New-York tribune., 1910-10-04
u. S. SECURES FULL RELIEF
Chandler P. Anderson Gives
Facts in the Fisheries Decision.
"RESULTS FAIR AND JUST"
Only One Of Seven Questions
Submitted Decided Against
This Country.

steamship LspLand- with MIN "eio '
three associate counsel for the Cnl'eu
States in that arhitration-James Bro"n
coo,, Charles b. Warren and Robert Lam
sing.
Mr Anderson expressed himself as very
much pratiaed at the outcome Of the ar
fitra+fo,. which he regards exceedingly
favorable 10 the United States. ana ne
rnsde the following statement with REFER
enoe TO the effect OF the award OF lhe
tribunal:
There seems 10 have been some misap-
r-ehension I'm the press reports of the re-
suit of the arbitration as TO the effect OF
The award on the first question As
matter Of fact. instead Of being oe1ealeu
on that question. which seems TO nave oeeH
The report widely circulated through Brit
Ssh sources. the United States was "iioilS
successful in securing the full measure OF
relief sought by il in resorung 10 aIpiufa
zion on the issues presented
The reports Of the decision have evi-
dan-l,- confused The relief sought with one
Of the contentious advanced by the United
States as a ground for granting the de-
sired relief In arguing Question the
Tinted States relied on two alternative
lines Of argument. one Of which was the
extreme contention that Great Britain had
granted away by the treaty of 1913 por-
tion of its sovereignty TO the United states,
and the other was the less advanced, but
none The less effective. contention that
GREAT Britain had imposed upon itself
contractual obligation by the treaty limit
ing the exercise of its sovereignty.
Secures Full Relief Demanded.
The tribunal decided against the United
States on the more extreme contention
hut in favor Of the United states on the
alternative contention. holding that al
.bo,,eb British sovereignty was intact the
exercise Of il lim1ed as a result OF
the treaty. The effect of the limitation
thus imposed upon the exercise of British
sovereignty is TO secure to the United
-+stes the full measure of the relief de-
rnanded.
The treaty of 1878 provided that the
inhabitants Of the United States should
have forever the liberty in common with
british subjects to take fish in certain
specified territorial waters Of Great
Britain.
Prior TO this arbitration Great Britain
had insisted that by reason Of the words
in common with British subjects Ameri-
can fishermen exercising theH treaty
1iher+, Of fishing in British waters were
.pbiect n all fishing regulations and re-
strictions imposed by British law upon
British fishermen.
To this the United States objected. CON
tending that no such regulations could he
srnposed upon American fishermen unless
they were appropriate and necessary Tor
the protection and preservation Of the
fisheries and reasonable in themselves.
and not so framed 10 give the local
fishermen IN unfair advantage over Amer1-
can fishermen. and the United States fur
-bar commended that in case Of dispute
h. eola ind
Of the reasona.bleness. fairness, approprt-
ateuess and Necessity of any regulation OBJ
iocted TO by the United States
Nothing TO Lose, Much 10 Gain.
The situation thus presented left the
United States at A great disadvantage. in
aer,,l~b as Great Britain was in a position
10 seize and confiscate American hshlng
vessels in British waters for violating local
fishing regulations. whereas the United
States, on the other hand. could only resort
10 Diplomatic remonstrance and argument,
which produced no result but delay and
counter argument on the part OF Great
Britain. It was evident. therefore. that the
United States could lose nothing and might
gain much by having the issue settled by
arbitration.
In arranging for the submission OF this
question 10 arbitration the United States
modify its previous attitude as 10 admit
that no regulations could be enforced
zrsinS1 American fishermen in British Wa
1ers under the treaty. unless they were
reasonable and fair and appropriate and
necessary. as defined in the first question
submitted.
This was an immense gain to start with,
snd as a result the only issue which re
-nained was whether or not Great Britain
could be the sole judge of the reasonabl BILE
ness. etc. Of any fishing regulations oh
5ected TO by the United States. and this
issue. as stated above. was decided in favor
Of the United States.
AS q result Of this arbitration. there
fore II is now settled that when the ques-
ZION Of TIE reasone bleness of any regula-
lion is raised by the United States, that
Question must he submitted 10 some impair
-ial tribunal for decision: and il was fur
1her determined by the award that, pending
such decision. the enforcement Of any such
regulations against American fishermen
must be suspended.
Commission OF Experts TO Act.
As a further result Of the arbitration
al the existing fishery regulations Of New
@oundland and Canada. TO which the United
States has objected as unreasonable when
applied 10 American fishermen in treaty
waters. have been referred bN ihe iTlnuhdl
al the request Of the United States TO a
commission of experts. which commission
Is authorized TO pass upon the reasonable
ness OF such regulations in accordance with
the provisions Of the special agreement un-
Ger which the arbitration is held.
The results thus secured are eminently
fair and just 10 both parties. and in their
practical effect secure 10 the American fish !
errnen substantially the same measure Of
protection against unfriendly treatment by
the colonial authorities which would have
1een secured had the extreme contention OF
1he United States been sustained.
The only one Of The seven questions sub !
rnitted which was not decided wholly in
favor OF the United States was Question 8, |
which called upon the tribunal TO deter |
mine the meaning OF clause in the treaty |
ly Which the United States renOunCed the |
right to fish in all the bays on certain por |
lions Of the Canadian and Newfoundland /
coasts.
Held 20 Strict Construction.
In answering this question the tribunal 1
by z divided vote adopted the strict con 1
structiOn OF the language of the treaty and |
held that the renunciation applied TO all 1