Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

All of this treaty that bears directly upon the present subject is contained in Article I, which is in the following words:

Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty, claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company. And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, above described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bars, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits: Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.

This article sets out with stating the precise subject with which it has to deal, viz: That differences have arisen respecting the liberty, claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America.

Thus it will be seen that the matter to be dealt with was a claim in favor of the inhabitants of the United States to do certain things within the territorial dominion of His Majesty, and not a matter touching the right of the inhabitants of the United States to cruise, fish, or do any other thing in waters that by the public law of nations did not belong to the territorial jurisdiction of His Majesty. The matter to be dealt with being, then, simply that affecting American fishermen coming within the territorial dominion of His Majesty, it was provided that Americans might fish on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands; and on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland from said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, and on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company; and that the American fishermen should have the liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, above described, and of the coast of Labrador, subject to noninterference with settlers, etc.

And by the same article the United States renounces any libertyto take, dry, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of

[ocr errors]

repairing damages therein, and of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.

The committee is of opinion, in view of this history and of the plain language above quoted, that this article was intended to deal and did deal only with the subject of the admission of American fishermen within the territorial jurisdiction of His Britannic Majesty as defined by the public law of nations.

The first question for consideration, then, is whether the pretension that has been sometimes asserted by the Government of Great Britain, that American fishing vessels or others have no right, except at the pleasure of the British Government, to be in or to prosecute lawful pursuits in the great arms of the sea extending between parts of the mainland belonging to the British and which are more than 6 marine miles broad, is well founded ?

The committee can not doubt that any such pretension is ill founded. It is plain that such a pretension is an invasion of the principles of public law now almost universally recognized by all civilized powers, and one which, it is believed, the British Government would be indisposed to accede to when applied as against its subjects. It would seem to be clear that by the universally recognized public law among civilized nations territorial jurisdiction of every nation along the sea is limited to 3 marine miles from its coasts as they may happen to be, whether embracing long lines of open coast or embracing great curvatures of seashore which may and often do almost surround vast bodies of the waters of the ocean. The phrase of the treaty, therefore, speaking of bays, creeks, and harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions, must be understood as being such bays, creeks, and harbors as, by the public law of nations, were and are within the territorial jurisdiction of the British Government. The committee is, therefore, clear in its opinion that any pretension that exclusive British jurisdiction exists, either by force of public law or of this treaty, within headlands embracing such great bodies of water and more than 6 marine miles broad, must be quite untenable.

Another question may arise, in respect of whether American fishing vessels or other American vessels may lawfully traverse the Gut of Canso (a narrow strait connecting the waters of the Atlantic on the southeast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton with the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the northwest). This strait is a few miles long, and much less in some of its parts than 6 miles wide. It is naturally navigable for seagoing vessels, and always has been navigated and used for the passage of vessels from the southward into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and back again southward by vessels finding it convenient so to use it.

The committee is of opinion that, in the absence of special treaty arrangements, such straits as the Gut of Canso are free for public and peaceable navigation in the same manner that the seas which they connect are.

A comparatively recent and notable instance of the application of this principle is found in the case of the Simonoseki Strait, in Japan, connecting the Korean Channel, to the northwest of Japan, with the Pacific Ocean on the southeast. This strait at one of its points is very much less than 3 miles in width; and the passage of mercantile vessels of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands having been interrupted there by Japanese batteries, etc., Japan was compelled by these four Governments to make reparation, after both British and American vessels of war had forcibly destroyed the Japanese batteries.

Of course, the right of peaceful passage through the Gut of Canso by unarmed vessels is entirely distinct from any right to fish or do any other thing there than merely to pass through. And if, in such an instance, a purely fishing vessel of the United States, having no other character whatever, should wish to pass through that strait from one part of the sea to another, it is presumed that it would hardly be insisted by the British Government that such a passage for such a purpose was prohibited by the first article of the treaty of 1818, which, as we have before stated, was applicable only to the matter of taking fish, etc., on the specified coasts and to the prohibition of American fishermen as such to enter the British bays or harbors for any other purposes than those of shelter, repairing damages, purchasing wood, and obtaining water. The general right of passage for all vessels entitled to sail the seas was not in any way mentioned, and it must be presumed it was not intended by the language used in the treaty to limit or modify such rights.

On the termination of the reciprocity treaty of 1854 the fishermen of the United States were remitted to the first article of the treaty of 1818, already cited, for the definition and regulation of their rights in the British waters therein mentioned. Between the period of the termination of the treaty of 1854 (namely, 1866) and the treaty of 1871 some considerable dificulty and discussion took place concerning the question whether the 3-mile line should be ascertained by drawing the same from headland to headland (as across the Bay of Fundy and the Bay Chaleur), or whether it should be drawn 3 miles from the actual shores of such bays and headlands. The general result of those discussions would seem to have been an acquiescence by the British Government in the right of American fishermen to fish within those bays and exterior to a line 3 miles from the shores. By the treaty of 1871 it was agreed that the fishermen of the United States should have the right to fish inshore under certain limitations therein stated. The last treaty was terminated through the action of the United States on the 1st day of July, 1885, and the first article of the treaty of 1818 again came into operation.

Concluding, then, from what has been before stated, that there is no serious difficulty in respect of the question where American fishermen can carry on their operations, it would seem to be easy to know precisely what our fishermen may and may not do in the territorial waters adjacent to the British dominions.

What they may do may be stated as follows:

(1) They have the liberty to take fish “on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands."

(2) They have the right to take fish “on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands.”

(3) Also "on the shores of the Magdalen Islands."

(4) “Also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast," subject to any exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company.

[ocr errors]

(5) The right to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland," before described, and of the coast of Labrador, without interfering with the rights of settlers, etc.

(6) The right of American fishermen in their character as such to enter the bays and harbors of Great Britain in America for the purpose (a) of shelter, (6) of repairing damages, (c) of purchasing wood, (d) of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever.

But they are to be under such restrictions in respect of their entry into bays and harbors where they are not entitled to fish as may be necessary to prevent their taking and drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.”

The things that by this article American fishermen must not do are:

(1) Fish within 3 miles of any of the shores of the British dominions, excepting those specially above named.

(2) Enter within this 3-mile limit except for the purposes last stated.

The American fishermen, in their character as such purely, must not enter the prohibited waters other than for the purposes of shelter, repairing damages, purchasing wood, and obtaining water; and in doing this they are subject to such reasonable restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent their fishing or curing fish in prohibited waters or on probibited shores, and thereby abusing the privilege of entering those waters for the necessary purposes stated.

What, then, are such necessary restrictions ?

Following the treaty of 1818, Great Britain passed the act of June 14, 1819 (59 Geo. III, ch. 38), on the subject of American fishing and other vessels within the waters of the British dominions in North America, which provided:

(1) That the British King might make such orders in council, either directly or through the governor of Newfoundland or others, as should be deemed proper and necessary for carrying into effect the purposes of the fishery article of that treaty.

(2) A prohibition and punishment of fishing, etc., within the 3-mile limit, other than the coasts in respect of which the treaty provided that Americans might fish.

(3) Forfeiture of vessels, etc., found fishing, etc., within the prohibited limits. This forfeiture was to be enforced in the ordinary course, as in the case of forfeitures under the revenue laws.

(4) That American fishermen might enter any of the bays and harbors of the British dominions in America for the purposes named in the treaty, subject to such restrictions for preventing abuse of that privilege as His Majesty, or the governor, or person exercising the office of governor in any part of the British dominions in America, might make.

(5) That if any person should refuse to depart from such bays, etc., on the requirement of the governor, etc., or neglect to conform to any of the regulations so made, he should be punished by a fine of £200.

The next legislative act touching American tishermen appears to be the act of Prince Edward Island, of 3d September, 1844, which provided that the officers of Her Majesty's customs, etc., or any person specially holding a commission for that purpose, should have authority to go on board any ship, vessel, or boat, within any port, bay, creek, or harbor in that island, or “hovering” within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, etc., thereof; and in either case freely to stay on board such ship, vessel, or boat as long as she shall remain within such port or distance; and if any such ship, vessel, or boat be bound elsewhere and shall continue so hovering for the space of twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to depart, it shall be lawful for any of the above-enumerated officers, etc., to bring such ship, etc., into port, and to search and examine her cargo, and examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and if there be any goods on board prohibited to be imported into this island, such ship, etc., and the cargo laden on board thereof shall be forfeited; and if said ship, etc., shall be foreign and not navigated according to the laws of Great Britain and Ireland, and shall have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, within such distance of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of this island, such ship, etc., and its cargo shall be forfeited; and if the master or any person in command thereof shall not truly answer the questions which shall be demanded of him in such examination, he shall forfeit the sum of £100.

The act then provides for the methods of investigation, condemnation, etc.

The Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia of 1851, chapter 94 (which may have reenacted some earlier act), provided:

(i) That officers of the colonial revenue, sheriffs, magistrates, or any other person duly commissioned for that purpose, may go on board any vessel or boat within any harbor in the province, or hovering within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts or harbors thereof, and stay on board so long as she may remain within such place or distance."

(2) That “if such vessel or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such harbor or so hovering for twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to depart, any one of the officers above mentioned may bring such vessel or boat into port and search her cargo, and also examine the master

upon

oath touching the cargo and voyage, and if the master or person in command shall not truly answer the questions demanded of him in the examination he shall forfeit £100; and if there be any prohibited goods on board, then such vessel or boat with the cargo thereof shall be forfeited.”

(3) That “if the vessel or boat shall be foreign and not navigated according to the laws of Great Britain and Ireland, and shall have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing within 3 marine miles of such coasts or harbors, such vessel or boat, or cargo, shall be forfeited.”

It then provides for the method of procedure, etc. This provision was reenacted in the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia by the provincial act of May 7, 1858. This reenactment contained in its twentysecond section of title 25, chapter 94, a provision suspending those parts of it relating to American fishing vessels during the continuance of the treaty of reciprocity of 1854.

The committee has not been able to discover any orders in council made by the British King, as authorized by the act (59 Geo. III, ch. 58), and, so far as we have been able to examine, the regulation of the entrance of American fishermen within the limits wherein they were not entitled to fish has been made by colonial statutes such as have been above recited. That of Prince Edward's Island, of 1843 (6 Vict.,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »