It is noteworthy that the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 and of the Washing ton Treaty of 1871 was due in each case to the action of the United States Government ; and likewise the proposed Chamberlain-Bayard Treaty, which was acceptable to Great Britain and Canada, was rejected beeause it was believed wrongly to surrender certain incontestable Amer ican rights. Apart from certain political con siderations which compelled American disap proval 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 ad vanced 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 negotia tion of the Treaty of Ghent and on subsequent notable occasions, was that the rights guaranteed by treaty in 1783 were not new, but the continu ance 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 conven tion are, nevertheless, accepted by both govern ments as the binding arrangement in default of a treaty superseding them. It is also contended in behalf of the United States that, by a recipro cal arrangement entered into between that coun try and Great Britain in MO, 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 pre sumes to fix the three-mile limit by drawing a line from headland to headland instead of fol lowing 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 hut was an invention of the Canadi an Government. It is contended, also, that the stipulations of the Convention of London which allow the entrance of American vessels into Cana dian 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 IS30; that the headland doctrine, and the re striction of the right of American fishing-vessels in Canadian bays and harbors is 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 line already been made to the temporary offered by the Ilritish Commission pending the ratification of the proposed Chamberlain-Bayard Treaty of 1SSS, and to the enactment of this arrangement into a Canadian law. The last at tempt to settle the fisheries question lv the Joint High C'onunission. which met in
Washington in 1499, Inn 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 Newfound land 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 front 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 con firmed 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 fisher men. In 1783 the Treaty of Versailles varied the French shore fishing limit, giving up the strip of coast from Cape Bonavista to Cope Saint John, hut extending the western coast limit to Cape Ray. The Treaty of Paris of 1814 con firmed these rights, and the arrangement of 1885 was entered into chiefly to calm the discontent of the British colonists of the islands, who were har assed on and ejected from the French shore. Article II. of that arrangement permits the for mation of establishments on that coast shore for every other industry than fisheries, and stipu lates 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 settle ments between Cape Saint John and Cape Ray are illegal.
Of late years the colonists have grown increas ingly impatient, but the urgent friendly requests of Joseph Chamberlain. the British Colonial Sec retary, have induced them to postpone for a term a final settlement. Annual agreements have I yen made, establishing a 211 odus rirendi. until Great Britain is in a better position finally to set tle the question with Franey and relieve New foundland from the anomalous. posit ion of not eNereising rights over the whole of her own soil.
ConAnit Fishery Lairs ( London, 1878) ; Kent, on ..iincrican hale: \Vashburne. The American of Beal Property (Boston, 11021; York Forest. Fish. and Game (Albany. 1nn2): Doran, Our Fishery Rights in the North Atlantic (Philadelphia, 1888). See GAME Laws; nALE NATUR.E. For a. discussion of international relations arising from the seal fisheries in Bering Sea, see BERING