The Portland daily press., 1888-02-23
INDIGNATION IN GLOUCESTER.
what was Said There When the
Treaty was Read.
Congressman DlngIey Voices the
Feeling of the Fishermen.
Business Men In BIuenose Land are
Well Pleased.
rspeclal to the Press.1

of Nova Scotians TO learn the actual terms OF
the treaty has been gratiied and the result
is a general feeling that it is the best settle
ment that could be obtained. There is a
class of professional politicians here who
would denounce whatever settlement was ar
rived at, even if it were negotiated by the
Arch Angel Gabriel, but moderate, thought
full and responsible business men appear to
regard it as equitable and honorable alike to
both countries.
S. S. Forrest, one of the largest lobster
packers, thought the treaty was splendid
one for Canada.
Joseph Woods said that Canada had se-
cured a settlement Of two dangerous 9ues-
tions; viz -he197isas:;st,s and three mile
limit, by conceding the courtesies of human
ity, by allowing vessels short of provisions,
to purchase supplies upon their homeward
voyage only, and by allowing vessels putting
into our ports in distress or for repairs, to
tranship their cargoes. Pending the ratif-
cation of the treaty all American vessels are
given the right to purchase bait and supplies
and transship cargoes, but only upon the
payment Of $1.50 ton license fee which
would be a tax of one hundred to one hun
dred and fifty dollars to each American
vessel and protection to Canadian
fishermen to that extent. Under
the treaty they are to get free bait for free
fish. But il we do not get free fish the Ameri-
cans will find that our concessions amount to
very little. Under the treaty the rights of
Canada are fully and explicitly reserved and
conserved. Our right to capture and confis-
cate poachers is acknowledged.
q. ID. Tucker said the more the treaty was
looked into the more favorable it would ap
pear for Canada.
Albert Gayton, member Of the legislature
for Yarmouth and direct representative OF
the fishermen, thought the treaty and free
fish for free bait would give large degree Of
satisfaction to our fishermen:
Hon. A. G. Jones, NJ. p, w. @. Silver and
other leading Liberal politicians and business
men had not studied the treaty carefully
enough to talk for publication, but rejoiced
that two very irritating and dangerous ques-
tiOns had been settled.
Indignation In Gloucester.
GLOUCESTER, Mass, Feb. 22.-The fisher
les treaty was the subject of much comment
today. At the Merchants Exchange. all
avowed that the rights of the fishermen have
been sacrificed to the interests of Canada.
President Cleveland and Secretary Bayard
received much criticism. The fishermen de-
clare the treaty disgrace to all American
citizens. Regarding the headland provision
they said that Fortune Bay and the other
ports OF Newfoundland where fishermen had
always had the right to procure bait and all
necessary articles of outfit, to land and dry
fish and transship cargoes, are, by this ar
rangement, practically shut to them, more
especially Fortune Bay, which is the great
resort for fishermen in winter when in pur-
suit of frozen herring Drawing line from
Carnaigue head to the southeasterly end of
Brunei Island and thence to Fortune Head,
at Sir Charles Hamilton sound will debar
fishermen from the privileges which they
claim the treaty of 1918 had already given
them.
The opinion Of many is that an indigna-
tion meeting should be called to protest
against the ratification Of the treaty which
destroys the last right Of the American fish
ermen.
Mr.. Dlngley's Views.
BosroN, Feb. pa special to the Journal
says: The fishery treaty has been made
public, and there are intimations that ma
jority will be secured in the Senate for
public discussion of this treaty. Perhaps
the best view of the opposition to the treaty
issfrom.the following interview with Repre-
sentative Dingley OF Maine. Representative
Dingley said;
Il shall be very smuch surprised If that
treaty is ratified. 1t certainly cannot get
the necessary two-thirds vote. Why, look at
it. To understand what we have failed to
get, it will be better to recall what the con-
tention has been. The American fishermen,
from the beginning, and the Secretary Of
State, in his correspondence with Great
Britain, insisted upon three things:
81. The right to enter Canadian ports for
the purchase of bait any kind of provisions
and supplies that might be needed for fish
ing. 2. The right to ship the men and to do
ANYTHING and everything that was necessary
for preparing to fish. 3. The right to tram
ship fish when caught, and to send them in
bond to the United States. This was, if
claim. Ali of these things, the Secretary Of
State in the correspondence, insisted should
be ours. As to the other things which were
sought, there is not much difficulty about
them.
'They conceded we had the right TO enter
their han bors for repairs and shelter, and in
certain exigencies even, on the way home,
upon telegraphing to Ottawa, permission
was given to obtain provisions 10 90 nome.
But they denied the main things Wnlcn our
fishermen insisted were theirs OF right.
"With this controversy going on these me-
gotiations opened. What is the result? we
can go into Canadian ports Tor shelter ana
for repairs and for provisions on the way
home. That is to say, we have exactly the
same rights or privileges that we had before.
These rights to be sure, are set forth little
more clearly, but that is all. Everything else
is to be purchased in some way. The Cana
dians have conceded to us just what they
were willing to concede before the CONFER
ence met and nothing more.
But the real gist OF the treaty is in what
will be called the snapper The snapper OF
the treaty is this: That whenever we put
upon the free list all kinds of prepared fish
we shall have the things for which we have
contended, the right to tranship fish in bond,
the right to buy bait, etc. But these things
must be purchased by our free list. Mean
while we are to live by the modus vivendi
And what is the modus yivendi? That any
fishing vessel of the United States that will
pay $3.50 per ton for license shall have the
right to purchase provisions and supplies and
bait and may ship fish in bond. That is to
say, a 800 tons fishing vessel, and that is
about the average size of the fishing vessels,
may pay license of $3.50 and obtain those
rights.
NThis is the most abject surrender of the
main points for which the American fisher
men have contended How much better oil
are we? 1t will be answered that we can go
into Canadian ports for shelter and repairs.
True; but we can remain there only twenty
four hours. We are certainly no better off
than we were before, and we have surren-
dered all of the important points for which
we have contended. do not make much OF
the provision as to the delimitation OF the
three mile limit. That Is secondary. There
was no real controversy over that point.
1T has been many years since the Cana
dians have really insisted upon the headland
theory. None of the vessels that have been
seized were seized upon that ground. But,
even in this respect, we have made sur
render. Bays are now to be closed to us
which were partly open before. II does not
matter that bay is thirty miles wide near
the shore end, if ii is ten miles wide at the
mouth il is closed sea for us. l cannot for
a moment think that this treaty can be rati-
fed"
As to the tonnage tax, Mr.. Frye and Rep
resentatives Cogswell, Dingley, and Davis OF
Fall River, unite in the opinion that, ire
spectve of the abstract principle Of surren-
dering what the Americans have claimed as
a right, the American fishermen as a class
cannot afford to pay one dollar and half
ton annually for permission TO enter Cana
dian ports to buy supplies, bait excepted.
Probably the smallest ordinary Gloucester
fishing vessel is of 200 tons burden.
1t is an exaction to which the American
fishermen would notsubmit, and they should
indicate their opposition to 1t by declining to
enter Canadian ports to avail themselves OF
these privileges, except under the direst ne
u