New-York tribune., 1910-09-08
THE FISHERIES DECISION.

The tribunal at Inc hague mas given
its verdict in the North Atlantic fish
cries dispute with gratifying prompt
ness. circumstance which reflects
credit not only upon the tribunal IL
self but also upon the counsel On both
sides for the convincing clarity of their
presentations and arguments in the
case. As for the general character
of the verdict. it was in sense fore
cast hv one of the American counsel.
Senator Root, who got here from
The Hague by steamer only day be
fore the cabled announcement OF the
result. when he said that such decisions
are always compromises We are giad
to believe. however that this one Is Il
compromise in only the highest and best
meaning of the term. 1t is a compro-
! mise in so far as that some of the points
! involved are decided in favor Of one
and some in favor OF the other party, but
we do not suppose that on any Of them
/ the tribunal pronounced verdict other
! than in strict accord with legal and
/ equitable conviction.
There were seven points in the case,
on two of which Great Britain and on
/ five of which America wins. The YER
diet on the first is that the liberty Of
! Americans to take fish in the waters
/ of Newfoundland or Canada is subject
without the assent of the United States
! 10 reasonable regulation by Great Brit
ain. Canada or Newfoundland. in the
! form of municipal ordinances. That
means that Americans are not 10 enjoy
privileges superior to those Of British
subjects. for Of course there is no doubt
that the latter are subject to such I'egu-
lationS; and although our government
contended otherwise. we cannot greatly
repine at the refusal of the tribunal TO
give Americans in British waters ad
vantageS over the British themselves
The verdict on the fifth question is less
conclusive. and. indeed, seems TO open
the WAY for much controversy in future
over other cases which have If in com
mon with this one 1t relates TO the
point from which three marine miles
are 10 be measured in determining the
boundary between the high seas and the
territorial waters of bays and other in
lets. The American contention was that
the three mile line should follow the
windinCS of the shore in and out of all
fnlets having a radius Of three miles or
more. while the British contention was
that it should run straight across from
! headland to headland. That is a ques
| ton upon which any nation would be
! likely TO take whichever side seemed 20
favor its own interests. and on which
il may be that each of the present liti-
gants has hitherto been inclined to take
the other side from that which it took
/ in this case The decision now is in
favor of the British contention, and
thus will debar Americans from various
bays and eStuarieS. That Is cause for
regret, but not. of course. for condemn
ing the verdict 1t is of interest to OBJ
serve. however, that this was the only
point upon which the tribunal was not
unanimous. and that upon it so high IN
authority as Or. Drago dissented and
upheld the American contention. The
inconclusive effect of it is also 10 he OBJ
served Had the other view been sus
tanned. there would have been a definite
rule established for the future deter
mination of all such boundaries But
now the secondary question arises how
wide Il bay must be TO have the three
mile line follow its windinES. or how
narrow ii must he 10 have the line
drawn from headIand TO headiand. Is
Moray Firth territorial within a line
drawn from Moss Head to kinnaird? If
we owned Cuba and Mexico. would the
Gulf Of Mexico be our own territorial
water? We do not challenge the justice
! Of the present verdict but We must wish
| that it were better calculated to fix a
| permanent and general rule.
| The ether points are decided in favor
/ of the American contentious, TO the ef-
/ feet that American fishing vessels in
/ those waters may employ nOn-American
crews, that they cannot without Ameri-
can assent be subjected TO requirements
/ of entry or report at custom houses on
! TO payment Of light or harb0r dues. that
their enjoyment Of all the privileges #
the treaty is not dependent upon their
! payment of any such dues. that they
may fish along the hitherto disputed
southern. western and northern coasts Of
Newfoundland and AT the Magdalen Isl
dll1c tIlQ tiidi tDSiN >Eli1i tl1JDN on tiit
treaty coasts the commercial privileges
which are accorded 10 American trading
vessels generally. These five points. ii
viii he seen. comprise most of the cen
sideratiOns which are of practical inn
I-Ortance TO the men actually engag ged in
the fisheries. so that the net outcome of
the case will be beneficial 10 our fishing
industry in confirming it in the major
part Of the rights and privileges which
1t has heretofore enjoyed. Of course
the defnitive settlement and disposition
Of the case, with the consequent doing
away with all uncertainty in the prem
ises, will itself lie of mitch benefit.
There is cause. therefore. for salts
faction and rejoicing from n national
point Of view Still greater is the cause
for gratitude over this expeditions ani
wholly amicablc disposition Of a matter
which for three generations had been a
source of actual irritation and annoy
auce- and even potential source OF
greater evils than those The achieve
ment demonstrates the practical value
Of the arbitral and judicial machinery 1T
The Hague for dealing with a certain
class Of international differences. and
also the admira BILE spirit of mutual
friendship and confidence which ami
mates the tw0 parties and which alone