The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-02-23

cesslons OF harbor and commercial privileges
which they did obtain, and the fact that
temporarily our vessels will be allowed to
purchase $25 worth of bait by paying ton
mage tax of $3.50 is but little relief in that
direction, and still less creditable to our
commissioners that they should allow so
large sum to be paid for the right which
virtually amounts to prohibition.
The matter of bait concerns Canadian
fishermen as well as ours, as they depend
largely upon the State of Maine for the clam
bait used in their cod fisheries, and they
come here and purchase without restriction,
and it being salt bait, can be shipped by
merchant vessels or by common carriers, and
thereby avoid the tonnage tax, but American
fishermen are virtually debarred from OBJ
tanning their bait from Canadian ports from
the fact that American fishermen use fresh
bait and the same vessel that purchases the
bait far her use must ice it, as it cannot be
transhipped without spelling, fact proba-
bly, overlooked by our commissioners, and II
is evident that the British commissioners
did not call their attention to the fact.
On the whole / cannot see that much has
been gained by either party to the contro-
yersy, as the Canadians have not succeeded
in obtaining free fish, and the Americans
have not acquired the right to purchase bait
and as all the other questions were Of minor
Importance we can call it drawn game and
congratulate ourselves that our commission
ers did not give us away by allowing free
fish which is the vital point with American
fishermen.
HON. wM. l.. PUTNAM
Mr. Putnam said: As to bait the eleventh
article provides fully for all cases Of stress
of weather. Aside from that the committee
OH foreign relations of the Senate OF the
United States in 1886 sent out a sub commit
tee consisting of Senators Edmunds, Frye,
Morgan and Salisbury, who took large
amount of testimony at Gloucester, Portland
and elsewhere. Their report win be found
No. 1858 Senate documents, 49th Congress,
| I'd session, and it says: LAS regards the OBJ
tanning bait for this class of fishing" that is,
catching cod or hallibut, "the testimony TAX
| en- by the committee in its inquiries clearly
| demonstrates, that there is no necessity
| whatever for American fishermen to resort
| to Canadian waters for that purpose"
| sit was also proved before the committee,
| that with the rarest exceptions it would be-
absolutely injurious to the pecuniary inter-
| ests of all concerned for American vessels to
resort to Dominion ports or waters except in
need or distress"
OF course everybody understands that with
| our purse seines, our mackerel catchers need
no bait. Therefore if we do not want Do
minion bait. and they do not want us to have
| it, there ought to be no trouble on that score.
| There is, however, broader view of this
matter suggested by the Presidents message.
AS to the twenty-ninth article of the treaty
of 1871 concerning transshipment in bond.
believe careful examination of its terms,
context and history, in connection with the
peculiar phraseology of the first section of
the convention of 1918, will satisfy the ma
jority of impartial lawyers accustomed to ex-
anime such questions, that it does not in
clude fishing vessels or their CATCH
| As to all other matters, the treaty meets
all the difficulties which arose in 1886 and
1887. and our fishermen will practically Sc
cure by it all they desire, freely and without
making compensation therefor. This is not
to be regarded as victory, but as the work.
ing out of just principles in friendly
spirit
The fourteenth article concerning penal
| ties will be found in practice to be a great
| gain for our vessels. From my examination
of the circumstances of the various forfeit
ures of our vessels under the fisheries laws.
amounting in all to over fifty. ! think If
these provisions had found place in the trea-
| ty of 1918, they would have saved perhaps a
Of ip1x wit
adams" and the doughty" would not have
been where they are today.
This article cuts UP by the roots the very
obnoxious statute passed by the Dominion
legislature in 1886 and leaves nothing of it
whatever 1t will give our vessels summary
and inexpensive trials in lieu of what has
been found to be in practice the tedious and
very expensive method of proceedings i'm
herent in the vice admiralty courts of Great
| Britain.
The provision against security for costs is
| a special favor for fishing vessels, not exist
| ing elsewhere either under the laws of Great
| Britain or in our own practice; and it re-
moves a stumbling block in the way of secur-
| ing trials by the owners of fishing vessels be-
fore Shippers and sharemen have scattered
| to the ends OF the earth. A great feature OF
the treaty is that it indicates on the part of
Great Britain and the Dominion desire to
walk hereafter in friendly paths
OF course it can be criticised by its friends,
is not perfect, and is not in all respects ex-
pressed as one sitting down with carte
blanche would express it; but it is more sim
pie and secures to fishing vessels greater
nrivilaoae thor anv othar p,odarn fraafv eon-
corning the same subject matter.