The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-04-07
THE NEWFOUNDLAND CASE.

A dispatch from Halifax says that New
foundland papers are 1lled with violent
articles in denunciatiOn OF the Government
of Great Britain for its treatment OF the
colony in relation tn French fishing rights.
1t is admitted that the French have certain
rights by virtue of the treaty Of Utrecht
and the treaty of Versailles, which, under
the French policy of fostering her fishing
interest by payment of liberal bounty, de-
strQy a leading industry. This bounty
stands in the way of Newfoundland compe-
titiOn with French fish ermen. The treaties
mentioned COncede to the French the right
to take, land and dry fish and erect struct-
uTes for that purpose. The Newfoundland
ers contend that Holsters are not properly
included in the general term fish, but
the French answer that the treaty conceS-
sion includes the product of the waters en-
braced by the treaty and the use of the
shore for preparing the catch of the waters
FOR sale. The British Government takes the
French view of the treaty concession, dis
regarding the fact that the French bounty
on fish enables French fishermen to under
sell the native catch in foreign markets. 1t
must be admitted that it is trying on the
temper to have home industry taken out
Of a peoples hands by their own Govern
ment. The British Government seems in
eined to go out of Its way to increase the
natural difficulties of the situation. The
Supreme Colonial Court recently declared
that no act existed. either of the Imperial
Parliament or Of the Colonial Legislature,
under which effect could be given to the
treaties, and that, lacking such Parlia-
mentaTy act, the Government of Great
Britain must in some way compensate
France for England's inability to carry out
the provisions Of the treaties. The British
Government admits the soundness Of this
decision to the Colonial Court by adopt
ing Lord Knutsford's Coercion Act, under
taking to enforce the treaties. The case
in the hands OF the American Government
would soon be settled. France would be in
formed that conditions had since arisen
which made the enforcement of the old
treaties All act of great injustice and hard
ship to the people of Newfoundland. What
compensation would France accept and re-
lease the other party to the treaties from
conditions which had become so oppressive
to the colony2 If France declined to accept
any compensation and declared its pur-
pcse to hold the Government to the letter
of the law, the American answer would be
that it was responsible Tor any claims inter
national comfy or a court of arbitration
might award. Such action would be justi-
fed by the fact that much of the hardship
OF which Newfoundland complains is the
result Of the bounty policy pursued by the
French Government The reason England
does not adopt this policy is that the treaties
which work such disaster upon Newfound-
land give England certain rights in Egypt.
a refusal to carry out the conditions OF the
treaty would justify France in considering
the concessions to England in Egypt as re-
liuquished. The people of Newfoundland
want to live. The sea is their principal
field Of industry, aud this the treaties
England has made with France drives them
out of. England asks Newfoundland to
starve in the interests of the empire, and
Newfoundland declines to starve without
making an effort to escape that mode of
death.