The FisJici-y Question. 



/ o 



jurisdiction. The subject is for the consider- 

 ation of the representatives of the United 

 States and the Imperial governments. It is 

 well understood that the American interest 

 does not claim the riorht to fish within the three- 

 mile limit, except in the localities reserved by 

 treaty. '°3 The opinion expressed is to the 

 effect that the concession is not of sufficient 

 value to justify an enlightened selfishness in 

 remitting the duty on Canadian fish, not to 

 mention any extensive measure of reciproc- 

 ity. The area outside, where the right is 

 unquestionable, is abundantly sufficient, owing 

 to the use of the purse seine. In spite, there- 

 fore, of various theories affirming that the 

 mackerel hibernate on the Canadian coasts, 

 or are kept in-shore by the influence of Arctic 

 currents and acknowledging the capricious- 

 ness of the fish,'°+ none of the American 

 fleet have been seized during the past year, 

 while actually fishing, and in only two in- 

 stances for a technical attempt to fish. In 

 almost every case the seizure has been com- 

 plicated by a constructive evasion of the cus- 

 toms laws. While the United States Minis- 

 ter characterizes the strict interpretation of 

 the Convention of 1818 as ''preposterous," 



