The Portland daily press., 1888-02-17
THE NEcoTIAToRs' TREATY.
We Surrender the Marine League
and HeadIand Theories,
And Get in Return the Right to Touch
and Trade,
Unless, as Secretary Bayard Says,
the Reports are all Wrong.

Ties OF our uSneffnen. lie DelleNtu, IL thO
treaty was ratified, that end had been ac-
complished. From trustworthy source it
is learned that our fishermen are secured all
the commercial privileges for which they
have been contending with the exception OF
the right to purchase bait in Canadian wat
ers, which is expressly withheld. Their
right to enter Canadian ports for fuel, water
and repairs is conceded Certain bays spec
ified are to remain under the exclusive Ju-
risdction of Canada. There Is nothing in
the provisions Of the treaty which necessi-
tates the removal OF the duty on Sanaalah
fish or in any way changes the tariff system.
In its important features the treaty IS tayor-
able to the United States.
Valuable privileges have been acquired.
This has been done without costly sacrifice
on our part. The text of the treaty is said to
be 1000 words long. Secretary Bayard stated
tonight that the published reports, purport-
ing to give the essential features of the treaty,
are unauthorized and wholly wrong The
American negotiators left for their homes TO-
day. Sir Charles Upper and Mr.. Chamber
lain will remain in Washington q few days
longer. The latter expects TO sail Tor Eng
land in about week.
Sir Charles Tupper said today: ut means
the end of all fishery disputes, ana the
American people will be satisfied, l am as
sured, when the treat is read by them"
The Canadian Minister Of Justice SAID
81 am smiling broanlg for the first time in
three months. We are all much pleased
with each other. Each side believes 1t has
just what he wants in the treaty.
Reciprocal Features.
Mr. Angel, one Of the American Fishery
Commissioners, says that all of the Commits
sioners are satisfied with the treaty. On
the contrary there is a report that Mr. Cham
berlain is far from satisfied with it. 1t can
be added to the suggestions as to the fishery
treaty that the treaty contains
provision that the United States vessels
shall pay license in the shape of tonnage
tax for the privilege to touch and to trade in
Canadian ports, but it is not to be UNDER
stood that this tonnage tax is One-sided.
Whatever tax is imposed upon American
vessels in Canadian ports is likewise inn
posed upon Canadian vessels in American
ports. There is nothing In the treaty that Is
not reciprocal. Whatever is exacted on the
one side is required on the other From this
it follows that the definition as to the ma
rine league, applies as well to the Uni
ted States as to Canada. To give this portion
of the treaty effect in the United States,
legislation will be necessary to define the
boundaries and describe the bays and inlets.
The treaty, therefore, will not go into effect
until the House of Representatives as well
as the Senate shall pass upon these points.
As soon as the Senate shall ratify the treaty,
if it does, the appropriate bill to give effect
to the definition of the marine league, will
be introduced in the House Of Representa-
tives.
Probable Provisions.
BosroN, Feb. 16.-The Journals Washing
ton special says: There is reason to believe
that the fishery treaty contains only two
propositions. /. The United States surren-
ders the theory which it has held as to ma
rine league and boundaries, and has agreed
upon limits which give to Canada exclusive
jurisdiction over large part Of the bays
which have hitherto been considered availa-
Bile fishing grounds. 2. Canada, in return
for this surrender Of the United States,
grants to American vessels the right to
touch and trade in Canadian ports. There
is absolutely nothing in the treaty about re-
ciprocal trade or as to the Behring Sea sealer
controversy.
The bays that are closed to American fish
ermen are mentioned by names, and the
boundaries of the rest are clearly defined.
The subject of the boundaries has been one
which has consumed great deal of the time
of the commission. The question of the jur-
fsdiction of the three mile limit which has
appeared in numerous treaties as recognized
in Vattel and elsewhere, is subject to great
many notifications in recent practice and in
recent decisions. For number of years the
British government cOntended that the jur-
isdiction thus conveyed would extend from
headand to headland, although those head
lands might be as much as fifty miles apart
provided that the shores OF each side were
owned by the same power. The tendency OF
admiralty decisions has been to broaden this
international ruling so as to make it conform
ern ordinance the idea being that the marine
league, as originally established, was con-
sidered to be the distance that gun could
be fired from the shore effectively. There
are very large number OF bays and lnlets
both on the Canadian coast and on the Amer
lean coast which are wider at their outlets
than the marine league. and the question Of
jurisdiction over these is one that involves
some rather nice constructions OF lnterna-
tional law. But IL is understood that the
British Commissioners, who, in other parts
of the world, have interests quite as great. if
not greater than those involved in this ques-
tion, have followed out their acceptance Of
the ruling in the case of the Bay of Fundy,
and have substantially decided that the three
mile limit follows the shore line irrespective
remembered in this connection that when
the Court of Alabama claims was re-estab-
lished by Congress, and IL became necessary,
for the Congress of the United States to de-
fine what was the territorial limit, the con-
gress said that the marine league was to be
construed as four miles from the
shore, not three miles 1t is believed
that this principal of definition has been
accepted by the Fishery Commission
in its definition of the boundary limits Of the
hot k,a hoo 1aA IaA
to be four miles from shore. With this def
milton it will be easy to enumerate the bays
and inlets which the treaty places under the
exclusive jurisdiction of Canada. 1t Is be-
lieved that all of the bays that are eight
miles wide at the mouth are considered as
within the exclusive jurisdiction Of Canada,
and that in case Of a few bays, where the
measurements slightly exceed that distance,
they are mentioned by name as being within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion.
Doubtful Praise.
LONDON, Feb 16-The Daily News, com
mentng on the fisheries treaty, says it is a
rather a one-sided compact Canada made
concessions, therefore the treaty hardly con-
But perhaps it is the best possible agree
meut, and If it commends itself to Canada
will win general approval here"
ChamberIain's Wonderful Achieve
ment.
LONDON, Feb. 16.-The Times says: 1t is
a triumph for Chamberlain's diplomatic skin
that has been able to reconcile conflicting in
terests so far, in the teeth of the rancorous
and INSCRIPTIONS opposition Of anti-English
fanaticism.
Canada Crumbles.
TORONTO, Feb. 15.-The Toronto Mail
mommenting on the treaty says: "As a
matter of fact it was foreordained that the
Dominion should suffer- Chamberland told
us in so many words that he had come to
America TO terminate the dispute somehow,
and English journals frankly stated that
England could not afford to quarrel with her
best foreign customer for the sake of our
fish. 1t has been the fate of Canada from
the beginning to suffer for imperial interests
but in this instance the cup presented TO our
lips appears to be an unusually bitter one.
Forster's Latest
OTTAWA, Ont, Feb. 16.-From all that can
be gathered in official circles Canada has
been worsted in the settlement Of the fishery
question. The cabinet ministers, however,
though very retcent, oppear to regard the
settlement very faVOrably, Hon. Mr, FOrs-