Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1910-09-22
THE HAGUE DECISION
Text of Fisheries Questions and
the Courts Findings.
Some Points Made CIcar--Fmil Report
~ Judgement Tint settles Dispute
Nearly a Century OLD.

The text of questions in the Newfound-
| land fisheries dispute, submitted for de-
| c1sion to the International court Of ar
pitration at the Hague. and the answers
us given by the Tribunal on Wednesday
were reported In full by cable by the
canadian Associated Press. The complete
report OF the findings is as follows:
question one.-To what extent are the
'oHowing contentious or either Of them
Justified?
! IL Is contended on part of Great Brit
am 'ha' the exercise OF the liberty TO take
'F'erred - in the treaty tof lSlsy which
wv 'hhahitanta Of the United States have
.'r'Ner III common with the subjects Of
MS hritafnic majesty. Is subject TO the
''''Stn' or newfoundland In the form Of
MUNICIPAL laws, ordinances or rules, as.
ior example, the regulation IN respect OF
~ inc hours. days or seasons when fish
may ne taken on the treaty coasts 20,
inc Methods means and inplcments
10 he used In tho taking Of fishing opera
TONS ola such coasts. t3) ANY m,ttcrs of
S.miier character relating to fishing.
such regulations being reasonable.
II is commended on the par, OF the Uni
ted states that the exercise Of such lib
erty Is not subject to limitations or res.
traint by Great Britain, Canada or New
!oundlan. unless they are arpronriate
and necessary for the protection and
preservation of tho common rights II,
such fisheries. and unless thoy be rcas-
onablc IN themselves and fair as between
local fisherman and fisherman coming
from the United States, and not so framed
| rs to give an advantage TO the former
over the latter and unless their appro-
priatcness, necessity, roasona bleness and
fairness he determined by the United
states and Great Britain by common ac-
| cord. and the United States concurs in
their enforcement
ENGLAND SUPREME ON THE COAST
Answer.-The right 81 Great britain to
make regulations without the consent of
the United States as to the exercise Of the
liberty TO take fish. referred 20 in Ar
ticle of the treaty Of October 90 1875
In the form of municipal laws. ordinances
or rules Of Great Britain, Canada or New
foundand is inherent in the sovereignty
of Great Britain.
The exercise Of that right by Great
Britain is, however. limited by the said
treaty in respect of the said liberties
therein granted to the inhabitants OF the
United States in that such regulations
must be made bona fide and must not be
in violation of the said treaty regulations
which arc % appropriate or necessary for
the protection and preservation OF such
fisheries, or (2) desirable or necessary
| on grounds Of public order and morals,
without unnecessarily interfering with the
fishery itself. and in both cases equita BILE
and fair as between local and American
fishermen. and not so framed as to give
| unfairly an advantage to the former
| over the latter class are not consistent
nth ''' ohliratinn - execute the treaty
in good faith. and are therefore. reason
able and not In violation OF tho treaty.
REASONABLE REGULATIONS
For the decision OF the question whether
n regulation is or is Not reasonable. ~
being or not in accordance with the dis
positions Of the treaty and not in viola
ton thereof the treaty Of 1878 contains
no special provision. The settlement Of
differences In this respect that might
arise thereafte was left to the ordinary
means of diplomatic intercourse Iv reas-
on, however of the form In which ques-
ton is put, and hy further reason Of
the admission of Grca. Britain. by her
counsel before this tribunal that 1t is
treaty to determine the reasonabeness
of any regulations made by Great Brit
ain Canada or Newfoundland, the rcas-
onabeness Of any such regulation. II con-
tested must he decided. not by either of
the parties. bat by impartial authority
In accordance with the principles herein
al lDil nd In no
posed in the recommendations made by
the tribunal.
In virtue of article Of the agreement
the tribunal further decides that Article
OF the agreement is, as stated by coun-
sci Of the respective parties at the argu-
ment. permanent in It's effects and not
termnable by the expiration of the gen
eral arbitration treaty of 1915 between
Great Britain and the United States
FOREIGN CREWS on AMERICAN
VESSELS
Question Two.-Have the inhabitants
Of the United States right to employ as
members of Tie fishing crews Of their
vessels persons rot inhabitants of the
United States?
Answer-In view of the preceding con-
sidcrations. this tribunal is of the opin-
ion that the inhabitants OF the United
States, while exercising the liberties re-
ferred 10 in the said articles, have
right to employ as members of the fish
Ing crows of their ve1scls persons not in
hahitants of the United States: but In
view Of the preceding considerations. the
tribunal, to prevent any m'sunderstand-
ing MS to the effect of Its award expresses
the opinion that non-inhabltants en-
ployod as members OF the fishing crews
on United States vessels give no bene-
IT or immunity from the treaty, and 1t
is so decided and awarded.
REPORTING TO CUSTOMS OFFICERS
Question three.-Can the exercise by
the inhabitants Of the United States of
the liberties referred to he subjected
without the consent of the United state
to the requirements OF entry or report OF
Itch. or harbor or other dues, OF any
other similar reQuiremon. or condition or
exaction?
Answer-1he requirement that an AM
er!can fishing vessel should report II
proper convenences for 80 doing are at
hand, is not unreasonable, for the reas-
ons stated IN the folegoing opinion.
There should be no such rcqulI cmcnt,
however, unless there be reasonably COR
venient opportunity afforded TO report IN
person or ~ telegraph either at "A custom
house o 10 customs official but the
exercise OF the hing liberty by the in
lahtTnt" of the United states should not,
be subj ted to thc purely commercial
formaliilcs Of Il report of ontr! and clear
"a "a If