Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1892-01-14
The Northeast Fishery Question.


The Treaty of 1914.
The treaty of 1914 is relevant to the his
tory of the Northeast fishery question, not
because If what entered into that treaty,
but because of what was proposed to be
put into it, but was kept out by the Amer
lean negotiators.
To understand the situation fully ii is
necessary to recall the fact that at the time
of signing the treaty of 1882, 1t was be-
lieved by both Great Britain ar he Unit
ed States that the southern boundaries of
His Britannia Majesty dominions in North
America were below the source of the
Mississippi River. Besides, the area of
the United States at that time was small
indeed a. compared with what II is at the
present time. Then, for the most part,
the middle of the Mississippi River was the
western boundary of the union-but now
the Pacific Ocean Then our southern
boundary was the 3lst degree of North
latitude and ST Mary's River-but now
the Calf of Mexico The superficial area
square miles-now it is 1857 600 The
area of our country was greatly increased
by the Louisiana purchase in ls03-a vast
tract of country from which many States
have since been made, and which added
! $40 600 square miles to our territory.
Thus il will be seen that at the time the
tresty of 1882 was inside the United States
had but a divided interest in the great
Father of Waters and thus it happened
that by the treaty of that year it was de-
cared that "the navigation of the Missis-
sippi River from ITS source to the ocean
shall forever remain free and open to the
subjects Of Great Britain and to the citi-
zens Of the United States"
But time wrought its changes. The
Jay treaty of 1894 provided for joint
survey which established with precision
the northern line of the United States and
it was found that that line ran above the
sources Of the Mississippi, while the pur-
chase Of Louisiana gave to our Govern
ment the control Of the mouth of the river
Our country thus became the sole owner OF
the Mississippi River from its source to its
mouth, and Great Britain ceased to have
any legal rights therein
After this explanation il is proper to state
that the construction which was put upon
the treaty of 1852 was never questioned uu-
til English and American negotistors were
engaged in forming the treaty of Client in
lel+, Al the close Of the second wsr with
Great Britain. Then it was that the Brit
ish negotiators advanced the claim that
the war of lsl2 had terminated all treaties
between the two countries, existing at the
beginning Of that war, and that the fish
cry clause in the treaty of 1852 being no
longer IN force the fishing rights of the
people Of the United States had expired,
and If revived at all, must be revived
under new negotiations. History informs
u that this claim was set up on the part
of the British Government with the hone
that the restoration of those fishing rights,
alleged TO be forfeited would be demand
ed on the part of the United States only in
exchange for some equivalent aud that
the equivalent 10 be asked would be, as
was well known, the concession to Great
Britain of the free navigation of the Mis-
sissippi River.
The American neeotistors were not how
ever. ready for such trade. They denied
that the war of 1872 had put an end to any
provisions of the treaty Of l1s2-a denial
which resulted in the signing aud ratifca-
tion Of the treaty of Client without any
fto. 1-!uh -~har,-'ut relative 70 the nsn-
cries Or the navigation of the Mississippi
River, aud so the United States was left
a. our people claim. in the full enjoyment
Of its rights under the treaty Of l7S2-a
claim which was denied by Great Britain.
Relative to this matter Mr.. Blaine saws
in his book: The British Government
in 1914. might with equal force and jus
tice have claimed that under this theory of
the abrogaton of the treaty of 1882 by
war, the recognition of our independence
and the establishment of our boundaries
had also become void 1t is rather a Gu
rious fact, apparently unknown or unno-
Iiced py the hegotlators OF 1914, that as
late as 1865 the law officers of the Crown
under the last ministry of Lord Chatham,
to whom was referred the treaty of 1856
with France, containing certain stipula-
tions in reference to the Newfoundland
fisheries, gave as their opinion that such
clauses were permanent in their character,
and that SO far the treaty was valid, not
withstandng subsequent war"