The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-09-21
The Newfoundland Fisheries Decis.
ion.

nounced on Wednesday it's decision
in the Newfoundland fisheries contro-
versy, the points in which were nre-
scnted to 1t with fullness and cogency
at sessions held during the summer.
The questions submitted to the Tribu-
nal were seven in number, of which
! two were decided in favor of the Uni
ted States. The first question was
whether any reasonable regulations
made by Great Britain, Canada and
Newfoundland in the form of muni-
clpal laws, ordinances or rules (such
regulations being appropriate or
necessary for the preservation of the
fisheries, desirable on grounds OF
public order and morals, equitable
and fair as between local fishermen
and inhabitants Of the United States)
are subject to the consent of the
United States. This question the
Tribunal answered in the negative,
that Is, against the contention Of the
United States 1t held in effect that
the right to make such regulations
without the consent of the United
States is inherent in the sovereignty
| OF Great Britain, but that in the ex-
ercise OF the right the treaty Of 1918
must not be violated. and that the
| regulations must not be 80 framed as
| to give the local fishermen an ad-
| vantage over the Americans. The
award provides that existing regula-
tions shall be submitted for judg-
ment as to their reasonableness to
a commission composed of one ex-
pert from each country and DR.. Paulus
Hoek, the fisheries adviser of the
Netherlands.
The other question decided in favor
Of Great Britain was the much dis
cussed three-mile question, the fifth
| in the series, which was presented
in this form, viz: From where must
be measured the three marine miles
of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or
harbors referred to in article 1 Of
the American British Treaty of 1878"
The United States contends that the
measure could be taken from any
part Of the British North American
shore, and therefore that United
States fishermen had liberty to take,
dry or cure fish in the middle Of any
Canadian bay or estuary having a
radius of more than three miles,
while Great Britain argued that the
measure should be taken from an
imaginary line drawn across the
mouth Of a bay from headland to
headland. Under the ruling of the
Tribunal the latter contention pre-
walls.
Upon the other questions the Tribu-
nails decisions have gone in favor of
the United States. In disposing of
the second question in the series, re-
garding the right Of United States
fishermen to employ persons not in
habitants of the United States, the
Tribunal rules that the claim of
Great Britain to prohibit such en-
ployment is unauthorized by the
treaty Of 1918. So, in reference to
the third question submitted, the
conclusion is reached that the lib
critics to take, dry and cure fish in
treaty designated places cannot be
subjected. without the consent Of the
United States, to the requirements Of
entry or report at custom houses, and
like grounds is taken upon the fourth
question, as to whether restrictions
can be imposed upon American fisher
men making the exercise of the priv
ileges granted them by the treaty to
enter certain bays or harbors for
shelter, repairs, wood and water
conditional upon the payment of
light or harbor or other dues on
entering and reporting at custom
houses, or other similar conditions
In deciding the sixth question the
|
the inhabitants of the United States
! the same liberty to take fish in the
bays. harbors and creeks of New
! foundland as in Labrador. Finally,
in passing on the seventh question
| the Tribunal holds that United States
! fishing vessels are entitled to have
the commercial privileges on the
treaty coast accorded by agreement
! or otherwise, to United States trading
vessels generally.
Not unnaturally the decision of
The Hague Tribunal is regarded with
! more satisfaction in Great Britain
and in Newfoundland than in the
! United States, because of the feeling
/ that the questions of greatest IMPORT