The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1886-12-16
THE FISHERIES.
Correspondence Between the State
Department and Great Britain.

lean vessels. The following is Mr.. Bayard's
letter to the President:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, Dec. 9, 1898.
To the President:
The Secretary of State has the honor to
submit to the President, with a view to its
communication to Congress. the correspond
ence relative to the fisheries in the waters
adjacent to British North America, which
has taken place during the present year. II
will sclOse the action of this department
and of our Minister TO Great Britain. i'm rela-
ton to the disputed construction OF the con-
vention of 1875 and what has been done to
procure such an Interpretation of its proviS-
ions as will be acepta bic to both parties to
that instrument and consistent with the T
mutual interests and honor. From time TO
time, since the conclusion of the treaty Of
1878, differences have ar sen between the
two Governments as to the extent of the re-
uunciatiOn 10y the United States of their
former fishing rights in common in the litOral
waters of British North America, and the
true definition Of the rights and privileges
retained BY and expressly guaranteed to the
United States in the first article of that con-
vention.
The history of this question during the
period from 1873 to the present time has
been one of unsuccessful attempts To adjust
the respective claims and occasionally the
difficulties have been bridged over by tenn
pOraTy arrangements, notably by the treaty
OF Washington, Of June 5. 1854, and OF the
treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871. the fish
cry articles of both OF the latter having been
ny INC ClAACo CldbCS vi OuHc
1855
1t is deeply to be regretted that the efforts
of this department to arrive at such an agree
ment rs would permit Instructions of ike
tenor to lie issued by the Government of
Great Britain and the United States 10 guide
the citizens of the respect We nationalities
in the unmOlested exercise of their rights of
fishing IN the waters in question, and defin-
ing the limits of lawful action therein. have
not rs vet reached final and satisfactory re-
suit.
Although propositions are now pend ng for
rOns derat on, which. It is hoped, may prove
the bass of just and permanent settlement,
yet as supplementary to the published his
tory of this long standing subject, as illus
trating the Obv Gus necessity i'll the interest
Of am.ty and good neighborhOoG, of having
clear and well defined understanding of the
relative rights OF the two Governments and
Their respective citizens, it is considered ex-
pedIent that Congress should have full
knowledge of the actions of the Executive in
the premises TO assist them in their delbera-
tiOns on this important subject.
1t Will be observed in the course of this
correspondence that notification has not
failed to he duly gwen TO the Government of
Great Britain that compensation is expected
Tor the loss and damage caused to American
the local authorities of the dominion
Of Canada, not merely by the
summary seizure of their vessels and
the eXaction of heavy fines in adj
vance Of hearing and judgment, but for the
curtailment of privileges TO which they were
justly entitled under commercial regulation
sequent interference with their legitimate
voyages. whereby the natural profits of their
industry were seriously diminished and in
many cases wholly destroyed.
Ii would seem proper that steps in pcrpet-
uaim rel memOriam should be taken by
congress to allow proofs to be made and
placed upon record of these losses and in
juries TO our citizens, to enable them to be
properly presented to her Maiesty's Govern
ment for settlement, and that for this pur
pose commission should be authorized by
l'OnpFpSC take the necessary DrpOfs nf tho
respective claimants. Respectfully sub
United, Z. +. BAYARD
The correspondence opens with dispatch
Of date March 10, 1886, from Sir Lionel S.
Sackville West the British Minister, to
Secretary Bayard, transmitting a request
of Earl ROsebery to be informed whether
it il the inteution of the United States Gov
ernmenI to give notice to the United States
fishermen that they are now precluded from
fishing in British North American territorial
waters, as her Majesty's Governments are
now considering the expediency of Issuing
a reciprocal notice with regard TO British
fishermen in American waters.
To the communications 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 incorporated in
the treaty of Washington"
He adds: SIN view of the enduring ma
tuTe and important extent of the rights Sc
cured to American fishermen in British
North American territorial waters under
the provisions of the treaty of 1878 TO take
fish within the three mile limit in certain
definite parts of the British North American
coasts and TO dry and cure fish there under
certain conditions, this Government has not
found it necessary TO notify fishermen that
fhax nd oH fS,i in,
British North American territorial waters"
Under date of Washington, May 10, 1856,
Secretary Bayard wrote a long letter to
Minister West concerning the seizure of the
American schooner Joseph Story and the
schooner David j. Adams. After pointing
out the illegality of the seizures, the Secre-
tary says:
The seizures Of the vessels | have men,
TONED and certain published warnings" pur,
porting to have been issued by the colonial
authorities, would appear to have been made
under supposed delegation of jurisdct'o on
by the imper al Government of Great Brit
ain and to be intended to include authority
TO interpret and enforce the provisions of
the treaty of 1878, to which the United States
and Great Britain are the contracting parties.
who can alone deal responSibly with ques-
tons arising hereunder.
The effect or this colonial legislation and
executive Interpretation, il executed accord
ing TO the letter. would be not only TO eX-
Dand the restrictions ana renunc;attOnS OF
the treaty of ISIS. which related solely TO in
shore fishery. within the three mile Limit, so
as to affect the GeSp sea fisheries, the right
TO which remained unQueStioued and unm-
paired from the enjoyment of the citizens of
the United States, but further TO dim
iuish and practically to destroy the
privileges expressly secured to Amer
lean fishing vessels to VISIT those inshore
waters for the objects of shelter. repair of
damages and purchasing wood and obtaining
mitted that the deep sea fishing was not
under consideration in the negotiation of
the treaty of ISIS. nor was affected thereby
and as the use OF bait for inshore fishing has
passed wholly into disuse, the reasons which
may formerly have existed for refusing 10
permit American fishermen to catch or pro-
cure bait within the line of a marine league
from the shore, lest they should also use it
in the same inhibited waters for the purpose
of catching other fish, no longer exist.
AS therefore there is no longer any induce
ment for American fishermen to dry and
cure" fish on the interdicted coasts of the Ca
madam provinces, and as bait is no longer
used or needed by them for the prosecution
of iDshOre fshingl in order to take fish in |
the inshore waters, to which the treaty of
ISIS alone relates. ask you TO consider the |
results of excluding American vessels duly |
possessed of permits from their own Govern
ment to touch and trade at Canadian ports as |
well as TO engage in deep sea fshing-trom |
exercising freely the same customary and |
reasonable rights and privileges of trade in |
the ports OF the British colonies as are freely |
allowed TO British vessels in all the ports of |
Tue Oulteu CldlGS-
Ihave been led to offer these considerations /
by the recent seizures of American vessels,
20 which have adverted, and by indications /
OF local spirit of interpreted on in the prov
lnces, affecting friendly intercourse which is /
4 nrmly believe not warranted by the terms /
OF the stpulations on which IL processes TO |
rest 1t is not my purpose TO prejudice the |
facts in the cases, nor have / any desire TO /
spare any American vessels from the conse-
Quences of violation of international obliga-
tons. The views i advance may not prove /
To hos
particular cases. and l should be glad !
II no case whatever were to arse calling in
question the good understanding of the two
countries IN this regard, in order to be free
the