Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-05-16


The objections thus far suggested to the pend
ing treaty with Great Britain, apply to that part
of it relating to the fisheries, to the arrange
ments for adjusting The mutual demands OF the
two countries other than the Alabama claims,
and one of little importance to the emperor of
Germany as an arbitrator on the San Juan
question. The dissatisfaction on these latter
points is expressed by Americans; in regard to
the former, the objections come both from our
own fishermen and from Canada. The fisher
men of Essex, Plymouth and Barnstable coun-
ties, complain that their distance from the best
fishing grounds puts them at disadvantage in
comparison with the men of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland, who have, be-
sides vessels built at less cost than ours, the
most productive fisheries Immediately upon
their own coasts, and by this treaty have free
access to our markets on the same terms with
the fishermen of Massachusetts or Maine. The
people of New Brunswick on the other hand
take quite as melancholy a view of this part of
the treaty. They say their fisheries are TO be
given over to the Americans, and for this
concession they get no adequate return.
The admission of the products of
their fisheries into the ports of the United
States free of duty is conceded to be an advan-
tage TO both countries, from which the fisher
men of Canada will be more benefited than
those of the United States, but the people of the
latter will profit more than the people of Cam
ada. They are afraid, moreover, that our fish
ermeu will prove more successful in enticing the
uDsuspecting Goldfish, so that if their people find
a better market, they may soon discover that
they have precious few fish to send to it. The
permission to Canadians to fish in American
waters they regard as bit of humor which is
heightened by the implication that the fisheries of
the United States are quite as good as those of
Canada. If this seems to them ironical, what
do they think of the admission of American fish
into Canadian markets on the implication,
which exists in the one case if in the other that
those markets are as valuable to us as ours are
to them? On the whole, we are inclined to the
belief that this portion of the treaty, since each
of the parties principally affected by it thinks it
comedies too much to the other, is substantially
equitable, and an adjustment of conflicting
claims which ought to be satisfactory.
In the matter of the claims of citizens of each
country against the other the only question
that should be made as to the ratification of the
treaty is whether the tribunal it provides for de-
Gliding upon these claims is good one, likely
to act intelligently and impartially. Such
claims, like private disputes, must be submitted
SO some kind of adjudication; it is not contem-
plated, We suppose, by the opponents Of this
treaty that our claims should be enforced by
arms or threats, or that the just claims of Brit
ish subjects against our government should be
denied altogether. The tribunal proposed is to
consist of three members, one chosen by the
United States, one by Great Britain, and one by
the two nations jointly, if they can agree; if
not the third member is TO be named by the
Spanish minister at Washington. 1t would
seem that we ought not to appreheRd
injustice from a board so constituted.
1t is to be remembered also that GER
tain classes of claims, formidable in amount,
which have been urged with much noise and
buster by their British owners, are excluded
from consideration by well settled principles of
public law. OF this sort are the confederate cot
ton bonds, which will hardly be presented, and
if presented will receive very little attention;
the claims arising out of injuries inflicted by
the rebels, which are barred by the queens
proclamation of neutrality, and those for redress
OF injuries inflicted by our army and navy upon
British subjects domiciled in the rebel states
These latter are rendered inadmissable by the
principle, now universally accepted, that persons
domiciled in foreign country must accept the
consequences of their choice of residence, and
be content to share the lot of the people of that
country whether in war or peace. This princi-
pie has lately been declared by the British gov
eminent to be applicable to the case of British
subjects residing in France.