New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-04
MIR. CHAMBERLAINS PLEA.

lint Mr. Chamberlain is not % be censured by
Americans for doing the best he could Dor ENG
land. As the diplomatic representative OF
friendly Power he was entitled to every courtesy
while he remained in the United States ana his
speech at the Canadian dinner in defence OF
the treaty ought to be discussed by Americans
with moderation and respect. Nevertheless,
since he has abandoned the diplomatist's char
acter;stic attitude of reserve and endeavored
to influence public opinion in advance OF inc
action Of the Senate, he can hardly expect 10
enjoy absolute immunity from criticism. ouch
criticism as we have to offer Will DO conhheo
strictly to his plea for the treaty without refer
cnce to extraneous matters Of taste. 1t is I'M
doubtedly the abest and most plausible argu-
mcnt that can be made ON behalf of the con-
vention.
The treaty is regarded by Mr.. Chamberlain
rs " dictated by our common origin, by the ties
of blood and history, and by our traditions and
nv all that connects u.s." Right at that polnp
we ioin issue with him. The North Atlantic
fisheries were conquered from the French
mainly by the American colonists. Those hsh-
cries were held before and after the Revolt
ton as tenancy in common. That tenancy In
common was recognized and sanctioned by the
Treaty of Peace, which expressly stipulated
that American fishermen should continue TO
eniov,, the right of fishing where they used to
Gsb.n These fishing franchises were again
recognized and confirmed in the Treaty OF
1913. and in exchange for the remuneration OF
ancient rights within a designated three-mile
belt positive guarantee OF perpetmty was
obtained The Americans have historic rights
TO those fisheries acquired before tho Revo'u-
ton and embedded in treaty law common
origin, ties of blood history, traditions" ana
"all that connects, the two countries are lg-
nored in the Fisheries Treaty which Mr.. Cham
berlain has signed 1t does not contain line
that recognizes that tenancy in common which
Is not only an historic but a treaty right. The
Commissioners in negotiating it have ignored
what is fundamental in the American case.
They have acted as if this were
an ordinary question of territorial Juris-
dction and regulation of coast fisheries. Mr..
Chamberlain in his speech takes this view when
he argues that the delimitation is in conformity
with The North Sea Convention; that Canada
is fully entitled to the advantages of geograph-
zeal position aud under no obligations to allow
her ports which Providence has placed in prox-
unity to the fisheries to be used as basis Tor
American operations; and that Americans are
hound to concede to Canadians the application
Of the three-milc and ten-mile limits which
they reserve for themselves in Delaware ana
chesapeake Bays. The arguments arc not
valid, for the simple reason that tenancy In
common in Delaware and Chesapeake Bays has
never been granted by treaty to the Canadians
while their geographical advantages arising
from the dispensations Of Providence in crea-
ton have been shared. with certain limitations,
with the Americans by virtue Of colonial con-
quest and occupation with the sanction OF
treaty law. Tho American case is altogether
exceptional.
Mr.. Chamberlain begs the question when he
asserts that Canada in this treaty has conceded
everything that could be demanded by the
claims of "humanity, international courtesy
and the comfy of nations" This is glittering
generalization that means nothing. AS mat
ter of fact, the treaty enlarges the area OF
Canada's exclusive jurisdiction over the fish
cries and legalzes customs regulations which
have recently been enforced for the wanton
purpose of harassing Americans in the enjoy
ment of rights guaranteed in 1913 as "thcirs
forever" The four rights Of obtaining shelter,
repairs, wood and water are defined in the
treaty. but these are not new concessions
Those four rights formed part OF the ancient
tenancy in common and were never renowned.
Americans enjoy them now under the Treaty OF
1918 by virtue Of colonial occupation. The
only new privileges accorded by the present
convention are exemption from the necessity
Of Immediately reporting at a custom house
when vessel arrives in port under stress of
weather, and the beggary favor of buying pro-
visions in cases Of casualty or for the homeward
VOYAGE Is this Mr. Chamberlain's idea of the
ful range OF international courtesy and
comty,? We know that it cannot be, for In
Article XIV of the treaty are grouped the COM
mercial privileges which Canadians enjoy freely
in American harbors; and these are withheld
for purposes of diplomatic carter to force the
United States to abolish duties On fish. No
concessions Of any value are made to American
fishermen. The right of tlansshipment of catch
acquired by the Treaty Of Washington, Article
xxx. is taken away. Commercial privileges
reciprocally conferred from 1880 to 1850 by
the two Governments are withheld as an Offset
for the free market for Canadian fish. for which
Lord Salisbury was willing year ago to grant
in even exchange all the rights of the coast,
including fishing within the three-miie belt
There are references in Mr.. Chamberalns
speech to political partisanship. lie seems to
set store by the fact that opponents OF the
present Administrations in Canada and The
United States unite in denouncing the treaty
Canadian opposition implies nothing, for the
Liberal party there had committed itself to the
policy of commercial reciprocity. and was
bound to be dissatisfied with treaty which did
not sanction its importunate demands. As for
the opposition to the treaty in the United States,
old-line Democrats like Mr.. Trescot. the Hon.
Richard S. Spoford, General Benjamin r But
Ter and ex-Judge Woodbury. have been as out
spoken in their denunciations as Republican
Senators and journals. Mr.. Chamberlain In
his own country has found 1t necessary TO antag-
-