICAN FISHERMEN
from fishing Inside line drawn three miles from
the coast but that they are OF right excluded from
going within three miles of line drawn
from extreme headland to healland, tnat they
are OF right excluded from fishing with
In the Bay OF Fundy. the treaty
excludes them from the bays, and that they are ex-
cluded from the Gut OF Canso as the passage be.
fu.aa Can
British pretension being that the gut is an inland
passage cape Breton is part OF Nova Scotia. In
ISL the British government consented, as an
EVIDENCE OF GOOD FEELING
TO waive the enforcement OF headIand Interpre-
tation, the Bay OF Fundy claim or She
Gut OF Canso pretension but at the same time de-
clared tnat these claims held to be good tnat
their enforcement was merely waived without pre-
judice and would be resumed at any time. Conse-
auenty they are now Brought forward as n portion
OF the case, and our Commissioners are compelled
TO meet them
THE AMERICAN SIDE or THE CAsE
as held hitherto is denial OF the headand inter
probation or seclusIon from the Bay of Funey on the
ground that the treaty OF 1918 provides thht our
vessels Iaay seek shelter in the bays and harbors or
the British possessions, and that positive provisions
OF the treaty would be rendered nugatory under the
headland interpretation as our vessels would under
that ruling be In many Instances kept some sixty
miles from such harbors OF refuge both on the coast
ana in the Bay OF Fundy, and that plain provision
provides for scizlng our fishermen withoux the no.
tlcc given heretofore. The general impression that
the Canadans have enforced the headland Interpre.
probation il incorrect. They have simply pro-
hbIted our Vessels from going within three
miles following the curvature or the shore
The headlaud interpretation has not been at.
ne
century, or since the remonstrance OF
Edward Everett when American Minister TO Eug-
land, In the OF the capture Of the Martha Wash
fngton IN the Bay OF Fundy. From this outline IL
will be seen that there is ample room for discussion
IN the fishery question 1t is not probable that
commissioners will insist upon the American idea
OF the headand interpretation II is more probable
that the whole question wiz resolve Itself
at last into more simple and satisfactory
solution. At present the idea among the
Of The treaty cannot be set aside by q forced con-
struction That as regards The Gut OF CansO
it separated, at the time the treaty was
negotiated. two distinct provinces, ana thar
the subsequent union OF Cape Breton
and Nova Scotia cannot be rightfully construed TO
limit the terms or the treaty, especially az the
United States enjoyed the use OF the Gut of Corso
unquestloned for several years after the date tue
convention. The threc.mlle limitation fol-
lowing the curvature OF the shore is un-
doubted, but In consequence of the fishing on the
coast being for mackercl instead as formerly
for Cod, our fishermen do not need to land for the
purpose OF drying and curing the fish, and. there
fore, much will depend upon the skill with which
our commissioners manage this part Of the ques-
ton, for 1t IS said we might give up the right
10 land ana cure fish for modification
as to the hree-mie line. There is another point IN
fnbo yybi vii ead tn oOvfhv a
cusson. The United States have always complained
OF the
ARBITRARY AND UNJUST CHARACTER
OF the provincial fishing laws, that they were con
trary TO the principles Of British common law in
adjudging the captured fishermen to be guilty
less they the fshermen) could prove their
innocence, and In refusing any redress In