Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-01-14
THE FISHERY QUESTION.
A Very Clear Reply 90 Nir. SpOfSOrd's
Attack on Secretary Bayard.
Na,p x-rst, R.a.,tns, Dast

sets, on secretary BNyaru Tor his course
in relation to the pending fishery ques
ton and their virulence naturally sug
gests suspicion of an intent to forestal
anything like q calm discussion Of the
merits Of the case by appealing to and
awakening popular prejudices. But what
are the facts in the case?
The fishing clauses of the Washington
treaty of 1871 having been abrogated Oh
the 1st of July last by the action of Con.
gress, the treaty of 1918 (between the
United States and Great Britain), deter
mining the rights and privileges of citi-
zens Of the United States engaged in fish
ing in British American waters, again
comes in force. In this treaty the United
States renowned any right to fish "within
three marine miles Of any of the coasts,
bays. and harbors IF his Britannia
majesty's dominions in North America. "
The Interpretation of this Imitation
certainly on the part of English
diplomatfsts- always been 'that the
three miles meant miles to be measured
from the headlands OF extreme points of
land at the entrance of bays or indents of
the ooast," and, therefore, that American
fishermen had no right to enter such
bays or indents to take fish, even
if the fishing were done at dis
tance of more than three miles
from the shore. 1t is also to be here
noted that, in agreeing to such renuncia-
tion of fishing rights, the United States
relinquished to Great Britain nothing
more than it claims for itself our admi-
rally jurisdiction by act of Congress ex-
tending within marine league from our
shores while in 1906 our government
thought it not unreasonable that they
should have exclusive jurisdiction, "with-
in the chambers formed by headlands, or
anywhere at sea within tae distance of
four leagues or from right line from
one headland to another" (see Madison's
letter to Monroe and Pinckney, May 18th,
1806.) Judge Story, in his commenta-
ries, also thought that the United States
had right to claim maritime Jurisdiction
for fiscal and defensive purposes over
waters on our coasts, even though in
cluded within lines stretching from quite
distant headlands, as from Cape Ann to
Cape Cod, and from Nantucket to Mon
tauk Point, &c.
But, although the United States has by
its own Legislation clearly acquiesced in
the English Interpretation of the treaty
of 1918, its tishermen-especially those
engaged in the cod fishery off Newfound.
lund-never have; and ever since the
ratification of this treaty of 1878 the at
tempt on the part of British colonial
authorities TO enforce it has led to num-
berless collisions between our fishing ves-
'els and the British coast-gdard cruisers,
With arrests and seizures of property,
prolonged litigation and diplomatic
correspondence, and in more than
one instance the two countries, by
reason of these disputes, have
been led almost to the verge of war. Now
it was under these circumstances that
Congress abrogated the treaty of 1871, =,
and with carelessness in respect to de-
tail that is not little singular, fixed upon
the 18th of July, 1885 in the midst
of the fishery season, as the day on
which the abrogation should take effect /;
and the arrangement for the seasons fish
ing, entered into in the spring by the
American fleet, would be snmmarily bro.
ken up. 1t is to be borne in mind that
the privileges granted to the Americans
by the treaty covered not only the right
of fishing along the shores and within
the bays and headlands of the British
colonies, but also the right to
land for the purpose of drying
and curing fish, for mending and drying
nets, for the purchase of ice, bait, wood,
and other ship stores, and for selling and
disposing of their ''catch' if they found
it profitable SO to do-as is the case in
respect to the catch of cod below GER
tain size. The result of this would have
been that if the Canadian and Newfound.
land authorities had insisted upon theil
rights and had summarily compelled the
| American fisherman to desist from fishing
in British colonial waters after the first
of July, the business of the American
fleet would have been mainly broken up,
large losses would have been entailed
upon its owners, and feeling of bitter.
ness engendered which it was clearly the
intent of both governments to avert.
That such condition of affairs was
imminent is shown by the circumstance
that during the last winter bill was i'll
troduced into the Canadian parliament
providing for two armed cruisers to pro
tect the Dominion fisheries from encroach
ment consequent upon the abrogation Of
the treaty. Accordingly, early during
the last year, at the promptings mainly
| (it is understood) of the authorities Of
Newfoundland, who had no desire to have
their shores and waters made the scene oi
turmoil and possible conflict, PROPOSE
tion was made to the administration by
the British government, through its min
lister at Washington, that the fishing ven
lures of the American fishermen in British
colonial waters, commenced prio
to the 1st of July 1885, should
be allowed to continue until thl
end of the fishing season the same rs i
the treaty had not been abrogated; ol
condition that the President of the Unitet
States would cnll the attention of Con
gress to the matter at its next session
and recommend the authorization of
commission on the part of the Unite,
States and Great Britain to consider tn
subject and if possible settle the question
at issue in an nmicable manner. It is fo
promptly acceding to this friendly propo
sition, with the sanction of the exeoutiv
that Mr.. Bayard is now abuse
and accused of having transcendet
his authority. The last charge rest
upon the circumstance that in the meme
randa exchanged between the two govern
ments il was understood, but not stipu
lated. that the same immunity accorde
| DN AIFthl IlllNiu W lut tlhLCDb VI W
1 United States engaged in fishing i
British American waters, should be eS
tended to British vessels and subject
engaged in fishing in the waters of th
United States and this, it is claimed, Nj
Bayard had no right to do. But tn
shallowness of the pretence Ii re set u
becomes apparent when it is understoo
that if there is any fishing by British sui
iects within American waters-i. e
within three miles of the shore-it
probably accidental and exceptions
rather than Intentional.
In short, the secret of this whole bus
ness-the abrogation of the treaty in ii
p first instance, and the opposition to an
attempt to settle any pending difficultit
relating to the fisheries in rational mai
, ner by another treaty-grows out of
, desire to increase the price of fish fo ID
, the great mass Of the American people t
: imposing high protective duties on Il
Z same. And the parties to this proje
9 start with the assumption that the Britis
q colonial authorities have not the same rigl
q to control their own local waters which th
4 country claims and exercises in respect
q IFS own waters, and scout the very i'd
4 that anything like reciprocity of int
!, est is involved in the controversy. As '
: seem to learn little in respect TO any
> the great questions of tho day exec
through the hard school of experience,
would on some enccountsappear TO be des
-. able that no attempt should be made at pl
i sent to renew the fishery treaty, in viii
, case the American" Bank fishermen won
"a probably, in about six months, be CALI
n for the protection of armed vessels, a
n the country, in addition to its prese
q, business embarrassments, would have I