THE NEWFOUNDLAND TROUBLE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2209, 2 June 1891, Page 3

THE NEWFOUNDLAND TROUBLE.

The Newfoundland difficulty is thus summarised by the Times:— “ The Treaty of Utrecht substantially gave England the absolute possession of Newfoundland, till then obstinately disputed with France; but, unfortunately, there were reserved to the . latter Power certain rights over the ‘ French shore,’ then of no comLmercial importance whatevei, which sown the seeds of a prolonged international conflict. By the laches of our diplomatists, these rights were allowed to survive not only the treaties r'of the 18th century, but those which followed -the downfall of Napoleon. The colony of Newfoundland has thus been crippled thiougbout the whole of its career by the presence of a foreign Power on a large portion of its coasts, with rights not of possession, but of occupancy for fishing purposes. The French claim that, from Cape Bay, on the west coast of the island, going

northward to Cape St. John, on the east coast, they have an exhaustive right of taking and caring fish. The result of their contention is that they made this right exted to the practical prohibition of the use of British soil by British subjects either for agricultural' or mining purposes. Accord- 1 ing the French view, the Treaty of ( Utrecht and those subsequent treaties which confirmed it forbade all fixed settlement of British {subjects on the coasts from Cape Bay to Cape St. ■ J dhn. This v the N ewfoundlanders most > vehemently contest. At the same time they argue that the rights of catching and:curing on the so-called ‘ French shore,’ conceded to France by the Treaty of Utrecht, do net and cannot,include the privilege of taking lobsters on the coast in question, and setting up ‘canning’ establishments there. • The Newfoundland colonists deny that the French have any treaty rights of fishing on the French shore; they claim a concurrent right for them- ■ selves, bo long as they do not interfere with the French fishermen, and, though they admit they are prohibited from setting up permanent fishing establishments on these coasts, they do. ndV acknowledge they are precluded | from engaging in and spending money upon miaing or agricultural operations. ; TJhis conseqinece of this diplomatic

incapacity in former days has been that fiance and England bare had a standing cause of trouble, only prevented from coming to a head by the good sense of statesmen at Home and of the naval officers on the Newfoundland station. The Newfoundlanders, not unnaturally, have endeavored to make the position uncomfortable for the french by legislating against the of bait, and by setting up the argument that the right of fishing, enforced in the interests of franco by ' treaty, does not cover the right to take and “ can ” lobsters. At the date of the treaty of U trecht, and even ot the time of the fall of Napoleon, lobsters were commercially insignificant because *' canning ” was unknown. Moreover, the bounty system, recently wt Up by the french, bad, of course,

do existence s!: that time. The Newfoundlanders, however, reckoned upon making use of the prohibition of lobster catching to convince the French that they were not acting wisely in driving the colony to the wall.’ This is the sum and substance of the colonial case, and presented in the papers that have now been laid before Parliament. It will, accordingly, be understood why the colonists are already angry because Her Majesty’s Government have agreed to go to arbitration on the lobstercatching question.”