New-York tribune., 1890-06-12
foroiddins all land grants, forbiddins the oon-

struction Of anything like permanent dwellings
and forbidding the importation OF women. IN
order that these laws might be the more sympa-
Ihetically enforced the administration OF the
island and its waters intrusted to the admrais
of the fishing fleets, and afterward 10 the naVai
commanders stationed at ST. Johh 3. D".'
of course, they couldn't prevent the rrehon
srom fishing too, and their evident poiicy was 10
make such treaty arrangements with France as
would insure peace in the prosecution OF tie
business. These facts supply the motive for the
fishery clause in the Treaty Of Utrecht, but when
the English policy changed, when colonization
erased TO be opposed, and when the opportunity
and the desirablity of eAtinguishing the French
rights came together, afterward they did, IL is
simply amazing that English craftsmanship shouid
have been so dull as to permit their renewal
The next French and English war witnessed
the fall Of Quebec and the final destruction OF the
French power in America With the hfe-blood OF
Montcalm vanished all that magnificent structure
which the genius Of Champlain and the patient
lsbors of the French Jesuits had SO devotedly
raised As mournful memento of the glories
they had won and lost. in the treaty
which made an accounting OF the re-
suits Of the Seven Years War, England
ceded to the French lilies the two little Islands
of ST. Pierre and Miquelon, just of the coast of
over these the French flag flies to-day. In this
coyenant-the Treaty of Paris of 17s3-the fishery
clause adopted in 1913 was renewed and confirmed.
St. Pierre and Miqueon to belong in full
right" to France, to serve as q shelter to the
French fishermen" but His Most Christian
Majesty" engaged not TO fortify the islands nor
10 place any buildings upon them other than those
for the convenience Of the fishery" nor to main
tain upon them more than fifty men for the
rolice" In the light of events this was foollsh
grant. 1t admits Of explanation, but on no theory
Of enlightened selfshness it be Justihed
Despite the mistaken laws Of Williams reign New
foundland had now considerable population, anu
prudent craftsmanship might have foreseen thao
it would be impossible for the two nations 10
pursue the same industry from the same place
under these new conditions without friction
Moreover, as any oynic knows, in the dealings OF
Nations as of individuals, the wise rule IS to get
ali one can and to give no more than one must
At this time England might easily have put an
end to the French fisheries. When negotiations
next arose concerning them, she was much less
favorably situated.
This was in 1883, after Washington and Ro-
chambcau had received the sword of Cornwallis.
England had now The opportunity of tasting the
same cup of humiliation which she had placed
twenty years before at the mouth OF her rival
Her fsirest American possessions had to be given
I'M as the price of her monarch's folly and in
the Treaty Of Versailles signed in 1888, she
was compelled not merely to confirm and enlarge
the fishing privileges of the French. but TO con-
cede the continuance to America OF the rlgntS
her fishermen had Heretofore enjoyed. This was
done in a hurry and with accompanying declara-
tions that are now the subject OF such heated
controversy.
The cession to France of St. Pierre and Mique-
lon was confirmed under the conditions originally
imposed and the French Shore which. under
the Treaty of Utrecht had extended from Cape
Bonavista along the northern and western coasts
TO Point Richie, was now defined to extend from
Cane st. Johns in the same direction to cape
Ray This is the French shore as 1t extends TO
day. 1t is nearly 500 miles long, and is by far
the most useful and important part OF the island
frontage IL is upon this shore that the New
foundlanders now demand sovereign's rights.
Accompanying the Treaty of Versailles there were
some royal declarations and they, even more
than the treaty itself, have prejudiced the
colonists Whatever may be the fact now, until
1888 at least the English possessed concurrent
right of fishing, and Of landing on this shore to
dry their catch. That is to say, all the privileges
conferred upon the French were allowed also to
themselves. This. Of course, had led to friction,
and as the permanent settlements Increased
troubles multiplied. George III, in view of these
difficulties undertook to say how the Treaty of
Versailles should be construed, and his royal
declaration ran in these words " His Britannia
Majesty will take the most positive measures Tor
preventing his subjects from interrupting, In
any manner, by their competition the fishery
Of the French during the temporary exercise OF
it, which is granted to them upon the coasts
of the island of Newfoundland, and lie will, for
this purpose, cause the fixed settlements which
shall be formed there to be removed. His
Britannia Majesty will give orders that the French
fishermen be not incommoded in cutting the wood
for the repair of their scaffclds huts and fishing
vessels.
How to construe this construction is now
serious problem. The Newfoundlanders claim
that it meant no more than the treaty meant;
that the King did not intend to say that his
subjects should not fish off that coast. nor that
they should be forbidden to land there to dry
their takes. 1t merely meant that they should
be careful not to get in the way OF the. French
But in this view they have not received the
support of the British Foreign Office The only
English Premier who has resolutely stood by
them was Lord Palmerston. The question now
at issue has been coming up periodically for the
last sixty years, and each time with an additional
load of irritating circumstances The extreme
French claim was tersely put in the Chamber of
Deputies by N. Flourens weeks ago. NJ
Elourens is q statesman of eminent apteccdents.
He was NJ. Spuller's predecessor in the French
Ministry o; Foreign Affairs 1t cannot be supposed
that he speaks thoughtlessly on so grave ques-
ton. "Our right he said is veritable SOW"
ereignty." NJ. Spuller did not 60 SO far He
scarcely went in assertion beyond where Lord
Salisbury has gone in admission. but they are
both far in advance Of the point where Lord
Palmerston stood in 1888, and beyond which the
Newfoundlanders say they will neither 60 nor
he driven. "The British Government" wrote
Lord Palmerston to the French Ambassador has
never understood the Declaration to have hal
for it's object to deprive British subjects of the
~;ah4 "a ma icinafe with the French in taking