The Republican journal., 1886-02-18
Mr.. Blaine on the Fisheries Question

Mr.. Blaine's forthcoming volume has chap
ter on the question of the Fisheries, which has
been published in the New York Tribune and
Boston journal. 1t is very interesting. valll-
able, timely and complete statement of the fish
cries question from 1882, when the first treaty
with Great Britain was made, down to the
completion of the last treaty with that govern
ment upon this matter. The Boston journal
edtoray publishes the following abstract of
the paper;
The facts which Mr.. Blaine brings out are
full of interest. The first treaty between the
Colonies and Great Britain after the close of
the Revolution, that of 1882 conferred upon
American fishermen the same right to take fish
in Canadian waters which they had while they
We're British subjects. This right was not
questioned by the British government after the
war of 1872. In 1918 a treaty was negotiated
in which the right of American fishermen to
fish within three miles of the Canadian shores
was renounced without the request of the Brit
ish negotators. 1t would have been of no con-
sequence but for the growth of the mackerel
fisheries. When these fisheries became vaua-
Bile, the irritation growing out of the three
mile limit led to the negotiation of the so-caIled
Reciprocity Treaty in 1S54 which was has-
ed on the claim of the British authorities to
the inshore Canadian fisheries. In that treaty
Canada secured our free markets for every
thing she had to sell and opened hers to every
thing which we had no occasion to sell. This
treaty expired in 1866. This treaty being no
longer i'll force. we got along with the treaty of
1918 until the Treaty of Washington was ratt-
ed. In this treaty, so far as the fisheries We're
concerned, Great Britain, by superior Diplomas
cy and chicanery, got a great advantage. The
British pcnipotentiareS in the High Joint
Commission maintained that the Canadian fish
cries were worth more to the United States
than the free market in this country for Cana
dan fishermen. Our representatives claimed
that this was not the case, but when the article
was drawn it was left to another commission
to state the amount of money which the Cana
dian fisheries were worth to the United States
IN excess of the privilege of our markets.
They also secured wording of the article
which made the decree of a majority of the
commission binding. BY delays and diplomatic
ingenuity, the British government secured the
appointment of a third man on the commission
who made the Halifax award which was OBJ
Jectlonable to our government. The Halifax
award was the result. After that award was
made the United States Senate made it known
that this country regarded the Halifax award
as an unjust one. and Secretary Evart> present
ed the British government the whole argument
against the award. lie called attention to the
statistics, which showed that during the five
seasons which the treaty had been in force l25-
961 barrels of mackerel had been caught in Can
adian waters, the market price of which was
about $4,000 year, or S3O0,0OO for the twelve
years, for which the United States paid So
100000 by the Halifax award and $1,000 900 in
duties remitted, thereby losing S9400.0O0 in
twelve years by that treaty, thus, by conce>-
sion and that species of diplomacy which may
well be termed ehicanery, during hundred
years our government has come to a situation
where it must pay large sum for rights which
once belonged to it and which are now of little
no commercial value. After reading Mr..
Blaine'> chapter of history respecting the fish
cries, no wonder that the fishermen of the
United States have come to regard commits
sion on this subject is another name fora board
designed to dispose of their rights to barter
away their industry.