Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-07-27
TREATY IN SUSPENSE.
The Newfoundland Fish Question IS
Still Unsolved.

Still OnSoIveos
\ st. Johns, N. F., July 25.-The cables
of late have made it appear tnat tnere
is serious hitch with regard TO the
ratification by France OF the new
Anglo-Gallis treaty, signed last April
owing to difficulties that nave arisen
respecting Newfoundland. This is not
surprising here. Newfoundland had
read grievance in that clause OF the
treaty which provided that the nshery
should close on October 20 in each year.
This provision, intended, as 1t is UNDER
stood here, to apply to the French Alone
was really SO ambiguous that a hosth"
French cabinet could at any time
bring England to the verge OF war by
insisting upon it's being applied TO All
parties" That would embrace not only
British subjects. but also American clti-
zens. these having obtained equal fish
ing rights on the seaboard by the
Treaty of 1918.
Sir Robert Bond, the Premier, there
fore determined, when invited 10 Eng
land last month, to assist in framing
the regulations for policing the treaty
coast and preventing the smuggling Oh
merchandise and liquors into New
foundland, to safeguard the rights OF
the people here and to prevent any
trouble with the Americans, by secur-
ing an unequivocal declaration putting
an end to all uncertainty OH TINS point.
This might be done by an exchange OF
notes between the two high contracting
parties, or the inclusion OF a clause III
the proposed regulations to the same
effect. When approved by England and
France this would have the same
practical result as if Incorporated in the
treaty.
The French also had a grievance
that the provision as regards their OBJ
tanning bait was not as liberal as they
had expected. The only people inter-
ested on the French side of this treaty
are the fishing interests OF Brittany
and Miquelon, which fit out the fleets
that trawl on the Grand Banks. st.
Malo and st. Pierre really dictate
French policy on this Newfoundland
question. and in this instance st. Malo
and ST. Pierre seem to have been
caught mapping. For years past, since
the disastrous effects of the Bait act
have been shown upon their catch, they
have been insisting that its repeal
should be a sine qua non in any settle
ment of the French Shore question.
and Newfoundland's failure to agree to
this has always proved the stumbling
block hitherto.
To illustrate the attitude of the Ma
lonins and Pierras as to the impor-
lance of the bait question, it is only
To, f1,N oil ir1rr
tions which the French fishing inter-
ests deemed essential in any settlement.
from memorandum submitted last
year to NJ. Delcasse by M. Legasse, who
represents st. Pierre in the French
Chamber of Deputies, and whose head
quarters are ST. Malo.
First-the Bait act must be depealed.
Second-Newfounda fishermen must
be at liberty to sell bait to French hsh-
ermcn, tither at ST. Pierre or on the fish
ing banks free from any duties or re-
Strictions of any kind.
Third-F'rench vessels to be at liberty
to take bait in the territorial waters of
Newfoundland, free from any restrictions.
Fourth-French bait boats to be free
from all port duties in Newfoundland.
Fifth-An indemnity to the owners or
the sloops virginia and Amazone; seized
illegally Gt is contended by the French
in 1855. by the Newfoundland authorizes
for smuggling out bait.
SiXIh-A money indemnity to the owners
Of French fishing establishments on The
French Shore.
Seventh-An indemnity to the fishermen
freqGenting that shore.
Eightll-A general pecuniary indemnity.
of which sum of 100000 francs GiW,voD
eminent to the authorities at st. Pierre,
to be used in establishing mussel beds
as bait reserve. improving the harbOtS
and otherwise assisting the local fishing
pOpulati ton .
When it is remembered that these eight
propositions represented the views of the
and that only one of them tNo. ID was
made effective in the new treaty, it is
easy to understand how the little town
received it. The instrument was exc
Grated. and so were those who framed it.
st Pierre meIaphoricalIy threw off its
allegiance to France. Public meetings
were called. the excitable populace grew
frenzied in dcnunciations and the midget
newspapers grew hysterical over the sac
rihce of the French fisheries. This feel
ing communicated itself to Brittany.
set on foot The delegates of all the de
partmentS in that part of France formed
themselves into group pledged to defeat
ratification unless concessions were given:
itself facing Il grave situation when IL
offered the treaty to the Senate Tor its
indoI Scment. and proposals poured In
from every quarter with view to modl-
fcations. The British government Sc
cured its ratification by Parliament with
out difficulty and summoned the confer
ence in London prescribed in the treat y,
to frame the policing and anti-smuggilng
regulations. France sought. in view OF
this, to reopen the question and frame
new clauses whereby her subjects could
secure larger bait privileges, offering
various concessions in return. NewfOund-
land however. was unbcnding in her adj
herence to her Bait act, which is not sur
prlSing when ii is remembered that
France subsidies her fisherfolk with
b0untieS equal to 20 per cent. of the value
of the fish itself. an augmentation that
land fishermen who have no bounties
amount at Mquelon. and like the Ameri-
cans and Canadians, must depend on
Newfoundland for itor go without.
These two issl1G-the October 20 clause
on the one sids ~ the Bait act moditi-
enhancement w65eh now forms the sub
Ject of so many cable dispatches. There
are also several subsidiary questions
which add to the complexities of the
situation. After the treaty was signed
notes were exchanged between Lord
l.andsdowne and NJ. Cambon the bearing
OF which the general issue can be
briefly stated. France has always refused
70 recognize a British Consul at St
ilerre. because his presence there would
De 1nimical to the smuggling traffic. for
which the place Is notorious But now
france agrees to accept such an official
ana Great Britain agrees to recognize the