284 



FISHERY QUESTIONS. 



other products into the United States by rail- 

 road, if the Dominion authorities continued to 

 deny to American fishermen the rights secured 

 to them under the treaty of 1818 and by 

 international law. For this was substituted a 

 bill, which originated in the Senate, giving the 

 President discretionary authority to deny to 

 the vessels of the British Dominions entrance 

 into any or all the ports or waters of the Unit- 

 ed States, except in cases of distress, and to 

 prohibit the entry of fish or other products 

 from them into the United States. 



Diplomatic Arrangements. In December, 1886, 

 the American minister in London presented 

 to Lord Iddesleigh a proposal for an ad interim 

 arrangement, the chief feature of which was 

 to establish a mixed commission in order to 

 "separate the exclusive from the common 

 right of fishing on the coasts and in the adja- 

 cent waters of the British North American 

 colonies." The vexed question of the head- 

 lands was to be considered as settled by the 

 former decision of a British referee, viz., that 

 bays can only be claimed as territorial waters 

 when the entrance is ten miles wide or less, 

 or from the point where the width does not 

 exceed ten miles. American fishermen were 

 to have the right of purchasing bait and other 

 supplies, and British and American war-ves- 

 sels were to act as police to prevent poaching 

 on the inshore fisheries. The Canadian Govern- 

 ment declined to accept the proposals either 

 as to the headlands or as to provisionally 

 granting commercial privileges to fishing-craft. 

 On March 24, 1887, Lord Salisbury presented 

 a counter-proposition, which was to return for 

 a season to the condition of things as they ex- 

 isted under the Treaty of Washington. The 

 American fishermen were to have the right of 

 buying bait, hiring crews, and shipping fish by 

 railroad, with the privilege of the inshore fish- 

 eries, and the Canadians the right of import- 

 ing fish duty free into the United States. Mr. 

 Bayard had already proposed a mixed commis- 

 sion. After considerable further correspond- 

 ence, Joseph Chamberlain was sent to Wash- 

 ington in the autumn to endeavor to effect a 

 settlement. The conference began in Novem- 

 ber, and was continued through December 

 without accomplishing much toward reconcil- 

 ing American and Canadian views. A resume 

 of the diplomatic history of the North Atlantic 

 fisheries from their first discovery is given in 

 "The Fishery Question," by Charles Isham 

 (New York, 1887). 



French Fishery Bights. The French treaty 

 with England in 1783 secured to France fish- 

 ery rights nearly identical with those accorded 

 to the United States. A large part of the 

 French rights exist at the present day. There 

 has been as much or more hostility to French 

 fishermen in the colonies as was ever felt to- 

 ward Americans. The right, not only to fish 

 in their waters but to land on their coasts 

 for drying and curing fish, is felt to be a griev- 

 ance by the Newfoundlanders the more so be- 



cause the French have the advantage of a 

 bounty of over $2 a quintal from their Gov- 

 ernment. The British Government has found 

 it necessary to veto various acts of the colonial 

 Legislature designed to hamper the French 

 fishermen. There were certain open questions 

 between the French and British Governments 

 which, after an intermittent controversy ex- 

 tending over many years, were settled by a 

 new convention on Nov. 14, 1885, which was 

 agreed to notwithstanding its being unaccept- 

 able to the colonists. The English Govern- 

 ment has not been guided by the same rules in 

 dealing with the French as have governed its 

 recent course toward the United States. In 

 reference to an act passed by the Legislative 

 Council and Assembly of Newfoundland, in re- 

 gard to the sale of bait, the home Government 

 declared that, in the negotiations that had 

 taken place since 1857, a provision for the sale 

 of bait had always been contemplated. 



North Pacific Fishery Dispute. In 1868, Con- 

 gress placed Alaska under the jurisdiction of 

 the Treasury Department, and in the same act 

 forbade the killing, except by leave of the de- 

 partment, of any mink, marten, sable, or fur- 

 seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the 

 limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters 

 thereof, under penalty of fine or imprison- 

 ment or both, and the forfeiture of any vessel 

 found in violation of the act. The Pribylov 

 islands of St. Paul and St. George, which are 

 the breeding-grounds of the seal, were leased 

 to the Alaska Commercial Company, of San 

 Francisco, at a rental of $60,000 a year, with 

 $2 royalty for every sealskin shipped. The 

 company is allowed to kill none but young 

 male seals, and only during certain months, 

 and is restricted to the number of 100,- 

 000 in any one year, while the use of fire- 

 arms, or of any means tending to drive the 

 seals away, is prohibited. These stringent 

 regulations are designed for the preservation 

 of the seals. They have hitherto been more 

 strictly enforced than similar regulations were 

 under the Russian rule, and, consequently, the 

 seals, which had begun to diminish, have be- 

 come more numerous since the monopoly of 

 the Alaska Company began in 1870. The lack 

 of protective laws has resulted in the disap- 

 pearance of the fur-bearing seal, which once 

 abounded in the Kerguelen group and other 

 islands of the southern hemisphere, in the Falk- 

 land Islands, and on the coasts and islands of 

 South America, from all their known habitats 

 excepting these Alaskan isles. The Indians 

 of the Pribylov Islands are allowed to kill and 

 sell a certain number of seals for their own 

 benefit. The Alaska Company has the monop- 

 oly of the fur-trade of Alaska, as well as of 

 the seal-fishery of the islands, and, since other 

 fur-animals besides seals vanish rapidly before 

 the destructive agencies of white men, many 

 obstacles are placed in the way of opening 

 Alaska to traders, settlers, miners, and hunt- 

 ers. With the increase of population on the 



