St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1877-08-24
Canada's Fishing Claim.

| --SNN-NN =
! sThe State Department is in receipt of
dispatches announcing the opening IF
the Fisheries Commission at Halifax.
The cases have been duly filed, and the
examination of witnesses has begun. 1t
seems to he conceded equally by the
two Governments that the award must
he IL unanimous finding of the three
Commissioners. The claims made by
Great Britain are:
First-The differences between the
concessions of the old convention of
1913 and the privileges conferred by the
treaty of 1871 are the subjects of COM
pensatiOn.
SocOnd-These are the rights to enter
the great bays, like those of Fundy and
Chaleur, within the lines drawn for the
purpose of fishing, the right OF fishing
within the three-mile limit from shore,
the use of the coast for the purpose of
drying and curing fish, the privilege of
traffic for bait, supplies, etc, in the
Dominion and Newfoundland ports, and
the right of transhipment of fish from
the same.
TRird-The mackerel fishery is of
enormous value, almost entirely con-
fined within the three-mile limit, and
absolutely necessary to the United
States as a supply of food, and the
largest element of their fishing trade !;
and that if it is retained exclusively by
British subjects, it would give valu-
able monopoly and the command of the
American market, even with a heavy
duty.
Valuing these claims according to Ger
tain British official returns, and the tes-
timony of the Dominion and Newfound-
land fishermen engaged in that bust
ness, the British Government demands
S14, 100000 for the twelve years lease
of the advantages which the treaty of
fers to the citizens of the United States,
which estimate is the alleged surplus
value of the British concessions over
and above the advantages which are
given by the United States to the Brit
ish Government i'll opening the Ameri-
can in-shore fisheries to the subjects of
Her Britannia Majesty, and making fish
and fish-oil free of duty. The Ameri-
can counter-claim is to the effect:
FWSt-The difference between the
treaties of 1913 and 1871 is neither in
fact nor by diplomatic construction the
just measure of the relative advantages
by either Government, under the treaty
SecOnd-As to the advantages alleged
by the British case to be the grant of
the treaty of 1871, the right TO enter
within the headlands of such bays as
those of Fundy and Chaleur, was never
surrendered by the treaty of 1S1S-was
never claimed so as to DE practically
enforced by the British Government,
and will always he maintained by the
United States Government rs an in
alieniable right; that the right of traffic
for supplies and the right of transship-
ment were not conferred by the treaty
of 1871, and are now only exercised per
missively and subject to revocation by
the legislation of the Dominion. but
that even if granted by the treaty
of 1871, it is simply a reciprocity in
trade which benefits both buyer and
seller, and cannot be supplemented by
a money equivalent on either side, and
consequently that the value OF the in
shore fishery, with the increased facili-
ties in the use of the coasts for drying
and curing, are the only subjects of
compensation to be considered
! Ihrd-The value of the mackerel
fishery is largely derived from their own
shore fisheries and the deep-sea fishing,
''hN wv VI bhC
catch derived from the in-sbore fisheries
opened to the citizens of the United
States is small-that statistics of trade
prove that the American market could
not be controlled by the British fisheries,
even without competition.
FOurh-The freedom of the United
States in-shore fisheries, the use of the
menhaden fishery, which furnishes the
InarnSS1rU haif fnI, tha fsSh
and which is exclusively within Ameri-
can limits, and the freedom of entry
into American ports of fish and fsh-oil,
furnish ample and sufficient equivalent
for any and all advantages derived from
the treaty of 1871 by citizens, of the
United States.
A special from London states that the
Times in a lengthy editorial on the
Fisheries Commission says: No sooner
did the commission begin business than
the conviction arose that another COM
missioner and another treaty will he
necessary to settle the dispute. This
would be a very lame and impotent
conclusion of its labors. The mode of
dealing with the Canadian claims al
ways seemed exceedingly inconsistent,
involving as it did continually recur-
ring disputes. 1t was argued as an ex-
cuse for the treaty that no other terms
were Obtainable. 1t would have been
better to have had no Washington
treaty than to have failed to provide
for the settlement of the difficulty. 1t
was intended to remove all points in
dispute, but is as much in dispute as
ever. 1t is Il question of commercial
policy on which the Times pronounces
no opinion.
Whether the Canadians would not act
wisely in permitting the fishermen of
any nationality to come in and buy bait
and ice freely, there can be no question.
They have right to exclude foreign
fishermen if they choose under the con-
ventiOn of 1918. If the Washington
treaty gave fuller rights of resorting to
Canadian waters it allows that COM
pensation may be required for the con-
cesslOns. The Times sees no clear way
out of the numerous difficulties. The
best course, perhaps, would he for the
two Governments to come to prelimi-
nary agreement to give the Commits
sioners power to decide the whole of
the cases laid before them, giving such
an enlarged Interpretation to the clauses
OF the treaty as would do substantial
justice between the disputants.
1t is supposed that all the time allow
ed for taking testimony will be fully
occupied. Since the opening of the SEES
sion the Dominion press seems to be a
good deal excited over the proceedings,
and the subject is attracting general
and marked interest. The proceedings
So far have heen with cIOSa6 JnorS ond