New-York tribune., 1907-10-24
THE FISHERIES DISPUTE AGAIN.

The opinion was recently expressed in these
columns that in its somewhat violent opposition
to the renewal by the British government of
the fisheries ntOdUs UiUendi with the United
States. pending reference to and determination
by the tribunal at The Hague the Newfoundland
government was not representative of all. if
even of a majority, of the people Of that island
Ample confirmation OF that opinion comes
to hand in Blue Book of the British Colonial
Office. That publication reproduces numerous eX-
tracts from two Newfoundland newspapers, one
Of which is the organ Of the fishermen of the
west coast, strongly crticsing and condemning
the attitude of Sir Robert Bond and his col
leagues. 1t also prints a petition signed by
thousand south coast fishermen praying the In
sular Legislature 10 terminate the present pol
icy of hostility toward the American fisher
men and return to that under which the people
&c. were able to earn food for their fam
lilies by carrying a legitimate traffic with
the Americans" There are also given the texts
Of resolutions adopted by mass meetings of
the fishermen, declaring that "the people Of this
coast are unanimous in condemning this policy
IOf Sir Robert Bond and his government as
"one which is injurious TO the best interests of
THE colony a whole and ruinous to the live
"lihOod of the people of this western coast"
These publications are sufficient to warrant
the conclusion that large and important part
of the people of Newfoundland practically take
the American side Of the controversy. Certainly
they condemn the policy of the insular govern
ment and its recent legislation against American
fishermen and approve the British governments
conduct in renewing the moGUs UiUendi and in
annulling, by Order in Council the offensive
colonial laws. But those are by no means the
only revelations made in the Blue Book. The
course of the colonial administration in dealing
with An0nr ipa hlrfx with iron prit OH hor
self, as revealed in the official correspondence
can be fittingly described by no milder word
than astonishing, especially in view of the claims
lately made by Sir Robert Bond that he himself
proposed the submission of the dispute to arbi-
tratiOn. 1t is known, of course that America
Great Britain and also Canada were favorabIy
disposed toward arbitration. But it was obvious
that the arbltral processes could not be COM
pleted and an award be made before the expiry
of the former inodus UiUendt and the beginning
OF new fishing season. A temporary arrange
ment was therefore necessary, and in making
| 1t the British government naturally counted
upon the cooperation of Sir Robert Bond who
was then in London. The first draft of a new
nodus UiUendi provided for the renunciation by
the United States Of practically everything for
which it was contending, and this country nat
urally and properly declined to accept that draft
| Then the British government, which had antici-
pated such result and had warned Sir Robert
| of 1t, asked the Newfoundland Prime Minister
! for his opinion TO the acceptability OF a re-
newal of the former moduS DiUendi, and also
which he deemed the important TO the
colony, the prohibition of the use of purse
seines or the prohibition of the employment of
Observation-Disclosures by Americans.
| To these inquiries Sir Robert and his col