The sun., 1890-01-21
THEY INSIST ON LOBSTERS.
4 DEMAND THAT FRANCE PROTECT
HER RI9BTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND.

F1ourens Iasists that French War ships
Must Take n Hand Unless the Islanders
Let the FishermeH Alone-A Lively and
BslllHerent Debate In the Chamber.
PARIS Jan. 2O.-ln the Chamber OF Depu-
ties M. Flourens questioned the Government In
regard to the rights OF French fishermen In
Newfoundland. He contended that the rights
OF France were violated by the pretence OF the
Newfoundland authorities to interpret the
treaty Of Utrecht In way to exclude French
fishermen from privileges they were entitled to
under that treaty.
NJ. Spuller. the Minister OF Foreign Affairs,
reminded the Chamber that France had lin
tied sovereignty on certain parts OF the New
foundand coast for certain purposes. It DOS
sessed this right by the provisions OF the Same
treaty by which England acquired over the
whole island sovereignty limited only by
Frances right. Frances right OF use was.
therefore. as sacred as EnGland's right OF pos
session. France had the usufruct OF the coast
between England and France did not accord
with the views OF the Newfoundland Parlia-
ment, and the case was, therefore. more diff
cult and more delicate than formerly.
Complications had arisen, especially with
regard to the lobster fishery. But France had
only eleven boats engaged In catching Holsters.
while she had 700 engaged in the cod fishery.
It was pretended by the Newfoundland au-
thorites that q distinction should be made be-
tween cod as fish, and Holsters as orustacea;
but this distinction was not admissible.
France had an absolute and unrestricted right
as to both: tho right to the use OF that part Of
the coast occupied by her In drying or other
wise preparing for market or for use whatever
living thing could be caught in the waters
whore her fishermen had the right to ply their
industry. For tho lobster fishery, however,
permanent establishments were necessary.
Negotiations are pending in regard to these
but the negotiations are complicated by pri-
The Minister denied that the English Govern
ment had authorized an officer to notify the
French fishermen that they could not take
Government had confirmed all the arrange
ments made by the Ministry OF M; Goblet. He
the diplomatic side Of the case. and not the in:
cidents that were within the. competence Of
Admiral krantz, the Minister Of Marine. Such
difficulties could be settled only 10y arbitration.
their own risk and on the faith Of treaties.
tinue 10 do so. The Government would see
that its previous instructions were executed.
hs
in which French fishermen were placed. He
protested on two grounds-that the rights of
ment did not protect them with the energy ap-
propriate to the occasion, France had true
NeYfoundlandSa right based upon a treaty:
We can send naval division there and land
mon and arms and exercise We
our.rights there respected. It is for US to en-
force respect for them The negotiations
cannot live on the French shore Il the English
ernments ordered the officers in Newfound-
land to endeavor to arrive at a friendly under
sta5adng but & when when az an absolute attack tn is
Government should interfere, 1t is not
question for negotiations, but for police
England will not take steps to change the
conditions merely because they are preludicial
own W men men and t our row own interests. The Minister
tells us that instructions have been despatched
but these have not yet reached the shipown3ers
their operations in securit ity. Up to the present
moment conflicts have been avoided. but 1t is
send it to Newfoundland TO play there part SO
little In harmony with the traditions and dig
lessly at violation Of the rights OF the nation"
NJ. La Chambre declared that shipowners |
could not continue In their present @ state Of un-
mort without knowing whether they could oc-
cppy the, place FRANCE had assigned to them.
to receive protection from the French naval |
division.
piled that the fishery rights conceded to France
were absolute and without reserve. French |
shipowners asked the squadron to protect |
them, but the British cOntended that fishery |
right did not include lobsters because Holsters
were not fish, In fact the catching, of lopsters
there is comparatively recent, and the occupa-
ton did not exist at the time the treaties were
made. 1t is no part Of the duty of the COM
mander of "A squadron to interpret treaties
officer they may be executed but It Is neceS-
sary first that others should agree upon the
tenor OF those Instructions.
M. Freppel and NJ. CassaRnac each introduced
motions favoring vigorous assert ion OF the
rights OF France, wherepon several members
demanded that the Chamber should proceed to
he order OF the day. which was adopted.