The sun., 1894-03-04

nhke y NoulVOThIy ptuNtStVus SUI sASo W
negotiate about q permanent act.
But this permanent act has never been
passed. The Newfoundland Legislature re-
jected by an overwhelming vote the bill
which the Newfoundland delegates to Lon
don had drawn up In consultation with the
imperial authorities. Lord RrPoS, how
ever. now insists on the very provisions.
notably the appointment OF English
Judges and the refusal OF the COM
pensation demanded bY Newfoundland.
which had caused the Island to reject
the bill drawn up In London. This. then,
is the deadlock which the British Govern
ment commands the island to break by
Withdrawing from her position. That de-
mand Is the more irritating because. as 1t
turned out, only minority OF Newfound-
lands delegates remained in London when
the bill was finally drawn up. so that she
does not consider herself as fairly bound by
their decision.
Back Of all this is the fundamental objec-
ton to the mod,Is tirendi agreement itself.
Newfoundland resented the permission
given to France to erect factories on the
west coast pending the arbitration pro-
ceedings, as admitting or temporarily ad-
The root OF the controversy Is in the treaty
OF Utrecht, which. while ceding Newfound-
land to Great Britain. In 1918. retained for
the French the right to catch fish and dry
them" ON the island. This was
concession to the enormous interest
OF France In her fishery privileges on the
American coast, and it was thought to
strengthen the possibilities OF making
peaceful relations permanent 1t did not
have that effect. and when, seventy years
later. In 1888, the treaty Of Versailles was
struck. and among Its provisions was the
assignment to France Of the coast fishery
from Cape st. John on the east coast OF
Newfoundland. thence north and aroundby
the west to Cape Ray, this arrangement
was declared to be made I'm order to pre-
vent the quarrels that have hitherto arisen"
But why does not that treaty provision Of
1888. with its declaration that British sub
jects shall not interrupt In any manner
the fishery Of the French on that coast"
settle the present dispute The reason is
that the Newfoundlanders contend that
Holsters are not fish" within the
treaty meaning Of the word. They cay
that cod fisheries were then meant. and
that Holsters were not fished for at
all: that the very terms Of the
privilege to take. cut. and dry" show that
the crustacea were not In the minds Of the
makers Of the treaty; finally. that in ex-
plictly forbiddlnR the French to erect on
the shore ANY buildings besides stages
made Of boards and huts necessary and
usual for drying fish," the treaty itself
makes unlawful the erection by the French
Of lobster-canning factories. which are q
wholly different sort Of structures, belong
ing to a wholly different industry. On the
other hand. they deny the French assertion
that their taking and canning Of Holsters is
q practical interruption Of the fishery rights
OF the French on the coast, as secured to
them by the treaty.
The cause Of the trouble. as 1t stands. is
thus clear. The imperial Government takes
the Newfoundland view Of British rights to
the west shore under the treaty OF Yer
sailles. and fully expects to maintain that
view before the tribunal Of arbitration. Such
is its confidence. that it has been willing not
only to permit existing French canning fac
tories to remain, pending the arbitration.
but to close about threescore rival
British factories. But Newfoundland re-
sents the admission that there is any
disputed right to arbitrate: she does
not consider that there are two sides to
the question; above all. she has been indig-
nant at the closing of the Industrial estab-
hshments Of her own people on the demand
OF the French. and perhaps Is alarmed at
the indication which this concession gives
as to the zeal and fidelity OF the imperial
Government in pushing her claims. She
has felt outraged. too. at the coercion ex-
ercised by England in requiring distasteful
legislation from her. and at the unwilling
ness to trust to her local judges and to give
her compensation for her losses.
The French shore question is not the only
one that has embittered the relations OF
Newfoundland with the mother country. OF
late years. She has felt aggrieved at the
peremptory check put by England to her
negotiations for q separate commercial
treaty with the United States. In this
matter she feels that her interests were
sacrificed to those of the Dominion, Just as
in the French shore question she thinks
that they are subordinated to the general
relations between Great Britain and France.
Let Newfoundland look forward with hope
to the bright day. perhaps not very far dis.
tant. when she shall cast in her lot with the
American Union. Then American and not
European views and interests will guide
her relations with foreign lands.