Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-09-08
THE DECISION.

tional court of arbitration after hear
ing prolonged arguments, today rem
dered its decision in the Newfound-
land fisheries case submitted by the
governments of the United States and
Great Britain. but which also involved
the local governments of Canada and
Newfoundland. Neither country wins
clear cut award, but the Americans
claim substantial victory.
The general issue was presented in
seven questions. On these the tribunal
supports the United States in five in
stances.
The British consider the two points
decided in their favor No. and No. 5.
~ of the highest Importance. On No.
I. however, the United States has rails
ed certain questions of equity. The
court was unanimous on all questions
except the fifth and from the decision
Of this, Luis Drago. the member from
the Argentine Republic. gave a dis
senting opinion largely supporting the
American contentious,
On all others Of the seven main
questions the tribunal sustains the
principal contentious of America. The
court finds that the claims Of Great
Britain to a right to prohibit Ameri-
can vessels from employing foreigners
and to impose light harbor customs
and other duties are unauthorized by
the treaty of 1918.
The tribunal finds that the regula-
ton of the manner. time, and imple-
ments OF fishing which Great Britain
or Newfoundland enforces, must be
reasonable and appropriate, but Great
H9.ax ~ t,,1D Of
their reasona bleness. In case Of dis
agreement the question must be deter
mined by an impartial tribunal like the
Hague or special commission.
On Question 6, which presented the
claim of Great Britain to exclude fish
ernen from the bays and harbOrs on
the treaty coasts of Newfoundland and
the Magdalen Islands. the tribunal de-
clares without qualification in favor of
America.
Dealing with Question s. which was
decided adversely to the United States
the court followed the strict letter of
the British American treaty whereby
America renowned the right to fish
In any bays on non treaty coasts. The
court holds that this remuneration APP
piled to all bays irrespective of their
size instead of to small bays only as
was contended by the Americans. The
arbitrator were not unanimous on
this question.
Summarizing Questions :. 3, 4. 6 and I.
they were decided in favor of the United
States Americans consider that winning
the right to an impartial commission to
fudge the present and future Newfound
So 1t, t,v,v, ,rkn
= Regarding point one. on which the
american counsel have raised questions
of equity resulting In the submission of
the matter to a special commission the
tribunal holds that the right of Great
Britain to make fishing regulations with
out the consent of America is inherent in
the formers sovereignty. but In the exer-
else of the right to make limited regu-
lations the latter must not violate the
treaty of 1918 or be framed as to give
the local fishermen an advantage over
the Americans.
The regulations are neceS Sary for the
protection and preservation of the fish
cries and the public order but must not
violate the treaty. The court states that
the reasonableness of the regulations re-
quires expert information for the proper
settlement of, disputes that may arise.
The provisions of the award apply not
only to future legislation by the impe
rial government and the colonies. but re-
quire that the existing statutes and reg
ulations to which the Americans have
objected be submitted to a commission
which shall Judge of their reasonable
ness. necessity and fairness in the light
of the principles laid down by the tri-
bunal.
In connection with it's conclusion that
the reasonableness of the fishing regua
tons must be determined through the eX
pert information the tribunal directs the
appointment of commission Of special
lists, calls upon America and Great Bril-
tain to designate their commerce within
one month and appoints third com
missioner DR.. Hook. scientific adviser of
fisheries OF the Netherlands. The COM
mission Is instructed to submit its re-
port to The Hague tribunal which. If the
decision is unanimous. will incorporate
the same in its present award. If the
commission fails of unanimity The
Hague tribunal will adjudicate the mat
ter.