Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1910-06-01
ly they we're cordially Toasted at
public banquet.
The Harne Tribunal.

cries dispute now before The Hague
tribunal, the questions involved are
varied and important. The liberties
conferred by the treaty of 1918 were
coded to the inhabitants" of the
United States. The first point to be
decided is what is meant by the word
inhabitants" Can vessels flying the
American flag employ fishermen not
alone residing in the United States,
but who may be shipped in Canadian
ports or on the high seas OFF the New
foundland seaboard, beyond territorial
Jurisdiction? Newfoundland holds that
none but genuine inhabitants" of the
republic residing in that country and
shipped at an American port can be
employed, while America takes the
position that the flag covers all who
may be on board, and that if ship
has its proper papers it is not within
the province of the British or colonial
governments to inquire into the ma
tionality of those who may make up
its crew.
The second point that arises is what
is meant by the liberty TO take fish
lin common" with British subjects.
Does it give the Americans the same
rights in every respect as are enjoyed
by the colonists, and If so. does 1t rem
der Americans liable to the same OBJ
legations as are imposed upon British
subjects by the colonial fishery laws?
In other words. are American fishing
vessels and their crews, operating In
Newfoundland waters, bound, by the
local regulations that may be made
from year to year by the island par
lament? Newfoundland contends that
they are so bound, but the United
States maintains that any such regu-
lations must be by joint agreement,
dictated solely with the object Of pre-
serving the fisheries, as If the colony
we're con coded the right TO make regu-
lations of itself 1t could so frame them
as TO destroy the value of the liberties
granted to American subjects by
treaty.
The third question arising is as to
whether inhabitants Of the United
States are required to report at the
custom houses, pay light or other du-
ties, or be subject to any similar reg
ulations. Newfoundland contends that
for the maintenance Of its rights of
sovereignty. the prevention of snug
Cling. and the carrying out of ordinary
jurisdictional powers, 1t Is entitled
to require that vessels of every ma
tionality entering its waters must
report at custom houses. and, as they
participate in the benefits of its light
houses and other service, should pay
light and harbor and other similar
dues, whereas the United States main
tains that American fishing vessels
are under no such obligations.
The fourth question is as to where
the three marine miles off the coasts,
bays, creeks or harbors mentioned in
the treaty Of 1918, are to be measured
from. This raises once more the
whole "headland" question, on which
there will doubtless now be a definite
Britain, as a general
thing, maintains that territorial juris-
diction extends seward for three
miles from a line drawn from the
outer headlands, no matter how wide
the bay that is inclosed may be, and
under the exercise of this regulation
in bygone days American fishing YES
sells we're seized for fishing in the Bay
of Fundy, which is 60 miles across.
The United States, on the other hand,
maintains that the three-mile limit
should follow the sinuosities Of the
coast. though in actual practice Amer
lean authorities did not apply this
construction to Boston. New York and
Delaware bays. or other wide inlets
on the Atlantic coast of their own
country.
The fifth question involved is
Americans have the right to
take fish in the bays, harbors and
creeks of Newfoundland and the Mag
dalen islands, as they admittedly have
on the coast of Labrador. Newfound-
land maintains that they have not, on
the ground that the differing phrase
ology implies a difference in the lib
critics conceded, whereas the United
States contends that the admitted
practice since the treaty of 1918 was
negotiated has been for Americans to
fish in these inlets.
Such is the international problem
that presents itself for solution at The
Hague just now, and its determination
will remove the last serious issue that
exists between Great Britain and the
United States. It Is, of course. impos-
sible to forecast what the decision
will be, but none can doubt that It will
be such that in the not distant future
it will be possible for the several par
ties interested to resume operations
on a friendly basis and perhaps pave
the way for reciprocal concessions that
will result to mutual profit and ad-
vantage.