The lopsided 100-35 vote Monday by which the House rejected an attempt to defeat the Passamaquoddy fishing rights bill shows a substantial majority of representatives truly want to improve the sour relationship between the state and the tribe. But the arguments used against the measure suggest Maine has a long way to go in patching things up with its original residents.

The bill allows the tribe to issue its own commercial fishing licenses, subject to state laws and regulations. It allows tribe members to fish in closed seasons only for the sustenance of their immediate families or households, or for ceremonial purposes. It makes available to the tribe one-time allocations of 24 lobster licenses and 24 urchin licenses, fisheries now under statewide moratoriums for new entrants.

Given the small size of the Passamaquoddy population — roughly 2,000 men, women and children — this bill will cause hardly a ripple in Maine’s marine resources. A total of 48 lobster and urchin licenses won’t even be noticed among the 7,000 or so already out there. Sustenance, immediate family, household and ceremonial purposes are not nebulous terms impossible to define. Yet there still are lawmakers who insist this bill gives away the store.

The bill does not rewrite, circumvent or in any way tinker with the federal 1980 Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act or with the accompanying state implementing act. Those laws dealt solely with land claims, and all who were involved in writing them agree that saltwater fishing was to be taken up later but never was. To assert that any rights not specifically assigned to the tribes belong to the state is wrong, not to mention highly unconstitutional.

Critics also worry that the timing of the bill is wrong, given that 14 Passamaquoddys still face charges for fishing without licenses. These Passamaquoddys had fished off and on for years, often unlicensed, without any trouble. Last year, as the state and the tribe, after nearly two years of negotiation, were close to an agreement remarkably similar to this bill, the state, for no apparent reason, started hauling these indigenous fishermen into court. The state’s inexplicable breach of faith, combined with the minor nature of the offenses, must not be used to thwart this legislation. The way around this impasse is clear; pass the bill and drop the charges.

That there is opposition at all to this bill shows that the more time that passes between the Land Claims Settlement and the present, the more the scope and intent of the settlement is miscontrued, skewed in the state’s favor. The strong vote Monday is a positive sign that a majority of lawmakers are willing to set things straight.