The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-11-26
The Fishery Award,

The twenty-second article of the Treaty OF
Washington provided for the appointment of
commissioners to determine the amount of
any compensation which, in their opinion,
ought to be paid by the government of the
United States to the government OF Her Brit
annie Majesty in return for the privileges &C
corded to the cizens of the United States un-
der the eighteenth article of the same treaty.
1t further provided that the number OF COM
missioners should be three, one named by
this country, one by England, and the third
by England and the United States conjointly.
Thus constituted, the commission met at
Halifax last August, and has just concluded
its session, awarding damages against the
United States in the sum of S5,5O0,OO0. Its
members are Judge Kellogg, Sir A. T. Gait
and -nafnssa. the Belgian Minister at
Washington.
The question of the fisheries is an old one.
By the Treaty of 1888, in which our inde-
pendence was acknowledged, our right was
conceded to fish in the Gulf, the Grand Bank
and all other banks and waters in the deep
sea, and the liberty given to fish on certain
British coasts, and in certain waters within
the territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain,
with liberty also to land on British coasts for
drying and curing purposes. At the time Of
the negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent in
1914, Great Britain maintained that the con-
cessions OF 1888 were abrogated by the war
of 1872. We contended that the fishery
rights secured to us in the Treaty of Inde-
pendence were irrevocable. As no agreement
the treaty keeping silent about that
as they did about nearly all the
could be arrived at the question was left open,
matters of dispute between the two coun-
tries. In 1918 the right, however, was
granted to the Americans to fish In the deep
sea- and to dry and cure on British coasts on
condition that they renounced all claim to
fish within three p1arine miles of the British
coast. The dispute between the fishermen
went on, however, in spite of the agreement.
and there was constant wrangle up to 1854,
when the question was amicably adjusted by
the adoption of the Reciprocity Treaty. In
1866 this treaty expired by limitation, aud the
wrangle was renewed. In 1871, when the
Treaty of Washington was negotiated, an
other attempt was made to settle the dispute.
The eighteenth article of that treaty provided
that the inhabitants of the United States
should have for ten years, in common with
British subjects, the liberty to take fish of
every kind, except shell fish, on the Provin-
cial coasts without being restricted to any
distance from the shore, with permission to
land for the purpose of drying their nets and
curing their fish. The nineteenth article ex-
tended the liberty of the American coast to
British subjects. The twenty first article
provided that marine fish from each country
shall be admitted into the other free of duty.
These provisions are to hold good for ten
years from the date of ratification, at the ex-
piration of which time either party may give
notice of its wish to terminate them in two
years. Inasmuch as it was asserted by Great
Britain that the privileges she conceded we're
of greater value than those given in return
the subject was, as has been stated above,
referred by the eighteenth article of the
treaty to Commission.
The British case before the Halifax COM
mission was argued by counsel from all of the
maritime Provinces. 1t was divided into
two parts. one concerning Canada, the other
Newfoundland. The British claimed that
the privilege of fishing in American waters
is worthless, and ask an award of $4,000
900 for the use Of the Canadian fisheries for
twelve years, the period of the treaty, and
Of 81, ,2S0, 900 for the Newfoundland fisheries,
considering these sums to represent the value
of the British concession over that of the
American. The American counsel, Dwight
Foster, William H. Trescott and Richard FL.
Dana, denied these claims, contending that
the British received a full equivalent for all
their concessions. Judge Foster very ably
argued the case. demonstrating that the ad-
vantage is with the British, as they have free
access to our market, the best in the world
and that the remission of the duties of two
dollars barrel on Dominion fish and fish
oil, and one dollar upon herring is most lib
eral Offset to all the advantages derived by US
from the permission to fish within the three
mile limit. His position was fully sustained
by facts aud figures. Thus In the first year
of the treaty the value of the mackerel caught
by our fishermen in Canadian territorial wa
ters was S99,015. That same year fish was
imported from the Provinces upon which the
duties had they not been remitted would have
amounted to $1s1,77s. The pecuniary advan-
tage to the British that year was about Ss2,
600. In the same manner the statistics OF
subsequent years were taken up and analysed
and it was demonstrated that, as in the first
year, the gain was to the British.
So conclusive did this argument seem that
tie expectation was general that the decision
| would be in favor of the Americans. The