The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-12-09
The correspondence.

The correspondence opens with a despatch
dated March 10, 1886, from Sir Lionel Sack
vile West, the British Minister, to Secreta-
ry Bayard, transmitting a request of Earl
Roseberry TO be informed:
Whether it is the intention of the United
States government to give notice to the Unit
ed States fishermen that they are now pre-
cluded from fishing in British North Ameri-
can territorial waters, as Her Majesty's gov
eminent is now. considering the expediency
oi Issuing reciprocal notice with regard to
British fishermen In American waters"
To this communication Secretary Bayard
replied, under date of March %, that:
The fishery question is now understood
to rest on. existing. treaties, precisely as
though no fishery articles had been inc0rpo-
rated in the treaty Of Washington" He
adds. I'm view of the enduring nature and
the important extent Of the rights secured to
American fishermen in British North Ameri-
can territorial waters, under the provisions
Of the treaty of 1918, to take fish within the
three-mlle limit in certain definite parts of
the British North American coast, and to
dry and cure fish there under certain condi-
tions, this government has not found it ne
ceSsary to notify fishermen that they are
now precluded from fishing in British North
American territorial waters"
Secretary Bayard followed this with n let
ter to Minister West, dated May 10th, saying
the United States Consul General at Halifax
had apprised him of the seizure of the
deck, G. b., and the David j.. Adams at An
napOlis Basin, n. 5. Although the seizures
took place in a land-loeked harbor, and no
invasion OF the territorial waters Of the
British Provinces for fishing could be imag-
ined, he said they appear to be be based on
such act or intent. The United States govern
ment does not hesitate to warn American
citizens against taking, drying or curing fish
within the three-mile limit prescribed by the
treaty Of 1918.
have sprung up and contributed toward
more Intimate intercourse and beneficial
traffic between the United States and the
British Provinces. These regulations have
not always been reeiprocated by the Prov
inces. They depend to certain extent on
municipal statutes and on the discretionary
powers Of the executive Hereunder The
seizures of vessels referred to would seem to
have been made under the supposed delega-
tiOn OF jurisdiction by the imperial govern
ment of Great Britain, and to be intended to
include authority to interpret and enforce
the provisions of the treaty of 1918, to which,
as | have remarked, the United States and
Great Britain are contracting parties, who
can alone deal reSp0nsibly with the dues-
tions arising Hereunder. The effects Of this
colonial legislation and executive interpreta-
tion, II executed according to the letter,
would be only to expand the restrictions and
renumerati0ns Of the treaty of 1918, which
related solely to the inshore fishery within
the three mile limit, so as to affect the deep
sea fisheries, the right to which remained
unquesti0ned and unimpaired for the enjoy
ment OF the citizens Of the United States,
and further to diminish and practically to
destroy the privileges expressly secured 10
American fishing vessels to visit these in
shore waters for objects of shelter, repair OF
damages, purchasing wood and obtaining
water.
Mr.. Bayard says that so lmany changes in
fishing have taken place since 1918 that the
restrictions against obtaining bait, etc, are
now unnecessary. The Secretary asks,
therefore, why United States vessels en-
gagged in deep sea fishing should not be
given the same rights andi privileges in
ports OF the British colonies as are now al
lowed British vessels in all ports Of the
United States. Among these customary
rights and privileges may be enumerated the
purchase OF ship supplies of every nature
making repairs, shipment Of crews, in
whole or part, and the purchase OF ice and
bait for use In deep sea fishing. The ques-
tion then arises how the treaty Of 1918, made
to protect inshore fishing along the British
American coast, can be distorted to obstruct
the business OF deep sea fishing by subjects
of the United States, and of interruptlng
and destroying commercial intercourse thai
since the treaty Of 1918, and independent OF
any treaty whatever, has grown up and now
exists under concurrent and friendly law
and mercantile regulations Of the respective
| countries It IL obviously essential
he says, that the administration Of the law;
regulating Canadian inshore fishing should
not be conducted in primitive and hostile
spirit, which can only tend to induce acts Of
a retaliatory nature.
The Secretary wrote a second letter May
20 to the British Minister, West calling at
tention to further information received from
| the United States Consul General at Halifax
in regard to the seizure Of the David j
Adams. He spoke Of the state Of affairs be
| tween Great Britain and the United States
tions were under consideration, and the de
| ciSiOn then reached that no vessel could b,
clearly proved that offense of fishing wa
] committed and the vessel itself cal suret
within three miles Of land.