Page images

eign Affairs of the Netherlands Government and the American delegation that the United States should assist in procuring the signatures of the Latin-American states to the convention. When this became known there were those amongst the delegates who seemed to believe that an onerous task had been placed upon the shoulders of our government. But such a belief has been blown to the winds by the ready response which the American and Netherlands Government have received from the Latin-American states to their overtures, for within six months of the signing of the convention at The Hague the following Latin-American Governments have deputed their diplomatic representatives to the Netherlands or to other European states to sign the convention: Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador, Honduras, Cuba, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina and Nicaragua. Peru and Paraguay will beyond a doubt soon sign the convention.

Several of these countries have large commercial interests at stake, but this government has received from all of them a tribute of admiration for its leadership in this great diplomatic, economic and moral reform.

A final word as to China: It was in essence the heroic resolve of the Chinese Government and people to stamp out their opium evil which induced the American Government to call the nations of the world together on the question. During the sittings of The Hague conference China was in the throes of her revolution. There were members of the conference who could not refrain from asking, Of what use is it for the Western Powers and Japan to support China in her crusade against opium when there is no assurance that the movement in the Empire will not break down with the departure of the Manchus? It is to the great credit of all the delegations that this view was never openly voiced on the floor of the conference, though it threaded disconnectedly through many minds. This was largely because the Chinese delegation itself made it evident that the opium reform was not spasmodic and a matter of authority, but genuine, and of and by the will of the people, and was perhaps the largest single factor of the past eight years in awakening Chinese minds to the possibilities of the rôle which their country might play in the social and economic progress of the modern world. Un

doubtedly there has been a recrudescence of the production of opium in portions of China as the result of the laxity of government in certain of the provinces, due to the revolution. But that is only temporary. The great men of new China like Dr. Sun Yat Sen, President Yuan Shih Kai, and Vice-President Li Yuan Hung are determined that China shall not waver in her purpose to suppress the great national vice. This may best be realized by quoting a recent statement of Yuan Shih Kai on the question.

After referring to several other matters of reform, Yuan Shih Kai stated: "More important by far to the present generation of my people is the complete extermination of opium and the opium habit. China has been dying from this curse for more than half a century,-fifty-nine years ago to be exact. Her people, overcome by this vile drug, have been half asleep and have not known that they and their country were dying. Years ago the nation appealed for outside aid in its suppression, and the world knows what aid was rendered. The drug was forced upon us more than before. For nearly sixty years it has stood as a great crime of humanity. But we will stop it and free the land of the devouring scourge. Our National Assembly has already passed many laws regarding it, and these laws will be enforced. We are establishing an army, and that army will fight opium and opium smugglers on all the frontiers of land and sea, opium dealers and sub-dealers in all of the cities and towns, and opium users everywhere."

There can be no doubt that a great wrong was committed against China in permitting the influx of opium to her shores, at a time when it was known that her best men had set their faces steadily against it. It would be easy to blame some one nation for this; yet as a matter of fact there are but few nations whose subjects did not at one time or another take part in the trade. Happily, to-day the world has the best evidence possible, as contained in the International Opium Convention, that an old wrong will be atoned, and that one of the great factors in the difficult relations, diplomatic, economic and otherwise,-between China and the West will soon be obliterated.





CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, George Washington University.

AMOS S. HERSHEY, Indiana University.

CHARLES CHENEY HYDE, Northwestern University.

GEORGE W. KIRCHWEY, Columbia University.

ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y.

JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University.
GEORGE G. WILSON, Harvard University.
THEODORE S. WOOLSEY, Yale University.

Editor in Chief

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C.

Business Manager

GEORGE A. FINCH, 2 Jackson Place, Washington, D. C.




The final settlement of the century-old controversy between the United States and Great Britain over the rights of American fishermen in the coastal waters of Canada and Newfoundland, which were secured by the treaty of 1818, appears to be an accomplished fact, as a result of the agreement between the two governments, signed on July 20, 1912, the ratifications of which were exchanged on the 15th of November last. The terms of this agreement appear in the SUPPLEMENT (page 41), and in an article in this number of the JOURNAL (page 1), Mr. Chandler P. Anderson, the agent of the United States in the arbitration of the

controversy, and who, as counselor of the Department of State, conducted the subsequent negotiations, gives a comprehensive review of the questions involved, the effect of the arbitral award, and the satisfactory conclusion reached through the agreement of July 20th.

In view of the previous articles and editorial comments which have already appeared in the JOURNAL in regard to the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, we shall here make reference only to the recent agreement and its effect upon the future relations of the two countries in regard to the fisheries.

In the award rendered at The Hague in September, 1910, not only were the disputed meanings of certain provisions in the treaty of 1818 determined by the arbitration and the general principles laid down for the exercise, by American fishermen, of their rights of fishery in British territorial waters, but the arbitrators, pursuant to the special agreement submitting the controversy to arbitration, made a series of recommendations for the consideration of the two governments as to measures giving practical effect to the award.

The recommendations related to the exercise of the sovereign right of Great Britain and the British colonies to regulate the conduct of the fisheries in their territorial waters, to which fishermen of the United States were by treaty entitled to resort, and also to the delimitation of the bays on the non-treaty coasts, within three marine miles of which Americans were debarred by treaty from taking fish.

In view of the fact that the interpretation of the word "bays" by the award was recognized to be difficult of direct application because of the indefiniteness of the standard of identification announced, the recommendations of the tribunal as to delimitation of the bays assume an added importance, since they undoubtedly embody the idea of the arbitrators as to how their interpretation should be applied in the case of each bay on the non-treaty coasts. However, as these practical applications of the award were only in the form of recommendations, they did not have the same binding force on the two governments as the declarations of the award proper. Though they presented a reasonable and equitable mode of settlement, they required the mutual consent of the parties to give them force.

The recommendations of the tribunal for a method of settling the respective rights of American fishermen and of the British colonial governments in the territorial waters of Canada and Newfoundland stood upon a different footing than the recommendations in regard to bays.

Throughout the controversy and in the argument at The Hague, the United States had maintained that, on account of the provisions of the treaty of 1818, the imperial and colonial governments were prohibited from putting into force any laws or regulations limiting the free exercise of American rights of fishery until their reasonableness had been adImitted by the United States or had been declared by an impartial tribunal.

This contention, which amounted to a claim that Great Britain and her colonies must suspend the enforcement of their sovereign right of legislation until the character of the legislation could be tested by the standard of reasonableness, was vigorously opposed by Great Britain. However, the arbitrators, in seeking to furnish a practical method of harmonizing the respective rights of the parties, included in their award a recommendation to the two governments that the enforcement of fishery legislation should be suspended for a period of six months, in order that it might be passed upon by a mixed commission to determine whether it was or was not reasonable.

It is manifest that this latter recommendation could not be considered to be an application of the principles declared by the award since they, to all intents, were based upon the contention of the United States. They go no further than to suggest that Great Britain recede from her position and secure an amicable settlement by suspending the operation of legislation in accordance with the contention of the United States.

Whether or not these recommendations as to bays and fishery legislation were adopted without amendment by the two governments, it was essential that an agreement should be reached in order that the award should become effective and future disputes avoided. The recommendations offered a satisfactory basis for negotiating such an agreement, and within a few months after the rendition of the award, representatives of the two governments met in Washington to consider the terms of the agreement.

In regard to an acceptance of the tribunal's recommendations regarding the delimitation of the bays on the non-treaty coasts, the fact that they amounted to an interpretation by the arbitrators of their decision undoubtedly caused the conferees of both governments to view them with favor. Yet there was a difference in dealing with the recommendations delimiting the bays along the Canadian coasts and those affecting the bays along the non-treaty coasts of Newfoundland. The Canadian

« PreviousContinue »