The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-11-18
ANGLo-AMERICAN COMMISSION.
Important Questions of Fisheries and
 Reciprocity Discussed.

 American commission, now in session here to adjust differences between the United States and Canada, to-day held a lengthy session upon the two sub jects which are regarded as of most inn portance, namely the North Atlantic fisheries and reciprocity. The fisheries question was practically taken up for the first time and it was understood that the position of the Canadian gov ernment was made clear as favorable to granting enlarged rights to American fishermen in Canadian waters of the North Atlantic if in return Canadian fish are admitted free to American markets. It is thought this will open up wide range of discussion. Con- cerning reciprocity, it has now deve!- oped that while some progress is being made in considerng certan articles which will be the basis of reciprocity, yet the American commissioners are likely to insist as a preliminary to any reciprocity that Canada shall wipe out that feature of her tariff law which gives Great Britain a preference of 25 per cent, on all tariff duties. If this concession is made by Canada and con ceded by Lord Herschell, who is look ing after the interests of Great Brita h. then it is said a reciprocity list prob ably will be agreed upon. Without the abolition of preferential rates to Great Britain the opinion is expressed that a reciprocity agreement cannot be reach- ed. The American commissioners feel that if this British preferential can be stopped it will be better than any reci- procity agreement. The debate thus far has encouraged the American com missioners to believe that they will sue ceed in having this preferential wiped out
 The fisheries question is of long standing and aside from it's import ance to the commerce of the New Eng land and Canadian coast, it is said to give the basis for possible serious col- ffict between this country and Great Britain. Canada of late has intimated that in case it remained open recourse might be taken to the seizure of Amer ican fishing vessels in Canadian waters. This would lead to serious international complications. The members are there fore exceedingly anxious to secure a settlement of this question. It is un- derstood that there is some likelihood of commission of American and Ca- nadian lawyers being appointed to de- termine the meaning of the treaty of 1918, which governs these fishery rights. The suggestion of this international body has come, it is understood, from Lord Hersehell. Should such a body be appointed it would do away with the chance of any collision occurring be- tween the Canadian officials and Amer ican vessels the coming season.
 A high Canadian official to-day stated the Canadian view as follows: "The commission will have a serious dif1i- culty to settle the North Atlantic fish cry question. The position of the Ca- nadian government is not, I think, very we'll understood in the United States. The treaty of 1876 provides roughly speaking, that the United States fish ermen shall not have access to the in- habted coasts of the Canadian sea- board. On those costs American fisher men are not entitled to land save for four purposes specifically named in the treaty. namely, for wood, water, shelter and repairs. The object of the treaty was obviously to give Canadians exclu- sive control of their own coasts as a base of operations for carrying on the fishery. In 1854 the United States pur- chased the right to land on the Cana dian coasts for other than the purposes named. The United States purchased these privileges in 1854 by abolishing the duties on Canadian fish. It pur- chased them again by giving free fish in return under the Washington treaty of 1871. So also in 1888 the Bayard. Chamberlain project virtually granted free fish in exchange for these privi- leges. That project was defeated in the United States senate, but the modus vi- vendi which formed part of it and is in existence to-day provide that American fishing vessels which desire to have the benefit of the privileges shall pay an annual tonnage tax to the dominion treasury therefor.
 Tt will thus be seen that the United States has all along accepted the Ca. nadian interpretation of Article I. o1 the treaty of ISIS as the true interpret ation. This being the case, the United States is, I think, debarred from now claiming the bonding privilege in Cana dian ports for American fishermen as part and parcel of the general bonding system in existence between the two countries. The fact is that under the treaty of 1918 American fishermen have no right to land their fish in Canadian ports. Nor is it good tu quoque tt say that the United States permits Ca nadian fishermen to bond Canadian fisf in American ports. That is true. but there is no treaty specifically excluding Canadian fishermen from coming into American ports and other commercial purposes"
 The present Canadian administration of which Sir Wilfred Laurier is the head, has not, since entering office 1T 1896, pressed the Canadian interpreta. ton too hard. It has allowed Ameri- can fishermen most all of the privileges referred to whenever under special cir cumstances they have put in a request to be permitted to enjoy them. This course of action is strongly disapprov. ed, however, by Canadian fishermen. A Canadian fisherman and an American fisherman are fishing side by side or the Banks. The American fisherman