Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-10-02
MR.. PUTNAMS REPREHENSIBLE
ACTION.
Accepting the British View OF the
Treaty OF 1918 and Ignoring the
Treaty of 1888.

PHrLADELPHIA, Sept. 9Th, 'SS.
Editor Of the Journal.
Dear Sir: Nothing can be more surprs-
ing or more reprrhensible than the com
placency with which Mr.. Putnam and Mr.
Bayarl accepted the British insinuaton that
our fishermen have no rights except those
mentioned in the treaty of 1918 unless it be
the arior with which they advocated the
British Interpretation of the same treaty. In
lS4l MIR. J Dodson and Sir Thomas Wilde,
the law officers of the Crown. in reply to "A
series of questions from the Provincial au-
thorties gravtly stated that I'VE are of the
opinion that the treaty of 1888 was annulled
10y the war of 1872, and we are also of the
opinion that the rights Of fishery of citizens
of the Uni,ei ~i9irs must now be considered
as defined ara .ularcd by the convention
of 1918, Il. ci, existing treaty on the sub
i,Ct betweel ''r Two countries" Mr. Put
nam has G.: ei'ly taken this seml-o official
British proclamation for the foundation of
his arguments. unfortunately for Mr.. Put.
nam, hul happily for American fishermen
the opinion of Mr.. J. Dodson and Sir Thos
Wilde is not ,t.aL The treaty of 1888 was
not aL.ullr %, tie war of 1912. That
n,issionei, at ga. 1t in 1914 as pretext for
deprNin Is e. our right in the fisheries
but il was So ,ie orously opposed by John
Quincy Adans aad the other American Com
missiOncrs hat 1t was dropped. If it hal
been persisted in the war would have been
cort,nuc.,. rs James Monroe's instructions
to the American commissioners were inn
peratve that the Fishery rights of
American citizens must not be dis
cussed and if the British demanded their
surrender all further negotiations must
cease"
Finding that they could not compel the
United States to agree that the treaty had been
annulled by the war, the British began to ex-
ami re its wording, to see if they could dis
cover any flaw by which American rights
might be attacked. They found that the
first part of Art. 3, accorded American fish
ermcn 1.-THE right to take fish on the banks
and in the Gulf of ST. Lawrence; = and that
the 2nl part accorded them the liberty to fish
on all the other coasts of the Provinces and
to land on the unsettl parts of Nova Scotia,
the Mglalen Islands and Labrador to drv
and cure their catch.
Earl Bathurst saw in this distinction be-
tween rights and liberties the opportunity for
VIII ch England was looking He Immediately
took the position that England could at any
time revoke or modify the liberty granted by
the treaty of 1888. In letter to John
Quincy Adams, dated Oct. Both, 1915, he
said at is surely obvious that the word
right is throughout the treaty used as appli-
cable to what the United States we're to en-
JOY IN virtue of recognized independence
and the word liberty to which they were to
enjoy as concessions strictly to what depend
ent ON the treaty itself" and expressed him
self as willing to enter into negotiation for
the mo.tied renewal of 1.-The liberties in
question" Earl Bathurst was very con-
ciliatory in tone, and apparently was as So
liciious for the welfare of the American
fishermen AS Mr. Bayard or Mr.. Putnam is
now He said il was not so much the fishing
AS the drying and curing on the shores that
was followed by bad consequences. Ameri-
can fishermen reached the fishing stations
sooner than the British who had TO 60 from
Europe and who upon arriving found all the
hest fishing places and drying and curing
places occupied This had given rise to dis
putes and qusrrels, even proceeding TO blows,
disturbing the peace among the inhabitants
of the shores
John Quincy Adams replied that the latter
objection was new 10 him and that it couli
be easily removed as by the terms of the
treaty Americans were forbidden to dry or
cure fish on any but unsettled parts of the
coast except by consent of the inhabitants.
He also pointed out the inconsistency of
Earl Baihurst's position in admitting that the
II ST portion of the fishery clause was perma-
aent in character, and that the second portion
was voidshle at the pleasure of Great Brit
ain. Finally the United States assented To
4 modification of the treaty and commission.
crs were appointed TO draw up new conven-
ton. The results of their lsbors was the
treaty of ISIS by which as John Quincy
Adams wrote to Congress ON May 5. 1922:
The United States have renounccd for
ever that part of the fishing liberties which
they had enjoyed or claimed in certain parts
of the exclusive jurisdiction of the British
provinces and within three marine miles of
the shore. This privilege without being of
much use TO our fishermen had been found
very inconveuient 10 the British; and in re
turn we had secured large liberty both of
tishiag and crying fish within the other parts
of the British jurisdiction forev r."
We did not renounce or modify our rights
in the Gulf of ST. Lawrence or any other
place. The wording of the treaty is explicit
on this point, Whereas differences have
a. sen respecting the liberty claimed by the
GIFTED States-the United States renounce
forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or
claimed TO take, cure or dry FISH," except