New-York tribune., 1907-08-30
THE FISHERIES ARBITRATION-

The announcement that the friendly contro-
versy between Great Britain and the United
States over the Newfoundland fisheries Is to be
referred to the arbitration tribunal at The
Hague seems 10 promise the final 0AspoSa- OF
long pending disagreement and the reinoNai
Of one Of the last grounds for controversy oe-
tween the two countries, and perhaps 70 pro
mote the cause Of arbitration by submitting 20
its processes an important case Of klnd Wn!ch
governments have generally been reluctant TO
dispose OF IN such manner. The interests in
volved on both sides are considerable. IN some
ages OF the world and between some nations
they might have been regarded as amounting to q
cGsgs belE But after all they im-iicate neither
the honor nor the integrity of either country. me
whole matter turns upon the Interpretation OF
the treaty Of 1878 and the legitimate powers
of the Newfoundland government Hereunder
Rriefy stated, the question is whether The In
sular government has & right by local legislation
10 alter or abridge the rights guaranteed TO
American fishermen by the treaty
Generally speaking, treaty Is the supreme
law of the land. and no inferior authority can
modify or resist its action. But in respect
to the guaranteeing of rights. privileges and
immunities to the citizens of one of the coun-
tries in the other country treaties may be
divided into two categories There are those
in which one country simply guarantees TO the
citizens Of the other the same status that us
own enjoy. or that is enjoyed by those OF the
most favored nation. Under such treaty 1t
is obvious, either country may make such
changes in its police and other regulations as
NAV please it. provided that there IS no dis
elimination but that the abridgement of rights.
if anv APPLIES to its own citizens and those OF
the other party alike. There are also those
treaties In which certain specific rights are
guaranteed, not relatively. but absolutely, and
with no reference TO the rights OF the citizens
Of the g11arantor or Of any other power. Under
such one II does not appear that notifications
can be made by any power inferior TO the Sig
1atortes themselves.
The present controversy is primarily over
the question TO which category the. treaty Of
1918 belongs. The first article of that instru-
nent says that inhabitants of the United States
shall have forever, ''in common with the sub
iects Of His Britannia Majesty" the liberty
TO take fish and. under certain conditions, to
cure and dry them on part OF the NeWfound-
land coast The British view Is that Americans
are thus invested with only such rights the
Observation-Disclosures themselves enjoy, and that
If the insular government fOrbids its citizens TO
fish on Sundays for example, American Usher
men must be subject to the same prohibition.
The American view, on the contrary, is that
the treaty guarantees not merely the same
right to Americans that Brltons enjoy but
certain specific and clearly defined rights
which they are to enjoy forever in common
with British subjects Practically, the treaty
is a guarantee that both Americans and BritOns
shall have forever the liberty TO take fish
." and shall also have liberty forever to
"dry and cure fish. :" The phraseology
is variously interpreted, and the object Of the
proposed arbitration is to have some definite In
depreciation fixed upon authoritative. Such
a determination may be based upon the sup
posed intention of the makers Of the treaty, or,
failing that, upon the apparent requirements OF
equity at the present time-possibly very diff
ferent thing In any case we may hope for
settlement which will be acceptable to all con-
al