The Las Vegas gazette., 1886-05-19
The Law Governfny the Seizure Of tn,
American Vessels.

porthern New Mexico. t
The Law Governfny the Seizure Of the
American vessels.
- WASHINGTON, May 18.-rhe question
at issue in the fisheries dispute Is de-
fined with clearness not always to be
found in diplomatic altereatlons. Both
parties admit that the treaty of 1918 IS
binding to its full extent, and regulates
for the present the entirs subject OF
taking ish In Canadian waters. The
preciss point of dispute Is whether the
procuring of bait by American fishing
vessels in Canadian, harbors has any
necessary competition with this fishery
treaty, however close may be It's con-
nection IN most cases with the actual
process of fishing 5lGp iooi-a3ie ~.
fhe Canadians stand on the text uf
the treaty, which is very exact 'The
American fishermen shall be admitted
TO enter such bay or harbors for the
purpose of shelter and of repairing
damages therein, OF purchasing WOOD
and obtaining water, and for no other
purpose Whatever" The rights thus
expected are frequently grouped under
the phrase rights of hospitality. AS all
other rights are expressly excluded, the
Canadians argue that general CONNER
eiai rights, so far as American fishing
vessels are concerned, must beexcluded,
even supposing that buying bait would
come under this class Vt ordinary com
mercial rights. IT.
The Canadians further give as q
reason why buying bait should not be
granted without some reciprocal advant-
age that the decline In some coast fish
cries OF the United States is due to the
diminution OF smaller fishes, used as
bait. Besides, under the treaty eff 1881
the American fishermen have free ac-
cess, within the three-mile limit, to
certain COASTS, notably the southern and
western shores of Newfoundland,
most Of the coast of Labrador,
and the Magdalena Islands, where
they can find bait. Still another
argument OF the Canadians 10 that
procuring bait il preparing 10 fish.
which is prohibited under the treaty
precisely like the act of fishing Hence
Captain Scott of the Lansdowne re-.
recently issued this instruction: mo
fisherman can trade: and il found within
three miles Of the coast, or buying bait,
winch 70 preparing to fish. he renders
himself liable ato-seizure at once.n The
main Canadian argument, however, is
founded on the simple treaty of 1878,
whose words were reclted In the procIa-
nation of the Canadian munster of
marine, under which the SEIZURE OF tue
schooner David j. Adams In DIgby
BASIN was recently effected. ., IN
The American argument brings in a
Uhnllu
the purchase OF bait is purely COM
mercial transaction, in which any yes
sci properly authorized can lawfully en-
gage, whether q fishing vessel or not.
In other words, ~HIe we must go to
the treaty OF 1918 TO ascertain our fish
ing rights In Canadian waters, our
rights to buy supplies of any kind, bait
and ice as we'll as any others, depend
not on that treaty, but upon mutual
agreements made much latter between
Great Britain and the United States, for
the opening of ports TO trade. The Ca
nadians ask why nothing of this sort
was provided for in the treaty of 1878
ihe Anerlcans reply. because at that
date our commercial rights in the ports
OF British colonies had never been spe-
officially determined. But thirty years
'cfo.t IA aosos al aSb, VI phEtialu6ut OK :
pressly opened her colonial ports to oui
vessels as ours had beenopened to hers.
Since our fishing vessels were not at
that time excepted from the privileges
OF trade, it Is quite a. reasonable an in
ference, II inferences must be resorted
to, that these were not excluded, as that
the words "for no other purpose what
ever" in the treaty Of 1918 were not al
facted by later statutes, having basis
OF mulual benefit. a,
1t is true that our vessels engaged iD
foreign trade are almost universally
registered, as that the coasters, includ-
inc the fishermen, are not registered,
but enrolled But the revised statutes
expressly show how an enrolled yess Il
may also trade in foreign ports BY TAX
ing outa collectors permit. It hap
pens that the Adams, the vessel seized,
was without such permit. Still, II
this points raised, some other fishing
vessel, when has taken but a touch and
trade permit, will probably suffer herself
to be captured while buying bait within
the three-mile limit, In order to clearly
test the question of commercial right.
1 & Il 7 i