New-York tribune., 1905-04-24
THE BOND FISHING BILL.
Details of Long Controversy Be
tzceen u. s.. and Colony.

ST. Johns n F.. April 10 (specaD--Before TINS Is
published Newfoundlands retaliatory measure
against the American fishermen will have passed us
several stages and the law of the land II Is
not thought that the Governor will withhold his as
sent 20 it, because while its first clause would seem
to mean that it is possible 70 seize foreign Aslis
vessel in any harbOr around our cOasthhe' anu
Premier Bond claims the bays harbors creeks ana
inlets' are distinct from the coast as implying
the main trend of the seabOard. another section IN
the bill provides that nothing in this act conalned
shall limit the privileges enjoyed by treaty Dy 'ne
subjects Of any state in anity with his majesty.
This would appear fully 10 safeguard the rights or
tho Americans. and it would not be assumed tnat
the colony intended to make any attempt 10 aoIluse
them so that If such were done 1t WOULD nave 10
he subse0uentIy and then there would &c i pIoteS'
from the United States an arbitration to determine
If American rights had actually been violated or
not and if the former n proviso 10 compen-
sation
At the same time, it is a question now whether
the measure may not be vetoed by the Governor
This is one of the few prerogatives he possesses
ana he teaIousy preserves it. giving no hint OF his
purpose and acting solely on the Instructions OF
Downing Street. because. when foreign coIhpI-
cations arise it is to the British Ministry and not
to any colonial government that the other hauohS
,on..rrad yyiu anpeal and therefore the imperial
Cabinet must asree 20 the local measure Thus
when our Bait act against the French was nrst
passed it was disalIowed by the Queen IN couhcu
and sanctioned only in 1857 when the legislatures OF
a
support of Newfoundland. Again, in 1890 when the
Bond-B Blaine convention was arranged, England
would not ogree 10 II because or Canada pro-
tests and in 1892 We were forced 10 pass coercion
bill against colonists on the west coast 80 that
Britain could fulfil her engagements with France
in respect to the lobster canning industry
There is therefore. possibility that the bill
against the Americans may be either vetoed by the
Governor or subsequently disallowed by the hlng
in council upon closer examination into It's de-
tails The latter course taken in 1897 with an
election bill the object of which was alleged 10 &c
to facilitate the perpetration Of election bribery
and this IL the only instance on record where
piece Of domestic legislation was so treated. But
enactments regarding French or American fishing
rights in waters never approved II there Is
any reasonable fear OF infaUing the pride and an
ger OF these nations by such step. The British
Foreign Once still retai~s lively recollccton If
what occurred I'm 1878 in connection with this better
known the Fortune Bay Outrages-" The fishery
articles OF the Treaty OF Washington GS1(, which
went into effect July I. 1873. and we're the sub
ject of arbitration IN Halifax in lS'I whereby
Canada received 100000 and Newfoundland N.OO.-
900. granted Americans the right 10 Ash wltnin the
three mile limit all the coasts OF Newfoundland
and Canada where they had not already acquired
such privileges by treaty. The right was one ''iu
common with British subjects" and In January,
1873 several American trawlers entered LCng HaT-
bor. Fortune Bay. in quest of bait 1t was ON
Sunday. and they used seiues. large nets, Tor in
closing the fish while vet giving hem freedom ot
weeks, Till they we're gradually sold III and taken
away. or else perished In ayriads from the fouIins
Of the waters in which they lay.
The COAST PEOPLE INCENSED.
The sight or these preparations on the Lords
Day incersed tho Sabbath loving coast folk. be-
cause all fishing is prohibited in NeNfoundland on
Sunday. SEEMING barring the fish Is also for
biddeu, and there is close time against not
ting the herring between October and April. The
Americans thus breaking three of the local
designed for the protection OF the fisheries
but, because angry crowd assemoed drove the
fishermen from their seines and prevented all FISH,
ing. the United States claimed substantial dam
ages from Britain Secretary Evarts. for tho fer
ner In replying TO a dispatch from Lord Salisbury.
then Foreign Secretary described lne question as
affected In any way by tho legislature OF
Newfoundland Pointing out that tho United States
had only shortly before that paid uovruy for the
right of free hshing In these waters he psrtiaenty
asked: why should American fishermen be subject
to Newtuundlauds laws lor sunday Obseryuncee
Why should they be pr,t eute,l from Employing any
llshnl implements they desired use WAY should
they be shut Out from this fishery six months OF
the yeare And. lastly. why should the people OF
Newfoundland take the law into their own hands
even II there any lawful authority To which
United States citizens should render due obedl-
encee" he maintained there was not
England eventually recognized ,hlt she could not
escape the cpnsequenoea ot the laUiess y, ton OF
versy she paid $4,000 in liquidation of all
claims under this head, which closed the incident,
~ is noteworthy az the present juncture neverthe-