Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 07.djvu/754

FISHING LAWS. wrongly to surrender certain incontestable American rights. Apart from certain political considerations which compelled American disapproval of these treaties, there were opposite interpretations which arose some years after the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and there were also additional interpretations of treaty rights advanced by the British North American colonies, before and after confederation in 1867. As regards the Treaty of Paris, the American claim, urged by the commissioners during the negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent and on subsequent notable occasions, was that the rights guaranteed by treaty in 1783 were not new, but the continuance of proprietary rights already existing and acknowledged. Not even the restriction as to the three-mile limit, which is the especial feature of the Convention of London, is admitted by some American writers; but the terms of that convention are, nevertheless, accepted by both governments as the binding arrangement in default of a treaty superseding them. It is also contended in behalf of the United States that, by a reciprocal arrangement entered into between that country and Great Britain in 1830, and by Article XXIX. of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, American fishing-vessels are entitled to the same commercial and transportation rights as other American vessels. Further, it is claimed that the so-called ‘headland doctrine,’ which presumes to fix the three-mile limit by drawing a line from headland to headland instead of following the sinuosities of the coast, and by which American fishermen are prevented from entering Canadian bays and harbors to purchase supplies and tranship their catch, was not recognized by Great Britain but was an invention of the Canadian Government. It is contended, also, that the stipulations of the Convention of London which allow the entrance of American vessels into Canadian bays and harbors for repairs, shelter, wood and water should be deemed privileges on the ground of their humanity and ought not to be embodied in a treaty. The opposed contentions of Great Britain and Canada have been urged at various times by their commissioners in treaty negotiations, and in the writings and speeches of public men. It is claimed that the American fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris of 1783 were abrogated by the War of 1812 and were in consequence ignored by the Treaty of Ghent; that the American renunciation of the liberty of fishing within the three-mile limit, as set forth in the Convention of London, is definite and final, that American fishing-vessels were not within the meaning of the reciprocal arrangement of 1830; that the headland doctrine, and the restriction of the right of American fishing-vessels in Canadian bays and harbors to the purposes only of obtaining shelter, repairs, wood and water, is urgently necessary to protect Canadian fisheries.

Such are the main opposing views. The North Atlantic fisheries since 1885 have been regulated by the Convention of London. Reference has already been made to the temporary arrangement offered by the British Commission pending the ratification of the proposed Chamberlain Bayard Treaty of 1888, and to the enactment of this arrangement into a Canadian law. The last attempt to settle the fisheries question was made by the Joint High Commission, which met in Washington in 1899, but subsequently adjourned

indefinitely without settling the various questions proposed.

The fishing laws as between Great Britain and France in Newfoundland waters and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence were fixed by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, the Treaty of Paris of 1814, and the arrangement signed at Paris in 1885. By the first of these treaties Newfoundland was ceded to Great Britain, and the French were allowed to catch fish and dry them on land on that part only of the coast which stretches from Cape Bonavista to the northern part of the island, and thence, running down by the western side, reaches as far as Point Riche. By Article V. of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, which confirmed French rights on the coast, liberty was given to fish in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence at a distance of three leagues from the coast, and on the Cape Breton coast at a distance of fifteen leagues, the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon being ceded to France as a shelter to her fishermen. In 1783 the Treaty of Versailles varied the French shore fishing limit, giving up the strip of coast from Cape Bonavista to Cape Saint John, but extending the western coast limit to Cape Ray. The Treaty of Paris of 1814 confirmed these rights, and the arrangement of 1885 was entered into chiefly to calm the discontent of the British colonists of the islands, who were harassed on and ejected from the French shore. Article II. of that arrangement permits the formation of establishments on that coast shore for every other industry than fisheries, and stipulates not to disturb resident British subjects between Cape Saint John and Cape Ray passing by the north.

The conditions produced by these French rights are seriously detrimental to the interests of the colony, and the Newfoundland Legislature has refused to accept the settlements which have been proposed by various conventions. The opposing claims of the colonists and the French fishermen are clearly defined. The colonists contend that French rights under the Treaty of Utrecht do not forbid them to fish between Cape Saint John and Cape Ray so long as they do not interrupt French fishing; that the fishermen have exceeded their rights in catching and canning lobsters; that colonial settlements and enterprises, other than fixed fishing establishments, are hindered and also the working of mines; and that portions of the coast on which the French renounced their rights are worthless. The fishermen contend, on the other hand, that their rights under the treaties are exclusive, and that all British fixed settlements between Cape Saint John and Cape Ray are illegal.

Of late years the colonists have grown increasingly impatient, but the urgent friendly requests of Joseph Chamberlain, the British Colonial Secretary, have induced them to postpone for a term a final settlement. Annual agreements have been made, establishing a modus vivendi, until Great Britain is in a better position finally to settle the question with France and relieve Newfoundland from the anomalous position of not exercising rights over the whole of her own soil.

Consult: Paterson, Fishery Laws (London, 1878); Kent, Commentaries on American Law; Washburne, The American Law of Real Property (Boston, 1902); New York Forest, Fish, and Game Law (Albany, 1902); Doran, Our Fishery