FISHERY QUESTIONS. 



281 



gated, and when the treaty of peace was con- 

 cluded refused to accept the restoration of her 

 former right to navigate the Mississippi in re- 

 turn for the fishery. Thus the United States 

 lost the inshore fishing rights, and the use of 

 the uninhabited coasts for drying and curing 

 fish, and were restricted to the limit of three 

 nautical miles from the nearest shore, which 

 has been accepted in international Jaw. 



The Fishery Treaty of 1818. American vessels 

 were seized, and a diplomatic correspondence 

 was opened by John Quincy Adams, who 

 claimed that the treaty of 1783 had recognized 

 an imprescriptible right. The New Englanders 

 had developed and defended the fisheries, and 

 the acknowledgment of their rights was of the 

 same nature as the partition of the territories 

 in North America by the same treaty. The 

 question was settled by the Convention of 1818, 

 whereby the United States gave up the right 

 claimed of fishing and of curing and drying fish 

 within the maritime boundaries except on the 

 southern shore of Newfoundland, from the 

 Rameau Islands westward to Cape Ray, and 

 thence along the whole western and northern 

 shore to Quirpon Island, on the opposite coast 

 of Labrador from Mount Joly northward 

 through the straits of Belle Isle, and on all the 

 shores of the continent and islands farther 

 north; also on the shores of the Magdalen 

 Islands. The right to dry or cure fish on the 

 coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador de- 

 scribed was granted for so long a period as 

 those coasts should remain unsettled, and after- 

 ward on agreement with the inhabitants or 

 proprietors of the ground. The rights defined 

 in this treaty were to be permanent and not 

 liable to be denounced or to lapse in case of 

 war. The United States renounced the liberty 

 to take, cure, or dry fish on or within three 

 marine miles of the other coasts, bays, or har- 

 bors of the British dominions, " provided, how- 

 ever, that the American fishermen shall be per- 

 mitted 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 manner abusing 

 the privileges hereby reserved for them." The 

 American commissioners originally inserted 

 bait among the supplies that might be pro- 

 cured, and then suffered it to be stricken out 

 as being a concession of slight value, as was 

 the fact before the mackerel fishery was devel- 

 oped. The inshore mackerel fishery tempted 

 American fishermen to transgress the three- 

 mile limit, while the provincial authorities be- 

 gan to impose novel penalties for infractions of 

 the treaty, and to interpret its provisions in 

 new ways. In 1841 the British legal authori- 

 ties broached the headlands question, laying 

 down the doctrine that in all bays the three- 

 mile limit should be taken from a line drawn 

 from headland to headland, and that Ameri- 



cans therefore possessed no fishery rights in 

 the bays of Fundy and Chaleur ; also that 

 they had not the right to land on the shores of 

 the Magdalen Islands or to navigate the Strait 

 of Canso. The Nova Scotian authorities ap- 

 plied the principles thus enunciated, closing to 

 Americans the herring fishery of the Magdalen 

 Islands, and in 1843 seizing a fishing- schooner 

 in the Bay of Fundy. When Edward Everett, 

 the minister at London, demanded an expla- 

 nation of this act, the British Government 

 offered to admit Americans to the fisheries of 

 the Bay of Fundy ; but, on receiving a protest 

 from Nova Scotia, retracted the concession. 

 The question was discussed by a joint commis- 

 sion in 1853, and on the disagreement of the 

 commissioners was decided by an umpire, who 

 held that bays are not territorial waters when 

 the distance from headland to headland ex- 

 ceeds ten marine miles. 



The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, The fishery 

 question had become involved with negotia- 

 tions for reciprocity of trade between Canada 

 and the United States, and was used by the 

 politicians of the British provinces as a means 

 of obtaining commercial concessions. In 1854 

 the Elgin treaty of reciprocity was concluded. 

 Canadian natural products were admitted free 

 of duty into the United States, and the inshore 

 fishing privileges were granted to Americans, 

 as under the treaty of 1783. The maritime 

 provinces objected to this, but the British Gov- 

 ernment, anxious to obtain for the produce of 

 Canada an outlet to repair the loss of the ex- 

 clusive market the colonies had enjoyed in 

 Great Britain before the adoption of free 

 trade, paid no attention to them. The pro- 

 vincials had no reason to complain of the 

 operation of the treaty, for the trade that 

 sprang up between them and the neighboring 

 parts of the United States led to the develop- 

 ment of neglected resources, and was followed 

 by prosperity such as they had never before 

 known. Even the fisheries partook of the 

 general improvement, and were hardly injured 

 by American competition. By the treaty of 

 1854 the bounty system came to an end in the 

 United States. The bounties, which had been 

 granted to fishermen by the general Govern- 

 ment since 1789, had been one of the chief 

 causes of the jealous and hostile feelings enter- 

 tained on the fishery question in the maritime 

 provinces. Their removal was the special 

 compensation to the colonial fishing-industry 

 for the admission of Americans to the terri- 

 torial fishing-grounds. Inconsequence of un- 

 friendly acts of the British and Canadians dur- 

 ing the civil war, the relations between the 

 Government at Washington and the British 

 Government were so strained that neither 

 party was disposed to renew the treaty, which 

 terminated in 1866. The citizens of the mari- 

 time provinces now felt aggrieved because the 

 British ministers had not seen a way to per- 

 petuate the commercial relations that had been 

 to them a source of wealth and prosperity. 



