Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-05-21
The Fisheries Question.

The Fisheries Question.
REPRESENTATIVE DINGLEr Presents TIE
ANERIcAN SIDE OF THE MATTER.
From the Washington Post.
To the Editor of the Post:
Your article on the ''Question of the Fish
cries. contains some statements and omis-
sions which seem to me to call for comment.
Your statement that the treaty Of 1878 provides
that American fishing vessels may not hsn villain
three miles of the coast line. drawn from headand
to headland, Of the British maritime provinces,
is an error. That is not the language of the
treaty. but the construction which the Cana
dams give to it. The language of the treaty
is this:
The United States hereby renounce forever any
liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the innaDi
three marine miles Of any of the coasts ports creeks
or harbors of His Britannia Majestys domiuions in
America. etc.
The United States government has always
claimed that the proper construction OF this
treaty made the three-mile limit follow the
coast line, and did not allow the line to be
drawn from headland to headland, and thus
exclude American fishermen from waters of
arms of the ocean more than three miles from
land. The proper construction Of the three
mile limit, as defined by the treaty of 1918,
ought to be determined by negotiations be-
tween the State Department and the represen-
tative of Great Britain. But it should be
borne in mind that this question has nothing
TO do with the present controversy. 1t Is not
fishing rights, but commercial rights, which
are now in dispute.
American Fishermen do not desire to fish in
~ .hut in 10 doom ntSi1 O
of Canadian jurisdiction, where they have
a right to fish. But in pursuing their legiti-
mate business in deep water, you say that the
American fishermen ''must have frest bait"
and add
The Nova ScOtians are very willing to sell
bait, but such a proceeding is against the
law and can only be carried on as smuggling
is, that is, in dark and illicit ways.
There is no law in Nova Scotia or any 9TH
er province of Canada forbidding the sale Of
bait. There is a Dominion law, however,
enacted in 1868, which prohibits an American
fishing vessel from entering Canadian port
tor any purpose except "shelter, repairs. pur-
chase of wood, and obtaining of water"
proclamation of the Dominion minister of
marine, dated March 5, 1886, declares that on
and after that date this act shall be enforced.
And it is under this act that the Dominion
authorities have seized the American fishing
schooner ID. j. Adams for entering the har-
Dor of Digby. N. S and purchasing bait.
The object or the law and its present en-
forcement, is to prevent American fishing
vessels from buying fresh bait in Dominion
ports, not to be used in Canadian waters, but
on the worlds fishing grounds, in the hope
that denial of this commercial privilege will
so impair the deep sea fisheries to American
fishermen as to compel them to give up the
business And this unfrendly and might
add, barOarous proceeding is inaugurated by
the Canadians in the face Of the fact that Ca
nadian fishing vessels are permitted to enter
our ports, and are entering daily tor all CON-
mercial purposes, for the purchase OF bait. If
the United States should refuse to allow
Canadian vessels to use our ports for landing
goods to be shipped to Montreal, Quebec and
Toronto in the winter months, when Canada
cannot get access to the open ocean, in order
to cripple the business of these cities, our
conduct would be parallel to the attempt of
Canada to injure American fishermen by re-
fusing them the privilege of buying bait in
Canadian ports,
The Canadians attempt to justify their un-
friendly conduct by reference to provision
OF the treaty of 1918, to the effect that Amer
lean fishing vessels may enter Canadian ports
LUZ tuC pun pooC Va ouSAsCis AcDohos PuAShooC
of wood. and obtaining WATER" and "for no
other purpose"
You seen, to assume that this provision of
the treaty of 1918 determines the commercial
rights OF American fishing vessels. This is
what the Canadians claim. This is what
Minister West intimated in q recently pub
lished interview, when he said that this Ques-
ton of the commercial rights of American
fishing vessels would depend on the Inter
probation of the treaty of 1918" by the Brit
ish government.
1t is important for the fishermen of this
country to have it settled, now and forever,
whether the commercial rights of American
fishing vessels in Canadian ports are to be de-
termined by the restrictive principles of mar
thine intercourse which prevailed in 1918, or
by the principles of maritime reciprocity in
augurated by the United States in 1924 and
finally accepted by great Britain in 1850. In
1924 the Congress of the United States passed
an act offering to place all vessels of any for
eign country which would give the same
rights to all American vessels in her ports, on
the same footing as our own vessels in other
ports of tins country, the coastwise trade
alone alone excepted. This tender of mari
time reciprocity was subsequently accepted
by Great Britain unreservedly. This legisla-
tive arrangement as to commercial privileges
supersedes all prior arrangements. Since it
went into effect all British vessels, including
the fishing vessels of Canada, have been
granted the same commercial privileges in all
the ports of the United States as our own ves-
sells. If Great Britain decides that American
fishing vessels shall not have the commercial
privileges in Canadian ports, which we have
freely granted to Canadian fishing vessels, she
has the power to do so. We shall regret a
return to that extent to the old, exclusive
maritime policy; but nothing will
remain for US but to withdraw from
Canadian fishing vessels in our ports privi-
leges which she refuses to American fishing
vessels in Canadian ports; for the essential
idea of maritime reciprocity is the granting
of concessions to the vessels of any country
only so long as similar concessions are grant
ed to vssels of the United States.
| The suggestion of Minister West that the
responsibility for the present complication
rests with Congress, because of its refusal to
authorize the appointment of a commission,
is peculiarly ingenious. The commission
was proposed by Canada and Minister West
mainly for the purpose of securing an ex.
change Of the privilege of American fishing