A CENTURY OLD PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 131, 12 September 1910, Page 4

A CENTURY OLD PROBLEM.

Now that the Hague International Arbitration Court has decided the Newfoundland fisheries case, which has been before it since July, a troublesome and wearying dispute which has continued at intervals for nearly a century between Britain arid the United (States with reference to the Newfoundland fisheries " is now settled once for all. The dispute f supplies a signal example of the evil con- [ senuences of loose wording in inter- . national agreements. The men who ne-1 ' gotiated the Treaty of 1818 doubtless ■ believed that they (had settled for all l time the rival claims to fishing rights i off the shores of Newfoundland, Labrador, and the eastern provinces of Canada. But scarcely was the ink dry upon the document before disputes arose as to its meaning. The controversy has continued at intervals ever since. It has persistently troubled the relations between Great Britain and the United States; it has at times dangerously strainI ed the ties between the Mother Country '.and her oMest colony and those between that colony and Canada; it has injured and retarded tlie growth of the great industry upon which the prosperity of Newfoundland depended. Three out of the five arbitrators, inenfling the foreigners, the other two being regresentattvea the con-

tending parties. Newfoundland and Canada, being the States of chf- British Em- ' pire immediately concerned, were well j represented on the list. The British I'Agent was Mr. Aylesworth, the Cana- • dian Minister of Justice. Among the ! counsel were the present Prime Minister j and Minister of Justice of Newfoundland. On the American side the most familiar name was that of Mr. Elihu Root, formerly Secretary of State. He was offii cially identified as a member of the Ad- ) ministration with the protracted disI putes over the Alaska -boundary. The issues before the Court were set forth in a lucid article contributed to the American Review of Reviews by Mr. McGrath, of Newfoundland. ''The first | point to be decided is what is meant by I the word 'inhabitants.' Can vessels fly--1 ing the American flag employ fishermen I not alone residing in the United States, but who may be shipped in Canadian ports or on the hi><jh seas off the Newfoundland seaboard, bevond 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. The second point that arises is what is meant by t-hp liberty to take fish 'in common' with British subjects. Are American fishing vessels and their crews, operating in Newfoundland waters, bound by the local regulations that may be made from year to yenr by the island Parliament?' Newfoundland contends that they are so bound, but the United States maintains that any such regulations must be bv joint agreement, dictated solely with the object of preserving the fisheries, as if the colony were conceded the right to make regulations of itself, it 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 duties, or be subject to any similar regulations. Newfoundland contends that she is entitled 1 to require that vessels of every national- ; ity entering her waters must report at ; custom-houses, and, as thev participate in the benefits of her lighthouses and : other services should pav light and harbor and similar dues, whereas the Uniti ed States maintains 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 thp treaty of 1818, are to be measured from. This raises once more the whole 'headland' question, on which there will doubtless now be a definite pronouncement. Britain maintains that territorial jurisdiction extends seaward for three miles > from a line drawn from the outer head-' lands, no matter how wide the bay that I is enclosed may be,, and the United States, on the other hand, maintains that the three-mile limit should follow the sinuosities of the coast. The fifth question involved is whether Americans have the right to take fish in the bays, harbors and creeks of Newfoundland and the Magdalen Islands, as they admittedly have on the coast of Labrador. Newfoundland, maintains that thev have not, on the ground that the differing phraseology implies a difference in the liberties conceded, whereas the' United States contends that the admitted practice since the treaty of 1-818 was negotiated has been for Americans to fish in these inlets."