New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-08-16
SENATOR EHARTS'S SPEEC Fl.

Senator Evarts's speech, which has been care
fully revised for the pages Of 1.-THE Congress
siona Record is a learned and statesmanike
contribution 10 the Fisheries debate. More
aggressive assaults upon the treaty have been
made by Senators Frye, Hear and Chandler,
but no other Senator was so well equipped for
the discussion Of technical questions OF inter
national and treaty law. Senator EvanS caused
considerable amusement when, after speaking
two days on the general subject without taking
up Secretary Bayard's articles IN detail, he
dryy remarked that after the motion to post
ponc The debate until December had been
acted upon he would have something to say
about the treaty itself. His preliminary dis
cusSion, however, was germane to the whole
subject, and disclosed ample grounds for the
rejection Of the treaty.
There are two passages in tie Senator'S
argument which impress us az particularly
cogent The first is his broad contention that
the Americans have an historic title to Il ten
ancy in common with Great Britain in tho
North Atlantic fisheries. Those fisheries are
the joint property Of the United states and
Great Britain. That ownership was acquired
by the ColonisS before the Revolution, and
was distinctly recognized and sanctioned in
the Treaty Of Peace. In that convention 1T
is agreed that the people of the United States
shall continue TO enjoy unmOlested" the fishing
franchises which were won by arms in the
French wars In the Treaty Of 1913 this ten
ancy in common was extended in perpetuity.
The British Government had been asserting
that the War Of 1912 had abrogated the Treaty
of Peace with its fisheries provisions. The
American negotiatorS in 1918 were willing TO
restrict the Nations rights by the remuneration
clause in return for the guarantee that the
fisheries should be joint possession @ forever"
Each Of those treaties was grounded upon
American rights of discovery, continued occu-
patton and conquest. Secretary BayaIds
treaty is based exclusively upon Canadian
privileges and exclusive British jurisdiction.
This of itself is valid reason for rejecting the
convention as involving surrender of historic
American rights.
Another admirable section Of Senator
Evartss speech is devoted to n discussion Of
the headlands pretcnsion, to which Secretary
Bayard attached undue importance in his ne
gotiations. He contends that everything be-
low low-water mark is by British maritime
law high seas, and that following the indenta-
tions and sinuositics Of the coast Americans
have by the old treaties and by international
law fishing rights anywhere and everywhere
three miles seaward from low-water mark. The
headlandS prctension was not embodied in the
treaties Of 1888 and 1913; it was not sane
toned by British statutes or by the decisions
of the highest Canadian courts; it was the
mere invention of the PrOyincials put for
ward for the enlargement Of the area Of their
exclusive fisheries. Secretary Bayard has taken
up this extreme claim, involving cncroachment
upon historic American rights, and has serious
" discussed it when the instincts Of patriotism
should have impclled him to decline to con-
slider 1t at ALL The compromise which he has
effected deprves American fishermen of
considerable area Of high seas, and thereby re-
stricts the enjoyment Of ancient privileges con-
coded to them by the old treaties and by Brit
ish and international law. For this reason the
new convention has justly earned reproach as
the diplomacy Of surrendcr-a diplomacy as
weak and as craven as Mr.. Evartss own ne
gatiations respecting the Fortune Bay outrage
were strong and cOuragcOuS.