IMAGE EVALUATrON TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 ^ ^ 122 tiuu Ma ^ IIIIUi& HiotDgraiiiic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical MicroreproductionsV Institut Canadian de microreproductions historlques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, ar» checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ te meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cat exemplaire qui sont peut-itre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de f ilmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peiiiculie □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^as □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies r*^!^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ l^i Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piquees I — I Coloured maps/ D Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noirel Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ I I Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D D D Bound with other material/ Reli* avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long da la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M filmics. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees r~U^howthrough/ C^ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ D Quality inigale de {'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matiriel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition dispcnible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc.. cnt it6 filmies A nouveau de facon A obtenir la meiileure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X ^■^■Bl HH^iMI fg^m^^— ^^^^^ ^^^^__ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^H^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« has b««n rvproduead thank* to tha ganarosity of: Archives of Ontario Toronto Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia eonsidaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy end in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacif ications. L'sxamplaira film* fut raproduit grica i la gAntrosit* da: Archivm of Ontario Toronto Laa imagaa suivantaa ont 4ti raproduitaa avae la piua grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da I'axamplaira fiimA, at •n eonformit* avae laa conditions du contrat da fiimaga. Original eopiaa In printad papar eovars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or iliustratad impraa- sion, or tha bacic covar whan appropriata. All othar original eopiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or iliustratad impraa« sion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or iliustratad imprassion. Laa axamplairaa origlnaux dont la couvartura un papiar aat imprimia sont filmis an commanpant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la damiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaaion ou dlllustration, soit par la sacond plat, salon la eaa. Toua laa autraa axamplairaa origlnaux sont filmAa an eommanqant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaaion ou d'llluatration at an tarminant par la damlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Tha laat racordad frama on aaeh microficha shall contain tha symbol -m^( moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol y (maaning "END"), whichavar appiias. Un daa symbolaa suivants apparaitra sur la damlAra imaga da chaqua microficha, salon la caa: la symbols — »- signifia "A SUIVRE". la symbola ▼ signifia "FIN". Mapa, platas. charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too iarga to ba antiraly includad in ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar iaft hand eomar, iaft to right and top to bottom, as many framaa aa rsquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa. planchaa. tableaux, ate., pauvant Atra fiimte A daa taux da rMuetion diffirants. Lorsqua la document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cilehA, il aat fiimi A partir de Tangle sup4rieur gauche, de gauche k droite, et de haut an baa. an prenant la nombre d'imeges nteesseire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrent la mithoda. 1 2 3 r- 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,.,*»" 1 lltl '/ > i! THE FISHERIES TEEATY. SPEECH ov Hon. henry M. TELLER, OF COLORADO, / - t^^^ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 21, 1888. 4 WASHINGTON. 1888. The Fisheries Treaty. S r E E C H OP HON. HENllY M. TELLEE. The Senate having under coni^ideration the fisheries treaty in open executive eeesion— Mr. TELLER said: Mr. President: I congratulate the Senate and I congratulate the country that we approach the discu^^ion of this case irom what I consider a proper business standpoint; that we are discussing this question in the presence ol' the whole American people; that we, the agents of the people, are giving our reasons for and against this treaty, the reasons that shall govern our votes, in their hearing, and in so doing we are recognizing our obligation to them. The Senators who have favored this treaty have, without exception I believe in this discussion, alluded to the fact that we had taken, or were taking, into our councils not only the American people, but all the people of Great Britain interested in this subject, and the Senators who have favored by their speeches in this Chamber the ratification of this treaty have been pronounced in tboir opinion that such discussion in open session was contrary to the great interests of the American people. They have put it, I suppose, on the ground that we are noti- fying the English Government of the weakness of our case. The Presi- nsiderable number of them advo- cated ip caucus and voted in caucus — as we were told by a Democratic Senator in executive session, the proceedings of which have been made public, and of which I have a right to speak — in I'avor of its discussion in the open Senate. A Senator in my hearing suggests that it is safe to say that two- thirds of the American Senate were opposed to this treaty. Mr. Pres- ident, I said in executive session, and I repeat it here, that if this treaty ^ad come from a Republican administration I do not bplieve tbere is n^<#«twriHj«rw.».^ a Kepublicuu uu this side of the Chamber who would have Hiipported it, and I know that there ia not a Democrat on that side of the Cham- ber who would have nupported it if it liad not come from a Democratic administration; and I know more than ttjat, that there in not any con- fiiderabie number of Senators on that side of the Chamber who would have supported this treaty but for the fact that the power of the Ad- ministration was brought upon that body to compel support of this treaty. It any Senator desires proof that the Administration is the active propagandint of this treaty, I will furnish it. If not, I think I can rest upon the general asHcrtion. Surely when you see the Secretary of State writing letters for publication, when you see the members of this commission, who were connected with the Administration, making pub- lic addresses in its defense and support, when you find the Secretary of State submitting to newspaper interviews in order that he may give the public his views of this treaty, I do not need to go to further proof to show that the whole force of this Administration has been brought to bear to cora}wl the Democratic Senators and the Democratic party to accept this as a Democratic measure. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] attempted tx> give a his- tory of the way in which this treaty came into open session. Now, I may say in the presence of my fellow-Senators of my side, that I was perhaps as active aa any man on our side in bringing this question before the open Senate, and I think I am not mistaken as to how this matter stood. The Senator from Alabama said, as I recollect, that there had been originally forty-one votes in favor of its discussion in secret, and three only in favor of its discussion in the open Senate, the three con- sisting of the Senator who sits on my left, from Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman], and mvnelf. No member of the Senate has forgotten that when that propo. :oa came before the Senate in secret session the Senator from Alabama « eclared in substance that if this treaty was to be attacked by the Republican Senators as a treaty as a whole, without amendment, he was in favor of its discussion in open Senate. I would say that there were several Senators, including the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Kiddlkberger], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MiTCiiELi-], and others, who had always voted in favor of open sessions who were not here when that vote was taken. I will say further that when the Republican caucus voted upon this question there were only three men in it who voted against the open discussion of this treaty. I know that several of the Senators put it upon the ground that the case was sui generin. I know several of themj-eserved for themselves the right to insist that this was not a precedent binding on them in the future. But upon this question we were practically unanimous. The Senator knows very well, as do all the Senators who were in that executive session, that that vote was not a test whether this treaty should be discussed in open session or not. He knows very well that the Democratic side of the Senate were presented to us in the attitude of being ready to go into open executive session if we did not propose to amend the treaty. He knows it was said then and there by a num- ber of Senators on this side that the treaty was of such a character that no nmondment could l)e properly made to it, I myself saying in execu- tive session that it was a treaty untit to be amended, and incapable of being amended to be consistent and harmonious with the purpose and object declared by the State Department. So, Mr. President, the Re- 6 ))iil)l!' nrcoiint. Then came later the vote in executive sesHion by which practlnilly the whole matter wusdocided by the Senator I'rom Maine [Mr. Uau:]. When that vote wa8 taken, at least six men on tlu> other Hide of the Chamber voted with us for an open session. When they saw that the Republicans meant oyten session (which they did not believe before), then these six withdrew their votes belbre the result was iinnouuced. Included in that number are some of the Senators who are to-day criti- cising us for discussing this question in open Senate. So, Mr. President, wi; are liere to discuss this (|uestion ns I believe all (lU&stions of this kind ought to be discussed, where we can face the sentiment of the American people; and since the discussion has begun I believe there has been practically but one sentiment in the country upon this treaty. Although the attempt has been made by the Ad- ministration to commit the Democratic party to it, it has met with very little success, for with the exception perhaps of n few persons in certain sections, there has been no interest in its ratification expressed by anybody. The question of our fishery rights on the northern coast is not a small ((uestion, and it is not a local ({uestion. The people of Colorado who never avail themselves of these rights have as much interest in them' in one sense as the people of Maine, Massachusetts, or any of the New England States. So far as they concern our honor, our dignity, and our rights they have the same interest in them as any other citizens can have, although they may have a pecuniary benefit in the use of the property belonging to the United States, for that is what this fishery claim is. We in the Western country would not be willing that the United States should part with its rights and its privileges because we receive no pecuniary benefit. b»'eaiise we can not start out fishing smacks and fishing fleets. If the fishery is a right that belongs to the people of the United Stiites we want it maintained, and we are in favor of its main-l tenance. as we are in favor of maintaining every other right. We recognize the fact that when the treaty of 1783 was made there, were three tbings that stood out aramount in that treaty. First, our independei ; second, the establ.dhment of our boundaries; and third,! and not le closely connected therewith, our fishery rights; and we should as .,.iickly think of surrendering a portion of the State of Maine at the dictation or the bidding of British greed as we would think ot surrendering a single foot of fishing ground that properly belongs to the nation. And I am^lad to say that we do not belong to the class of men who purchase peace by the surrender of that which is unques- tionably ours. Willing always as we are, as are all the American peo- ple, to concede questions of doubtful authority, of a doubtful character, we are never to be intimidated by threats of war or suggestions of difii- cnlties that will be incurred in the maintenance of that which we all agree rightfully belongs to us. Mr. President, Great Britain might call upon ns to surrender a piece of Maine that would be so small and so worthless as to be insignificant in comparison with the great cost it would be to us to insist upon our rights by war, and yet is there anywhere in this country a citizen so mean and of so little spirit that he would surrender an acre of the rocks of New England at the demand of Great Britain or of all the world? And if so, why should we surrender that which is of equal value and the surrender of which would be equal deKrndiiiion and dis- grace? Mr. President, wo came to these fishery rights exactly as wecnmeto our bouudury riKhts, exactly as we came to our territorial lM)Uti(luri(>fl, exactly as we cuiue to our independiiite. It has been said a^aiu and again that there is not n rod of that country tiiat our uncestora had not fought lor. If Great Britain succeeded in diuuinatiuK that northern sea and compelling her great rival of that time to yield to her it was because the American llsherman made it possible, and made it possi* ble too when British love of peace was in favor oi its surrender. If there is a great British dominion growing up upon our Northern border, it is because the New England lishermen, prior to the Hevolu- lion, taoile it possible for Great Britain to build and rear this great po- itical structuie on our north. And so, when our ancestors came to this question, they did not say to Britain, " We want you should give us this;" they said, "It is ours of right;" and from that day to this there has never been anybody until it has been heard in this Senate — and that, too, within the last two months — who haa denied our right. The right of Great Britain has been uniformly considered exactly as that of a copartner, a cotenant, the United States and Great Britain being owners in common. These terms have all been used again and again by American authorities in the defense of our rights. Nay, they have never been deniAl. No English authority has ever questioned our rights as e(|ual in all respects except as we surrendered them by the treaty of 1818, and what we did not there surrender is ours to this day OS much as it ever was, not by virtue of a treaty any more than our independence is conceded by virtue of a treaty, not any more by treaty than the boundaries fixed between Great Britain's dominion on this continent and ours were fixed by treaty. In 1818 we modified the treaty of 1783. We surrendered some things that were ours, hut, as the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] iihowed, not without considcTnt ion in return. We gave up some things and we got others that were considered then an equivalent. It was not, as has been said, a surrender; it was not a yielding, for the American people at that time were not in the habit of surrendering that which belonged to them. They had gone to war with Great Britain for the purpose of denying a right that the British asserted, the right of search by sea; and when the war was over, and when this question came to be settled, our people insisted that we were, so far as the fisheries were concerned, as we had been before, and when the negotiations were go- ing on for the subsequent treaty it was everywhere insisted in the United States that we would not surrender an inch of territory, nor would we surrender a single privilege that was ours under the treaty of 1783. Nobody who has studied this question can forget the letter of Mr. Adams which he wrote to Mr. Madison, in which be said that he would continue the war forever before he would surrender the fisheries. We never did surrender. We exchanged with the British for what privi- leges we did not have under the treaty of 1783; we took some that we did not have, and we gave up some that we did have. And from that time up to 1830, a period of twelve years, there does not appear anywhere in history that I can find an instance where our rights were questioned or doubted to be exactly what we insist now they are. Practically they were never disputed until 1841 by any authority that was worthy of attention, and practically I might say not seriously until 1843. Contemporaneous exposition, then, of the treaty of 1818 is on the American side; it is according to our view — a view that has been main- tained by everybody conneotrd witb this qiiMtion. Notwithntanding the iiHflertioii tliat the greiit Hm;r«lary of State, Daniel WebHtor, gave away our cuMe, uotwithHtandinK the asflertion made in this Chainbt^r that Kdwnrd Everett gave away tliia cu8e, I oHHert here withunt tear of Buccefwrul contrudictiun that uothinK of tlie kind can )m found, that every act of every adniioiatration, fVoni the day the convention of IHIH Wiw rntitiod up to the time that thin treaty wan HiKiied, hixl l)een in favor of the American idea and the American coDHtruction of the treaty of IHIH. Mr. President, in 1611, or porhapa in IBIiO. one of the Hrilinh prov- inceii made claim of a character inconnistcnt with the conHtrnction put upon the treaty by the American Uoverument, achiim which practically appears to have slept until about 1843. 1 do not intend togo into the general headland theory. I do not intend to discuss the question of bays with the .Senator from Delaware [Mr. Gray], whom I do not see firesent. It is enough for me to know that all of the public authorities n thin country have uniformly held one way upon this nubjcct, and it is enough for me to know that Great Britain, the real and renpectable party in the cose, had acquiesced in that, and had abandoned practi- cally any claim set up either under the headland theory or tho brood- bay theory. Senators who have preceded me have spoken of the Ar^us and the Washington cases as havinj? thoroughly and completely established our position. I know the Senator from Delaware who addresned theSenate some ti'ne since on this subject insisted that the case of the Waflhing- ton did not settle anything; and yet the British Government acquiesced in that as a determination not only whether we had a right to fish in the Bay of Fundy, but in all other bays of like character and similarly situated. And if there is any headland theory to-day in existence in the minds of the British authorities, it is because this Adniinistratiou has revived it; it is because this Administration has brought out from the old rubbish of the past this exploded theory that the right existed to include as British ground all the sea that was within a line drawn from headland to headland, no matter how long it might be or how great. But the American Senate and the American people are not likely to accept this new discovery of this Administration, and are not likely to avail themselves of this old and exploded theory. Mr. President, from 1813, thetimeof the decision in the Washington case, down to 1853 there was practi(;al quiet over this disputed ques- tion. In 1853 the British Government sent several armed vessels to the northern seas where these issues were liable to arise. In 1H50, before this was done, we had overtures from the British Government for reciprocity with Canadn.. Our people had not taken kindly to the idea, and it was thought pt-rhaps then^ as seems to be thought now, that a little coercion would be valuable; that a little pressure might be brought upon us to compel us to yield to their demand, and so a British tleet was sent there with orders to look out for the American fishermen. The matter came into the American Senate, and I wish to call the attention of the Senate very briefly to some observations then made. The discussion was participated in by the most prominent and leading men of that day, notably by Mr. liusk, of Texas; Mr. Borland, of Ar- kansas; Mr. Davis, of MHSsachusetls: Mr. Toncey, of Connecticut; Mr. Mason, of Virginia; Mr. Hantlin, of MhIur; Mr. Cass, of Michigan; Mr. 8oul^, of Louisiana, and a great many others. It was asserted then that uome oi tiieae vessels had been sent into the l< I 0 Cuimtliiin wiitiTs fw )hcpiir|NHt'uf intiinidutiiiK the(iov«>rnment oftlio United StiiteH into tin- •'x»'t'iiiioii (»f ii n'«!i|>rocity treaty. It in Moint- wliat iiitcreMtiMK tot'ompure now with then the nttcriincpH of the prin- cipal unrl leading DenKwrals oC tills hody. To-day \ Hud, ho far oh there hiiH been any n on the Democratic Hide, every Democratic Senator who Iium iirinen hiin prenented the extreme Kritinlk view ot the caHe. Kvery worn-out and explmted theory, every falla- ciooH artinment, every ahnurdity that hiut l)een pnt forth by Cunada and repudiated by Ureat Britain tindflitHadvo4-ate8 on thiHfloor. And 1 conl'eHH mvHelt'to Home de^n-e ofhumiliation wlien I liearaHtatenutnt made hy a Senator of the Unifod Stalen nx to the ri^htHof this Oovern- nient that in in perfect antaj^oninin to that which hanlH^en declared hy every Secretary of Stiite who has ever piuwed niton the ({UeHtion, the present Secretary of State iiiclud(*d; and my dinj^UHt, if I may nne the term propritish doctrine and the Kritish side of the queHtion, deelar«M witli his hiind upon hiHhreant that heisactuatcd and influenced only hy the hi|;hcNt patriotiHui while his op|)oneuta are in- fluenced and actuated hy only the basest partisan purposes. (.)h, Mr. Freaident, th<> Democratic party here and elsewhere will not be able to make the American people believe that the lont< line of honorable men who have h*;en heard upon this (|ueHtion,and who luivu Hto? and the British Govern- ment and the Canadian provinces in their claims had lieeu in the right. Mr. Iforland, of Arkansas, in 1 H.VJ, said : It Is a reniarkHlile fact tlint in l.>oki>>K liiiuk tliroiiKli tlie liistory of our Oov- «riiiiieiit, etupet'iully to tlic war period ol' Isl2, aixl since tliiit time in every tain it is in their power to grasp, and that wliatever they grasp is legitimately theirs. Such is England, She knows where lies the'secret in the fountain of your power. She loathes to see those naval nurseries of yours, those hives of busy seamen pitched upon the waters of what she would have you call her seas, her gulfs, her bays, as so many advanced posts, watching over the deep. She can not but look with extreme jealousy and concern on the growing prosperity of this country, and think it were well for her if she could bar its progress while it has not yet reached its acme. • • * Sir, what does England mean? Whp I i3 she after ? But, hush I She Is nego- tiating. • • ♦ She is negotiating. < * * To negotiate under such circum* stances were to sink in the dust what of pride, what of dignity, what of honor, we have grown to since we became a nation. * * * Until England has with- drawn her squadron, and gives satisfaction for what wrongs she may have per- petrated, let no negotiation be entertained, and if contrary to my expectation any has been entertained, let it be dropped at once and abandoned. — Hon, Pierre Soule (Louisiana), August 12. No patriots responded more readily to their country's call than the fishermen of New England. Who were the seamen in the two wars that guarded our coasts and captured the gallai:'- ships of the British navy? They were mostly the fishermen of our country. Av >«re were they educate the banks of Newfoundland, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Whence could these seamen have been supplied bad not Congress, in its wisdom, encouraged the fishing industry? In the small town of Marblehead alone "at the close of the Revolution there were more than thirteen hundred widows and fatherless children" who had been so rendered by deeds of war. At the close of the war of 1812 it is said that more than five hundred citizens of this town were released from one British prison. A celebrated fisherman of the State of Maine, Skipper Tucker, as he was called, captured more guns during the Revolutionary war than any naval commander in the service. This, sir, is the class of men for whom I speak and whose industry I ask the Government to protect.— tfon. Eno Scudder (.New Hampshire), August 12. At this time the public of Canada were excited, and finally we came to the reciprocity treaty of 1854, a reciprocity treaty which I heard the honorable Senator from Alabama say that he regretted, as I understood him, was not in force now, a treaty that gave to the Canadian Govern- ment 94 per cent, of the advantage of the whole transaction as against 42 per cent, for us — 94 per cent, on import duties was their advantage as against 42 per cent, for us. Subsequently that treaty wasabandoned, and then came the treaty of 1871. The treaty of 1871 is so familiar to everybody in the country that I shall not detain the Senate with any extended remarks upon it. Suffice it to say that we fou nd that we had done j ust what the Senator from Texas [Mr. Keaoan] said as a member of the House a short time ago before he came into this body we always did. He said we had never made a treaty with Great Britain that we did not get the worst of it, although I have no doubt he will vote for this treaty. We found we had the worst of the treaty of 1871, and we found that we were ultimately com- pelled to pay at the rate of JiiOU.OOO a year for a privilege which, if the proof showed anything, it showed was of very little, if any, value at all. Then we abrogated that treaty. We abrogated it as soon as we could. We abrogated it by the course provided tor in the treaty. In 1883 Congress passed a resolution in favor of its abrogation that took effect on the 1st of July, 1885. When this Administration came into power it came in with this 1 13 questien clear, as far as they were concerned without vexation. Congress hud Naid that the treaty of 1871 should be abrogated, and notice had been given, and the Ist of July following the treaty was to be at an end, or at least such portions of it as related to the llsheries. . There had been no demand made by anybody after the treaty of 1871 had been abrogated, by the men interested in fisheries, by the mer- chants upon that coast or anywhere; nobody had suggested that we bad made a mistake, and nobody seemed to be anxious for the contin- uation of the old relations except the Canadians themselves. Seven years before that time, in 1878, we had attempted to retire from it and they had declined to allow us to do so; but nobody in 1885 wanted a continuation of the treaty of 1871 save and except the Canadian Gov- ernment and the British Government because the Canadians did* >So when this Administration came into power they came in un- trammelled. There was no treaty; there was nothing to disturb them. All they had to do was to do what their predecessors had done, insist upon the same construction of the treaty of 1818 that we bad always contended for. I do not forget that while the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. EvARTs] was serving the people in the capacity of Secretary of State a difficulty arose with reference to this question, and I have not forgotten and 1 think the country has not forgotten with what masterly skill he handled the question, and how he brought the Canadians and the British power to acknowledge the correctness of his position in ac- cordance and in line with that of his illustrious predecessors, and how he secured from the British Government a large payment of money to indemnity the fishermen for losses they had sustained under an im- proper construction of the treaty. I know that the Senator from Alabama said that there had been no redress furnished, that these outrages had been going on. Why, Mr. President, the outrages were stopped when it was found that there was a determination that they should stop, and the British not only quit, but they paid for the damages they had caused. Now, sir, what is our complaint against the Canadian and the British Governments ? I would not venture myself to formulate it, but in the correspondence between our minister, Mr. Phelps, and the British au- thorities I find an admirable sttitement of our complaint, which I de- riire to read to the Senate. In writing to the Marquis of Salisbury on the 26th day of July, 1887, Mr. Phelps, among other things, said : But what the United States Government complain of in these cases is that ex- isting regulations have been construed with a technical strictness, aud enforced with a severity, in cases of inadvertent and accidental violation where no harm was done, which is both unusual and unnecessary, whereby the voyages of ves- sels have been broken up and heavy penalties incurred. That the liberal and reasonable construction of these laws that had prevailed for many years, and to which the fishermen had become accustomed, was changed without any notice given. And that every opportunity of unnecessary interference with tlie Amer- ican fishing vessels, to the prejudice and destruction of their business, has been availed of. That is the gist of the complaints as made by our minister to Eng- land. I will' present some other portions of this letter which bear on the same subject, and also an extract from his letter of June 2, 1886, as not only showing what we complain of, but the purpose for which these ontrages are committed. [Complaint of Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury, July 26, 1887.] Wliether, in any of these cases, a technical violation of some requirement of law had. upon close and severe construction, taken place, it is not easy to deter- m.ne. But if such rules were generally enforced in such a manner in the ports 13 Congress notice had 0 be at an atyofl871 the mer- ed that we the contin- es. Seven rom it and wanted a adian Gov- did* ime in un- iturb them, done, insist had always 1 New York Secretary of I have not at masterly ladians and sition in ac- rs, and how af money to ider an im- lad been no Why, Mr. t there was a ily quit, but I the British it, but in the 3 British au- which I de- Salisbury on igs, said : isea is thatex- I, and enforced vherenoharm •oyages of ves- lie liberal and y years, and to out any notice vithtlie Amer- ness, has been later to Eng- hich bear on ne 2, 1886, as r which these 26, 1887.] •equirement of i easy to deter- er in tiie ports of the world, no vessel could sail in siifety witlsout oarryini; a solicitor versed it> the intricacies of revenue and port lenulations. It is unnecessary to upecify tlie various oases referred to, as the facts in many of tliein liave been already laid liefore Her Miijesty's Oovernnjent. Since the receipt of Lord IddeHleiKli's note tlie United Slates Uovernnient haS' learned witit ^ravu reifret tliat Her Majesty's assent Iuih l)een given to tite act of the Parliament of (.'anada, passed at its late session, entitled "An act further to amend the act respecting fishing by foreign vessels," which has been the sub- let of observation in tlie previous correspondence on the subject between the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain. By the provisions of this act any foreign ship, vessel, orboat (whether engaged in fishing or not) found within any harbor in Canay the Canadian Government to include consietter to competent less "disadvantago in the markets of the United States" in the pursuit of tlie deep-sea fisheries. At the outset of this discussion, in my note to Sir Lionel West, of May 10, 188G, I said: "The question, therefore, arises whether such a construction is admissible as would convert the treaty of 1818 from being an instrumentality for the protec- iion of the inshore fisheries along the described parts of the Uritish American coasts into a pretext or means of obstructing the business of dee|>-8ea fishing by citizens of the United States, and of interrupting and destroying the commer- 'Cial intercourse that since the treaty of 1818, and independent of any treaty what- ever, has grown up and now exists under the concurrentand friendly laws and mercantile regulations of the respective countries." Wlien I wrote this I hardly expected that the motives I suggested, rather than imputed, would be admitted by the authorities of the provinces, and was en- tirely unprepared for a distinct avowal thereof, notonlyas regards theobstrno- tion of deep-sea fishing operations by our fishermen, but also in respect of their independent commercial intercourse, yet it will be seen that the (Canadian min- ister of justice avers that it is "most prejudicial" to the intercuts of Ihe provinces " that United States fishermen should be permitted to come into their harbors on any pretext." The correspondence now sent to you, together with otiiers relating to the same subject that has taken place since the President's message of Dcembcr 8, communicating the same to Congress, will be laid before Congress without de- lay, and will assist the two Houses materially in the legislation proposed fur the security of the rights of American fishing vessels under treaty and interna- tional law and comity. I am, etc., T. P. BAYARD Mr. Phelps, the American minister, in a letter to Lord Rosebery of June 2, 1886, which will be found in Senate Executive Document No. 113, page 415, amongst other things, said: The real source of the difHculty that has arisen is well understood. It Is to be found in the irritation that has taken place among a portion of the Canadian people on account of the termination by the United States Government of the ■treaty of Washington on the 1st of July last, whereby flsh imported from Can- ada into the United States, and which so long as that treaty remained in force was admitted ft-ee, is now liable to the import duty provided by the general revenue laws, and the opinion appears to have gained ground in Canada that the United States may be driven, by harassing and annoying their fishermen, into the adoption of a new treaty by which Canadian flsh shall be admitted free. He adds: It is not necessary to say that this scheme is likely to prove as mistaken in water, but not , but not pwr- f she even en- lusloni-hoiise Id be equally eme instjinces 10 one of them dians after? NO thousand merican ves- ith violatioa or what pur- lat it was for ' from them, r from Maine r. Morgan] raoeratic Ad- the purpose. 387, amongst ill be found the )y the coiiven- pen-sea flsliiiiK 11 as will enable vantage in the eries. ofMaylO,188C, a admissible as for the protec- itish American )-8ea flsIiinB by ig the comnier- ny treaty wUal- endly laws and ted, rather than es, and was en- rds theobstruo- respect of their Canadian niin- sf the province."! ;o their harbors relating to the e of Dcember 8, ess without de- )n proposed for ity and interna- F. BAYARD rd Roaebery of Document No. rstood. It is to of the Canadian i^ernment of the lorted from Can- ;mained in force I by the general 1 in Canada that their fishermen, ie admitted free. as mistaken In 16 polioy as it is indefensible in principle. In terminating the treaty of Washing- ton the United Slates were simply ejfercisinKa right expressly reservod lo both parties by the treaty itself, and of the exercise of which by either party neither can complain. They will not be coerced by wanton injury into tlie uaking of a new one, nor would a negotiation that had its origin in mutual irritation be promising of success. The question now is, not what fresh treaty may or might be desirable, but what is the true and just construction us between the two na- tions of the treaty that already exists. That was the sentiment of the American Senate as expressed in the Frye resolution, and which found advocacy on the other side of the Chamber, notably by the Senator from Alabama, who declared over and over again in his speech, as I propo.se to quote before I quit, that we needed no new treaty; that all we needed and all we wanted was a proper construction of the treaty of 1818, which he declared was not difficult to make; and he went further and ."^aid, as I will show, that if it was left to him to add to it, he knew nothing that he could add that would make it more certain. Again, on page 'M of the .same document, Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury, in his letter of January iiG, 1887, said: The United States Government is not able to concur in the favorable view taken by Lord Iddcsleigh of the efl'orts of the Canadian Government "to pro- mote a friendly negotiation." That the conduct of that (iovernment has been directed to obtaining a revision of the existing treaty is not to be doubted; but its ett'orts have been of such a cliaracter as to preclude the prospect of a success- ful noKotiation so long as they continue, and seriously to endanger the friendly relations between the United Slates and Great Hritain. Aside from the question as to the right of American vessels to purchase bait in Canadian ports, such a construction has been given to tlie treaty between the United States and Great Britain as amounts virtually to a declaration of almost complete non-intercourse with American vessels. The usual comity between Iriendly nations lias been refused .n their case, and in one instance, at least, the ordinary ofilces of humanity. The treaty ol fricudsliip and amity which, in re- turn for vcr.v important concessions by the United States to Great Britain, re- served to the American vessels certain specilled privileges has been construed to exclude them from all other intercourse common to civilized life and to uni- versal uuiritime usage among nations not at war, as well as from the right to toucli II nd trade accorded to all other vessels. And ((uite aside from any question arising upon construction of the treaty, the provisions ef the custom-house acts and regulations liave been systematic- ally enforced against American ships for alleged petty and technical violations of legal requirements in a manner so unreasonable, unfriendly, and unjust as to renderthe privileges accorded by the treaty practically nugatory. • « * * * * • It has been seen also that the term "any purpose not permitted by treaty" is held by that Government to comprehend every possible act of human inter- course, except only the four purposes named in the treaty— shelter, repairs, wood, and water. Under the provisions of the recent act, therefore, and the Canadian interpre- tation of the treaty, any American fishing vessel that may venture into a Cana- dian harbor, or may have occasion to pass through the very extensive waters thus comprehended, may be seized at the disaretion of any one of numerous subordinate officers, carried into port, subjected to search and the examination of her master upon oath, her voyage broken up, and the vesse' and cargo confis- cated, if it shall be determined by the local authorities that she has ever even posted or received a letter or landed a passenger in any part of Her Majesty's dominions in America, In a letter of Mr. Phelps to Earl Iddesleigh, September 11, 1886, page 433, our minister said: The conduct of the provincial officers toward these vessels was therefore not merely unfriendly and injurious, but in clear and plain violation of the terms of the treaty. And I am instructed to say that reparation for the losses sus- tained by it to the owners of the veiiM, l)iil hy ilie full conlldi'ni'o that tin- iiite r!H>>itU)n of Her MaJ- «Hly'M (joveriiiiient woulil he hiicIi as to put a Htop to the traiiHai-tion'< coin- Jthiined of, uud to ull'.irU ri^'paiiitioii for what Iihh already (alien place. The Hiib- ect liitH beeoine one ot t^rave importance, and I earnestly Hollvit tlu> ininicdiate attention of your lonlsliip to the (|iu>Htioii it involvcH, and to the vie\vn pre- eeiited in my former note and in those of the Hecrt'lary of .state. Ayain on June 2, 1886, in a letter to Lord lioseltery, Mr. Phelp.s UHed this language, on page 419 of the doennient to which I have already reCeired: From all the circunistancen attendin); thi^ cnsc.aiid other recent eaxcs like it, it seems to me very apparent that the Hei/.urc was not made lor the purpose of enforcing any riKht or redressing any wnrnK' As I have before remarked, it is not pretended thiUthc vessel had been ciiKaLCC'd in ilshiu};, nr was intending to fish in the prohibited waters, or thiit it had done or was iiitendinK to do any other injurious aut. Jt was proceediuK upon its reu'ular and lawtul business of flshing in the deep sea. It had received no re(|uest. and of course eould have disregarded no request, to depart, and was, in fact, dcpartiiiH; when seized; nor had its master refused to answer any ((uestioiis put by the autJiorities. It had violated no existing law, and had incurred no penalty that any known statute imposed. It seems to me impossible to escape the conclusion that this and other similar seizures were made by the Canadian authorities for ihe deliberate (lurpnse of harassing and embarrassing the American lishing vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment. And the injury, which would have been a serious one, if committed under a mistake, is very much anKravated by the motives which ap- pear to have prompted it. I am instructed by my (lovernmentearnestly to protest nirninst these procecd- inRS as wholly unwarranted by the treaty of IHI.S, and altotfetlur inconsistent with the friendly relations hitherto exist int; between t lie United Htates and Jler Majesty'sGovernment ; to reciuest that the David .1. .Vdanis, and the other Ameri- can fishing; vessels now under seizure in Canadian ports, be immediately re- leased, and that proper orders may be i.ssued to prevent similnr proeecdinu's in the future. And I am also instructed to inform you tli:it the United .states will hold Her Majesty's Government responsible for all losses whicli may be sus- tained by American citizen.s in the dispossession of their property growing out of the search, seizure, detention, or sale of their ves.sels lawfully within tlie territorial waters of British North America. The real source of the dilliculty that has arisen is well imderstood. Itis to be found in the irritation that has taken ])l;iee among a portion of the Canadian people on account of the termination l>y the riiited .-^tates Government of the treaty of Washington on the l.st of July last, whereby llsh imported from t^an- ada into the United .States, and which so long as that treaty was in force was ad- mitted free, is now liable to the import duly j)rovi(led by the general revenue laws, and the o|>Jnion appears to have gained ground in Canada that the United States may be driven, by harassing and annoying their IJsliermen, into tiie adop- tion of a new treaty by which Canadian lisli shall be admitted free. It is not necessary to say that this scheme is likely to prove as mistaken in policy a.s it is indefensible in iirineiple. In terminating tlie treaty of Wai-hing- ton the United .States were simply exercising a riglil expressly reserved to both parties by the treaty itself, and of the exercise of which by eitlier party neither can complain. They will not be coerced l)y wanton injury into the mak^igof a new one. Nor would a negotiation that had its origin in mutual irritation lie promising of success. The question now is, not what fresh treaty may or might be desiraljle, but what is tlie true and jn.st construction, as between the two na- tions, of the treaty that already exists? The Government of the United States, approncliing this question in the most friendly spirit, can not doubt that it will be met liy Her Majesty's (iovernment in the same spirit, and feels every conliilenee that the action of Iler Jlajesty's Government in the premises will be such as to maintain the cordial relations between the two countries that have so long happily prevailed. I have the honor to be, etc., E. J. PHEI.PS. Mr. Pre.sident, it can pot be denied in re^rard to these outrages per- petrated upon the Aiiiericun lishennen, by which they have ])een seizeil and taken into Hriti.sh ports and outraf^ed generally — conduct of which the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Manning, in a letter that he addressed the House of Representatives in 1H8(>, declared over his offi- cial sisrnature was brutal ; that has been characterized by the Secretary o •' ' 'm- our minister to London to the very extreme of diplo- ; I I i t 17 to preserve of Her Mftj- ,ic-tion-t I'lmi- le. Tl>e mib- 0 iiniiu'»Hiito u views pre- Mr. Phelps lich I have oa-es like it, le piirpone of reiiinrltotl. il k'usiiitemliiiK iiiK to do any il bll«im•H^^ of se could have ;ii m-izod; nor ritioH. Itlind nown statute 1 otlierHiniilur ivte (lurpose of iiir«uitor»lieir serious one, if ivcs whieli ap- these proceod- ir ini'onHi>uduct of which V letter that he ed over his ofli- )y the Secretary xtreinc of diplo- matic laugnaKe as being in violation of treaty, contrary to good morals, and an indignityto this great and independent people — it can not bede- nied (because you have the authority of the Administration as well as the conHen.sus of all that have been interested and have studied and discussed the question) that this movement is not forthepuipo.se of enforcinu the treaty . stipulations of 1818, but to compel us to make a treaty, whether we will or not, that they think is in the interest of Canada and the British dominion on our north. Can we art'ord under such circumstances to negotiate? Could we af- ford to call a commission to our national capital to consider subjects of dispute when the Secretary of State himself is on record and his min- ister is on record that these are outrages perpetrated for the purpose of creating a necessity in the minds of the American people for a new treaty ? Was not Mr. Phelps right when he said we do not want any new treaty under existing circumstances? Was he not correct when he said it is not now a question what kind of treaty is desirable pro- vided we were in a condition to treat, but what is the proper construc- tion of the treaty of 1818? Hut, Mr. President, I say, and believe the American people will sny with one.voice when they understand this question, thatit was beneath the dignity of the United States to enter into negotiation until at least the other side should have ceased to commit these grievances against us. We should not complain of an honestconstructiou, although wrojig, but when the Secretary of State tells them and his minister tells them that they know that this is but a pretense on their part; that there is not any such construction in their view of the law; that these are not pro- ceedings instigated by a desire to protect their rights, but to inflict in- juries upon us to compel us to pursue a course that they think will inure to their benelit, I say that we can not and ought not to have treated, and so said the Administration. Mr. Phelps, in a letter to Lord Iddes- leigh on September 11, 1886, says, on page 41^3: The proposal in your lordship's note that a revision of the treaty stipnlationa beariiiK upon the subject of the (islicrics should be attempted by the Govern- ment upon the basis of mutual concessions is one that under other circumstances would merit and receive serious consideration. Such a revision wa.sdcsired by the Government of the I'nited Slates before the present dispulc.-> luose, and when there was a reasonable prospect that it mip^ht have been carried into efl'ect. Various reasons ijot within its control n Mr. Heat, Ai>rU 22, IntC. [Meiiioruntliim of April 22, 1885.— Hertoiiul.] Dki'artmknt op Htatk, Wasliinyt'in, Ai>ril 22, 1885. Dear Mr. Wkst; I liave on several ocoaHioim lately, in cdiivermition, ao- qiiainted you with my intcrext In tlic llsheriuii nieniorandum wlilcli ucvompa- nied your perBonul letter of Miirc-li 12. Hoveral informnl taIkH I huve had with 8ir AmbroHe 8lira have enabled mn tnforninliite the vIewH of thin Government upon the propiiHitionniiido in behali' oftheDominicmHndthe Province of Newfoundland, and I lake pleasure in lianil- inK you herewith a memorandum enibodyinK the reHuUn. If tliiH Huits, 1 shall be happy to contlrm the arrangement by un exchange of notes at your earliest convenience. 1 am, my dear Mr. West, very sincerely yours, T. F. BAYARD. The Hon. L. S, Sackvim.e West, etc. I do not know very innch about the intricacies of diplomacy and I do not know very much about the nejrotiation of treaties, hut it struck me as a very singular proposition tliat the Secretary of State, upon a subject which had engrossed tlie attention of all his predecessors for several yi-ars on and oil", that had enisrossed the attention of ConKress. should have needed the views of Sir Ambrose Sliea, wlio, I understand, is a member of the cabinet of one of the liritisli provinces. At all events the memorandum is the result of inlbrmal talks of the Secretary with Sir Ambrose Shea. How much of it is the work of Sir Ambrose 8hea and how much of it is the work of the Administration I do not know. So I am unable to give the proper credit. I liud on June 13, 1885, auother memorandum: 3.— Mr. West's memoranda of June 13, 1885. [Memoranda.] Tt Is proposed to state in notes according temporary arranRements respecting flshericH tliat an agreement has been arrived at under circuniHtnnces aftbrding prospect of negotiation for development and extension of trade between the United States and British North America — That is the whole question in a nut-shell — afTording prospect of negotiation for development and extension of trade be- tween the United 8tate» and Britisli North America. I submit that means reciprocity and does not mean anything else. This was the initiatory step towards a reciprocity treaty with Great Ikitain. Mr. West added: The government of Newfoundland do not make refunding of duties a condi- tion of their acceptance of the propo> I'l'CMiiltuil i<* wlictle <|Ui>Mtlii>i t>r Die lislierifM buforu (^iiiKreHH ul itH lu-xl H<>>iHi<)n in Dfi'eniiiur, mid ruco'.iiiiond tliu ;i|ipiit of a vituiniiHHion in wliioii lliu (JovitrnnifutN of tli- I'nitfd HluluH itiid of (JrcHt lirituin Nhould lie reHpcctively rt>|ireM<-iitcd, wiiicli foininiMMioii vliould bf <'linrKe(|uitiibli\ and hoiiorubic iMtniM, of Uw entire i|iieNtion of tlie lixiiliiK rltcliln of llio I wo (iov- ( rnuienlH Hiid tlivir reHiicclivo citizuim on tliu coiiHtM uf tliu United HtutcH and l»ritinii Noi-tli Atiierleti.'' Tlie c(|uilli'H of liie <|uer«tion heinff before Hueli n mixed cpo<4al8 to be lirouKht forward in the 8UKKervcrnment and the colonial Kovernments have consented to the arrant;ement solely as a mark of good-will to the Government and people of the United States — A remarkable exhibition of good-will to the people of the United States to give them that which they had declared without di.s.sent, through the only organ through which they could properly dechire it, that they did not want it continued — and to avoid difllculties which might be raised by the termination of the fishery articles in the midst of a fishing season ; and also the acceptance of such aimxhia vtvendt does not, by any implication, atfect the value of the inshore flslieriesby the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland. I had occasion to remark to you that while the colonial governments are asked to guaranty immunity from interference to American vessels resorting to Canadian waters, no such immu- nity is ottered in your memorandum to Canadian ves-sels resortiuH: to American '^vaters, but that the Dominion government presumed that the agreement in this respect would Ije mutual. As you accepted this view, it would, 1 think, be as well that mention should be made to this ell'ect in the notes. 21 Uiulcr the ro«erviillon», an »l)i>v« lniliratt>■> l>cliiilf uf Hrltlxli North Aiiiorii'H, •11(1 to vxt'liiiiiRe iiotcM III the iiliiiv« Heii"t<. 1 hitve tliu liuiior to lit), with the UIkIichI re«peut,Mlr, your olx'dluiit Nervniit, L. M. HACKVlLhK VVKMT. Hon. T. K. Hay A tin, etc. Ho, Mr. President, I tliink it may be asHumed that the initiative of this prupuHcd treaty wiis not for the purpo.se of niaiting a treaty on t1i>' flHlitry (jueHtion, but a reciprocity treaty. The i'resident of the United KtuteH, agreeable to bis agreement with the Hritish Government, miiIi mitted a proposition to Congre.'^s for the api>ointnient of a comuiiNNinn. I need not go into that at any great length, except to show the action of certain tni-nibers of the .Senate of the United States upon that proiniHi- tlon. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Fkyh] ofll'ered this resolution: Rinohud, That, in the opinion of the Henate, the appointment ofa ooiniiilfiitioii In which the OoverninentHof the United HtatcH anil Great Hritain nhiill beroprc- Rented, ohnrKed with tlie conxideration and Heltlement of tlie HhIiIiik riKlit** of the two UnverniiientH, on the oonntH of the United Htatea and Urltiah Nortli America, oUKht not to be provided lor by C'oiiKresit. When tbut resolution v/an before the Senate the Committee on For- eign liuliitious were repreHented not in a parti(Vi and IHiH. No other ti'ciiticH wo have made at all in respect to tlie tisherieH have undertaken to de- fine the penminent eiidiiriiiKriKhts either of the Ilritish jieopleor of our people ill respect of the tisherieH. We have had two other treaties on this siibiect, the treaty of ISSJ and the treaty of IH"l,but they were both temporary in their char- acter and both made liable to lie suspended by the action of either government after they had run for ten years, and both have been abrogated. Ho that the Held is eiitlri'ly clear in respect of the actual state of treaty relations between the United Slates and (ireat Britain, and those treaty relations rest upon the treaiiex of iVKJ and 18IH. He then discussed the qne.T xlntiitu <>( (lrt>itl Hrllniii (liitiilii. iiiiil tliiTH In no (lltlliiilly In lli« ciiiiHtriii'tliMi lit tlixiii, Tlivre la •lo illllW'iiUy III llii> iiiiiNtriii'tloii of till* ItrltUli itiitiitt'x uii IIiIn niiIiIvcI. Hnl, Ihaii, XI! iiri< not rullcil upon to <'onMirii<> liii'in. Wliiit u'citrw callfil upon (il ilo In to I riitet'l our pcopit* nKnliiMt uiiy wronKcoiiMtnit'ilon tlint ilii-y muv put upon (heir own Iuwm, Iiv ii powi-r lliul wu rfiterveoxpri-MMly In the hiinilKoi' llie rrcitU (lunt of lliu I'liitt'ti HtalcN. I ilo not wInIi to voliiiitei-r any oplnloim nliont IhU Miil>|<>t't lio^ir*^ ii ipiir leKlHliilion If any oni' were to awk inc what proviMlon •( A treaty I wouhl frame to compose anil m'tllt* any c|iicHtloii of f>Miilaniitntiil law between im Hnil Orciit lirltaln In rcMpt'ct ol' the lUhtM-li'M, I coiiKI not NiiKir< it it, or If I were aHkcd to propuMc un uincndincnt to tlir Mtaliiltiiif the l.'nlli'ilMnttM HO m-* to put tliu control of thin In'rlcntu Hiihject nioro roni| leti'ly In the hiine promoted liy further neKulialion, but I can not uall to mind, there Ih nu MUKKestlon to my mind of, itnv Improvement that we could make under cxiiitinK cunditloTiBof our rlKhtH In tne tlitherleH of that Northoaitt* ern coast, Hpeaking on another point he uid! Therefore I tliink that the Oovernmerit should leave tiin matter Just where It Is, and I do not think ConKreHt inn be 1 1 rNUiided to rep-nil thut act. That wiis nn act which ^iive the Prenident power to interfere if our ships went not properly treated. That was tliu opinion of the .Senator from Alahamn when he declared that our coniinercinl ri^htj were derived from the iu;t of Great Hritaiu of 18'M in conjunction with our own, when he declared in unequivocal terms thot the right to purchase bait and ice were guarantied to us by that cominercit.l arran^^ement, ai:d as long as Great Britain did not re- tire from that arrangement made between the British Government and ours by which we were to po-na certain legislation and they were to have oertuin orders made in council, there was no question at all about our right to buy Jce and ba't. He went on to say that it " > b« neath the dignity of ^he Government of I'n^ United States to put tu . * watya provision that we might buy baiti and ice. This resolution, os everybody remembers, pass* p > itical unanimity or nearly so, there being but ten votes against it in the Senate and the Senator from Alabama being one of those who voted for it. However, Mr. President, these violations of our treaty rights con- tinred and it was thought best to arm the Government of the United State:; -'ith mure extended powers than the acts already on the statute- '•ook ii^- \ A hill wa« introduced, if I recollect aright, by the Senator fT,.in , mioat ' Mr.EuM nds] and referred to the Committeeon Foreign RoiailoL's r\i v/hich thf Senatov from Alabama, as I have before said, v\», m Hon witli the evidence which had been collected not only from their own in* vestigations under the order of the Senate but also from the archives of tho State Department as far as we had access to those archives. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to this statement made by the Senator from Alabama that he was one of the originators of this act that armed the President v?ith power to suepeml Canadian commerce if he saw fit. V i h;: 23 T cill tlifl attention of the H«>nat(« to tliiit IxTAumt I piopoMo to notice hi." coi>i|)iuint niiulu in thu .Semite tliat we lind iicted covvar ily in tliiH til,' *ci, tlint we were not willinu (<> t>>ke tiie i'es|)onsi))ilily ol'tleter inluiD;.' whether tliere were violutiiMiM of the trenty ot |h|m, luitl ww* not willinKourselveH toileelare non-inteirouiHe, eitlier litniteil or to ait extended decree, Itut tliat we hun tlie l'reMidi>rit. ii« Lemdd, lor the pnriMweofnettitiK t lie 1 'resilient iiitodinicnity, or word* to that eiVect. Vet lie luiiioiineed t > tlie Senate that lie wiw one of the oriKitiutorHOt'it, und that it had hin iiiniiialilled Ntipport: iidm) ho de- I'eiided it in a lengtliy Hpeech, I need not Hay in an aliie Npecch. '\e took the Aniericau Hide of tlio ((ueHtion, and when the Senator fiuia Maryland [Mr. (IIokman] attempted to amend tiiu ntatnteof .Maveb '^ 1887, by giving it more force, uh he Muid, and extending it fnrther, tl.ie Senator from Alubumu woh ag.dn heard. On all oecoHionH it receiwd bi(t unciualilled approbation iw it received tlie iiiKinuliiied approbatiori of every member of the Democratic party in the Senate. No ni,in on that aide either lifted hiH voice iigainst the bill or voted ngainnt it; and yctwu nretold now that thcHtatute was enacted for the purpose of get- ting the Democratic Adniinintration into dinicnlty. When the bill went to the lIouHe of Kepresentatives it was nbly dis- CHHHed, OB the liiccolil) will show. Not wishing to detain the Senate, I shall not advert to each particular statement made by the tncmberfl of the HouHe. I presume Keuatora have looked up that debate. There wiiH no objection to the bill. There woh u controventy between the House and the Senate as to which particular bill Hhould be adopted, whether it should be the bill of the Senate or the bill of the House. It was contended in the House that the House bill was the most vigorous, that it put more power in the hands of the Administration, and therefore they favored it. In the House at that time there waa the present Senator from Virginia [Mr. Daniki.], who made an able speech iu defense of the American idea of the treaty of 1818; ther** was the juni<'7 Senator from Texas [Mr. Keaoan], who declared that we ought to be careful how we dealt with Great iiritain, for in all our ibaliugs with Great Hritain we had been always over- reached; there were Mr, CLK5IKNTS, Mr. Cox, and other distin- guished Democrats, all of them, including Mr. MtLLs, supporting the measure, not simply by their votes, but by their speeches, every one of them insisting then that the Aiuerican construction of the treaty of 1818 wa.*- the coustruction we should insist upon at all times. That bill pas-sc'd t ho Senate with one dissenting vote, and he was not a Dem- ocrat. Mr. FRVE. That was a vote caat by mistake. Mr. TELLFiR. The Senator from Maine says that was a vote cast by mist,*ke. The bill passed the House with one dissenting vote, and I do not know whose vote that was. I desire to submit several letters^of the Secretary of State for the par- pose of showing that when we complain and say that the conduct of the Canadian olBciuls has been in violation of the treaty we are sup- ported by the Secretary <»f Slate. I And that in a letter to Mr. West, written May 10, IHHtJ, he declares that the British construction of the treaty, if allowed, would be in eflFect to utterly destroy all our rights under the treaty of 1818. He was insisting in the letter as to our com- mercial rights that they had been enlarged by the action of Congress, the proclamation of the President and the action of the British Gov- ernment in 18I{(), and that tl;ey included Ushing vessels as well as othe vessels. He said, on paye ;290: 1 ( ( i' I I ii'i, 24 President Jackson's proiOaraittion of October 5, ISHO, created a reciprocal coin- niercial intercourse, on terms of perfect equality of flag, between this country and tlie Vritisli American dependencies, by repealing tlie navlM^ation ui'ts of April 18, 1818, May 15, IHJU.and March l,lS2:t,and adinillinK HritiHli vcmscU and their cargoes "to an entry in the ports of the United Slates from the islands, provinces, and colonies of Great Hritain on or near the American continent, and north or east of the United Htates." These commercial privilcKes have since received a large extension in the interests of propimiuity, and in some oases favors have been granted by the United States withouteqnivalent conces- sion. Of the latter class is the exemption granted by the shipping act of June 26, 1884, amounting to one-hulf of the regular tonnage dues on all vessels from the BritishNorth American and West Indian possessionsentering ports of the United States. Of the reciprocal class are the arrangements for transit of goods, and the remission, by proelnmation, as to certain British ports and places of the re- mainder of the tonnage-tax, on evidence of equal treatment being shown to our vessels. On the other side, British and colonial legislation, as notably in tlie case of the imperial shipping and navigation act of June 20, 1849, has contributed its share toward building up an intimate intercourse and beneltcial traffic between the two countries founded on mutual interest and convenience. Again he said, on page 2i)l: The ett'ect of this colonial legislation and Executive interpretation, if exe- cuted according to the letter, would be not only to expand the restrictions and renunciations of the treaty of l.sl8, which related solely to inshore fishery with- in the 3-mile limit, so a.s to aflet't the deep-sea fisheries, the right to which remained unquestioned and unimpaired for the enjoyment of the citizens of the United States, but further to il by iillidavit.ortlie reliisal of tlie collector of cuntouis at the port <>(' .St. AndrewH, New Uniiiswiok, to hIIow the master of the American schooniT Annie M. Jordiin. of Gloucester, Ma«H., to enter tlie said vefsel at that port, a'- thoii.i{h properly documented a>ermis8ion to touch and trade at any foreiRn port or place durinx l»er voyane. The object of «uch entry was explained by the master to be the purchase and *xporlatioti of "certain merchandise" (possibly fresh fish lor food, or bait for deep-sea fishinK). Tlie vessel was threatened with seizure by the Canadian authorities, and her owners allege that they have sustained damage from this refusal of commercial rights. I earnestly protest against this \inwarranted withholding of lawful commer- cial privileges from an American vessel and her owners, and for the loss and damage consequentthereon the Government of Great Britain will be held liable. I have, etc., T. F. BAYARD. How much we shall get will be readily seen when they now meet lis at all times with the declarations of the President ami the Secretaiy of State that no such commercial privileges ever existed for our fishing; ves.sels, and that a fishing vessel could not be a fishing vessel and a commercial vessel at the same time. The Canadian authorities in 188fi warned oiF all our vessels, threat- ened them if they did not keep away from that coast. June 14, 188(\ Mr. Kayard addressed this letter to Sir Lionel West concerning this matter: Mr. Bayard to Sir L, Wc»t. Df.pautment ok State, Washivglnn, Jnneli,lHS6. Sir : The consul-general of the United States .at Halifax comm\micated to me the information derived by him from the collectorof customs at that port to the effect that American (ishing vessels will not be permitted to land fish at that port of entry for transportation in bond across the province. I have also to inform you that *he masters of the four American fishing ve.s- sels of Gloucester. IVIass., ftlartha A. Bradley, ICattler, ICliza lioyiiton, and I'io- iieer, have severally reported to the consul-general at Halifax that the subeol- leetor of customs at Canso had warned them lo kc<^p otUside an imaginary line e well aware, wholly unwarranted preten- tions of extraterritorial authority and usurpations of Juiisdiction by the pro- viiieiul orticials. It l)ecoines my duty, in bringing this inforniation to your notice, to request that if any such orders lor iiiterlereiii'e with the inK|uestioiial>le riglits of the Anieriean flshermen to pursue their business without molestation at any point not witliin.'i marine miles of the sliores, -uid within the dedned limits as to which renunciation of the lil)erty to fisli was expressed in the treaty of 181H, may have been is.sued, the siiine may al once be revoked as violative of the rights of citi- Kciis of the United St:itcs under convention with Great Britain. I will ask you to bring this subject to the immediate attention of Her Britannic IMajesty's Gctvernmcnt, to the end that proper remedial orders may be forth- with issued. It seems most unfortunate and regrelable that questions which have been long since sell led between the United SiatesaiidGreat Britain should now besought •to be revived. I have, etc., T. F. BAYARD. it ■' 1 1 ; i , -.•-' . ill. nil-' M' iii MliM. 20 Mr. President, I was not mistaken when I said he had revived the ob- solete headland theory. Here is his own statement that it had been abandoned. I will show before I get through that Sir Charles Tapper declared to the Canadian Parliament that it bad been abandoned, and every man familiar with the history of these transactions knows that it had been practically abandoned. Some time in April, 1886, Messrs. Gushing and McKenney, New England men doing business in those waters, addressed a telegram to the Secretary of State seekingto know what their rights were. I have not the telegram here, but the answer is sufficient to show what it was. They asked, ' 'Are we entitled to go in these waters, and what are our rights when we get there?" The reply of the State Department was as follows: Mr. Bayard to Metsrs. Cushing and McKenney. [Telegram,] Statb Depabthent, April 9, 1886. The question of the right of American vessels engaged in Ashing on the high seas to enter Canadian ports for the purpose of shipping crews may possibly in- volve construction of treaty with Great Britain. I expect to attain such an understanding as will relieve our flnhermen from all doubts or risk in the ex- ercise of the ordinary commercial privileges of friendly porti?, to which, under existing laws of both countries, I consider their citizeua to be mutually entitled, free from molestation. T. P. BAYARD. The Secretary of State expressed his opinion that while it might be difficult to say whether we could ship crews, we could buy bait and we could buy ice and we could buy provisions if the ship was in dis- tress or needed them. Yet to-day we are told that no snch rights exist, that they never did exist, and that he who asserts it asserts it simply because be is blind and can not see. Again, in a letter to Mr. West of May 10, 1886, Mr. Bayard com- plained of the seizure of vessels as follows, on page 290: The seizure of the vessels I have mentioned, and certain published " warn- ings " purporting to have been issued by the colonial authorities, would appear to have been made under a supposeddelegation of jurisdiction by the Imperial Government of Great Britain, and to be intended to include authority to in- terpret and enforce the provisions of the treaty of 1818, to which, as I have re- marked, the United States and Great Britain are the contracting parties, who- can alone deal responsibly with questions arising thereunder. The efl'ect of this colonial legislation and executive interpretation, if exe- cuted according to the letter, would be not only to expand the restrictions and renunciations of the treaty of 1818, which related solely to inshore fishery within the 3-raile limit, so as to aSect the deep-sea fisheries, the right to which remained unquestioned and unimpaired for the employment of the citizens of the United States, but further to diminish and practically to destroy the priv- ileges expressly secured to American fishing vessels to visit those inshore waters for the objects of shelter, repair of damages, and purchasing wood, and obtaining water. July 2, 1886, Mr. Bayard complained to Mr. West in the following language: 3fr. Bayard to Sir L. West, Department of State, Washington, July 2, 1886. Sir: It is my unpleasant duty promptly to communicate to you the tele- graphic report to me by the United States consul-general at Halifax, that the schooner City Point, of Portland, Me., arrived at the port of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, landed two men, obtained water, and is detained by the authorities until further instructions are received from Ottawa. The case as thus reported is an Infringement on the ordinary rights of inter- national hospitality, and constitutes a violation of treaty stipulations and com- mercial privileges, evincing such unfriendliness to the citizens of the United States tis is greatly to be deplored, and which I hold It to be the responsible duty of the Government of Great Britain promptly to correct. I have, etc., T. P. BAYARD. 27 red the ob- had been 63 Tapper oned, and ws that it ney, New ilegram to B. I have lat it was. lat are our bment was ril 9, 1886. Dn the high possibly in- .in such an in ttie ex- liicb, under ly entitled, lAYARD. might be bait and ras in dis* ^hts exist, i it simply S^ard com- led " warn- juld appear le Imperial ority to in- 1 1 have re- larliea, who- on, if exe- ictions and ore fishery lit to which I citizens of ly the priv- >8e inshore wood, and following ly 2, 1886. u the tele- ix, that tlie lime, Nova authorities ts of inter- is and com- the United responsible AYARD. At a later date, July 10, 1886, Mr. Bayard recited another outrage, as follows: Jfr. Bayard to Sir L. Wcit. I Department op State, Washington, July 10,1886. ' Sir : I have the honor to inrorm you that 1 am in receipt of a report from the consiil-senural of the United States at Halifax, accompanied by sworn testi- mony stating that the Novelty, a duly regiHtered merchant steam- vesHel of the United States, has been denied the right lo take in steam-coal, or purchase ice, or transship Hsh in bond to the United States, at Pictou, Nova Scotia. It appears that, having reached that port on the Ist instant and ilnding the customs ollice closed on account of a holiday, the master of the Novelty tele- graphed to the minister of marine and fisheries at Ottawa, asking if he would be permitted to do any of the three things mentioned above; that he received in reply a telegram reciting with certain inaccurate and extended application the language of Article I of the treaty of 1818, the limitations upon the signifi- cance of wliiih are in pending discussion between the Government of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty; that on entering and clearing the Novelty on the following day Ut the custom-house, tlie collector stated that his instructions were contained in the telegram the master had received ; and that, the privilegeof coaling being denied, the Novelty was compelled to leave Pictou without being allowed to obtain fuel necessary for her lawful voyage on a dan- gerous coast. Against this treatment I make instant and formal protest as an unwarranted Interpretation and application of the treaty by the oftlcers of the Dominion of Canada and the Provmce of Nova Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of com- mercial and maritime intercourse existing between the two countries, and as a violation of hospitality, and for any loss or injury resulting therefrom the Oov- ernment of Her Britannic Majesty will be held liable. I have, etc., T. P. BAYARD. On the same day, July 10, 1886, Mr. Bayard wrote to Mr. West as follows: To-day Mr. C, A, Botjtelle, M. C. from Maine, informs me that American boats visitingSt. Andrews, New Brunswick, fur the purpose of there purchasing herring from the Canadian weirs, for canning, had been driven away by the Do- minion cruiser Middleton. Such inhibition of usual and legitimate commercial contracts and intercourse is assuredly without warrant of law, and I draw your attention to it in order that the commercial rights of citizens of the United States may not be thus in- vaded and subjected to unfriendly discrimination. 1 have, etc., T. P. BAYARD. July 16, 1886, Mr. Bayard wrote to Mr. Hardinge as follows: Department of State, M'aahington, Ju'y 16, 1886. Sir: I have just received through the honorable C. A. Boutelle, M. C, the affidavit of Stephen R. Balkam, alleging his expulsion from the harbor of St. Andrews, New Brunswick, by Captain Kent, of the Dominion cruiser Middle- ton, and the refusal to permit him to purchase fish caught and sold by Cana- dians, for the purpose of canning as sardines. The action of Captain Kent seems to be a gross violation of ordinary commer- cial privileges against an American citizen pr.^posing to transact his customary and lawful trade and not prepared or intendi.ig in any way to fish or violate any local law or regulation or treaty stipulation. I trust instant instructions to prevent the recurrence of such unfriendly and unlawful treatment of American citizens may be given to the offending ofiiciala at St. Andrews, and reparation be made to Mr. Balkam. I have, etc., T. P. BAYARD. Again, July 30, 1886, Mr. Bayard wrote to Sir Lionel West as fol- lows: Department of State, Washington, Jxiiy 30, 1886. Sir: It is my duty to draw your attention to an infraction of the stipulations of the treatv between the United States of America and Great Britain, concluded October 20, 1818. ♦ ♦**«♦« I am also in possession of the affidavit of Alexander T. Eachern, master of the American fishing sthooner Mascot, who entered Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, and was there threnteiii d by the customs oftioial with seizure of hia vessel if he attempted to obtain liait for fishing or to take a pilot. .li Mi ill Ml 'li'i ill i ( W i IB!: I : Hill 28 Tlu'se are flHRraiit violations of treaty rights of their citizens for which the irniteim1''<1 siiiiply, iiiid wawolilifjod to put his men on short «Ilo\vaii<'<( of whIim- diirint!; tlii' |mssnne lioiiicwiii'd. I have tlie honor to ii>k that Her IJritniinif >iii,|osty's iioveriiiiient I'liiisi; iii- vestiK'itioii to he iiiade of tl»e reported rtclioii of tlie eustuiiiH olUeer lit Steop Creek, any this separation, nioro particularly as we have kept up our claim from tlie commencement of the war, and assigned the attempt of (Jreat Britain to exclude us from the Hsheriea aa one of the causes of our recurring to arms." • * « • « « « At present it issulUeient to say that the placiuK an armed cruiser at the mouth of a harbor in which tlie Uniterm« of the trc'aty. And I iini inslruilfd to miy tliat repiiriition for tln) loHses HUHtnined by it to the ownern of tlie vesm'lM will he cluinied l>y the United Stales Oovern- nient on their behalf »u Hoon as tlie amount can l>e accurately aHcertuined. There are several letters from this minister of the same character as- serting that our fishermen had rights tliere. Mr. i'resident, these assertions are in harmony with the construc- tion ^jiven to the treaty of 1H18 by the IJritish Government themselves from time to time. I propose brielly to call tin- attention of the Sen- ate to this point. I submit the letter of Mr. Phelps to Lord Koseberry of June 2, 188(), paj!;e 415, in whicli he details particularly the cases wherein the British (Jovernment liad surremlered tlie headland theory and the ri<;ht to exclude our lishermen from the bays. The Hritixh Ooverniucnt has ropeau-dly rofuHed to allow interference with Anierii'iiii llshiiiK vosmcIh, unle»M for illegal tiHhiii)j^, and has given explicit orders to thecdutriiry. On the Jfith of May, H70, Mr. Thornton, the Uritish niininter at WasliinRton, conmiunicatod olUcially to the .SeiTetary of State of the I'nited Statew copies of the ordiTM addressed by the liritish Admiralty to Admiral Wellesley, coinmand- ing Her Majesty's naval forces on the North .\nierlcaii station, and of a letter from tlie colonial deparltnenl to the foreiKU otlice, in order that the Secretary nilKht "see the nature of the instructions to be ;vlven to Her Majesty's and the Canadian ofllcers (imployed in nuiintainniK' (>rder at the iisheries in the neigh- borhonil of the coasts of < 'ana, 1«70, in a^'cordance with the forego'ng request, and transmitting the let- ter aliDve y llcr AlajCftly's Cjuveninienl. Jndioial aiitliorily upon thir* (itiestinniM to the name eirect. That the pnrehaie of bait by Ainericiin n»hurrnen in the provincial portM han been a eoniinou practice ia well known. Hut in no ease, mo far as I en i aueeitain, ban a Hei/.ur» of an American voHsel ever been enron'od on the ground ol' tl>e pnrchahe of bait, or of any other supplies. On the hcanuK licloie tin; llalil'ax KiNlierieH Coinnti.-t- sion in 1877 this question was discuNfed. and no eu-ie could be produced ol'any such condemnation. VesNels shown to have been comlemned were in all caHcs adjudged Kuihy, either of HshiiiK, or preparint; to llsli, within the prohibited limit. And in the case of (he White I'awn. tiicd in the admiralty court of New Brunswick before .Indue Ha/en in 1M70, I understand It to have been distinctly held that the purchase of bait, indes^ proved to have been in preparation for illegal lishinK. was not a violation of the treaty, nor of any existiuK law, and afforded no Kround for proctiedini;-* ajj;ain!>t the veesel, I also submit a paper fouiid in llxecutive Document No. 113, marked Appendix B, showing the constructiou put upon the treaty by the British authorities: .Vl'PlSNDIX B. In such capacity your jurisdiction miist be strictly confined within the limits of "3 marine miles of any of the coasts buys, creeks, or harbors " of Canada, with respect to any action you may take a^ain-'t .\nierican iishinj; vessels anil United Htates citizens ennaRed in llsliiiiK. Where any of the bays, creeks, or harbors shall not exceed (> KcoKra))hical miles in width, you will consider that the line of demarcation extends from iieitdland to heailland, either at the en- trance to such l)ay, creek, or harbor, or from an marine miles of the coast. Juristliclioti, — The limits within whiiOi you will, if necessary, exercise the power to exclude the nnite (;eoKraphical miles in width, or inside of a line drawn across any part of such bay harbor. or creek at points nearest to the month thereof lujt wider apart than (i KCoKraphical miles, and if either (ishiiifr, jireparinj; to (ish.or havint; obviously ('shed vithin theexcliisivo limits, you will, in accordance with the above-recited acts, fei/.eat oik'c any ves- sel detected in violating the law. and send or take her into port for eondenma- tion; but you are not to do so unless it is evident, and cin be clearly proved, '•/hilt the ofrense of HshiuK has been committed, and that ihe vessel is captured within the prohibited limits." (Sossiy IKr ; piiri'lm-^0 , I'OlllIllOll ( II Hi'i/.iiro ihcof l)ivit. H ("omii\i.i- (■i<\ ofrtiiy II III! fllHlM liioliiliiti'fl lilt of New I (liHtiiictly iirittinii for ^C h\w, niul 3, marked ty by the n the limits of CiiniKin, vesselH mid ^, creelts, or imnidcr tlmt r at tho fii- linlsoiil'otli < l(-s-< tliiiii U H llierefroiii, oxeri'isc ttio •ItMUl fisliiiiK hiive arisen iiiiits 8liouUl eserihinjt its lie entrances y of opinion tlie ri;;lit of 3 miles of a oncede.nor tluir nature yon will not ,f the shore, .eek which, ieal miles in (Mialenrs for ssel or lioat, f the shore, ually within ■pt I,al>ray appointing a Joint commiMlon, on which Great Britain, tlie United HtntcH, tuid C'uiiaduare to be represented, wi tit the object of inquiriiiK wliat oiiRht to bo the KeoKrapliicsl limits of the exoiusive fisheries of tlie BritiHli Nortli American colonies. In accordiinee witli the uii< derstood desire of your udvlsers it Is proposed that the iminlry should he held In America. . , , , , The proposal contained in the last paraKrapli is made with a view to avoid diplomatic diltlciiitles, which might otherwise attend the negotiation. 1 have, et outrages unredreiwed, with our sbips Imiirded, tuken into port, fined, hindered, injured, ruined in their buiinestt, and further, the American Hag palhd duwn uud iuHulted. Yet that has been done without an apology worthy of the name for thune iuaults to the flag and the na* tioD. We are asked to treat with Cireat Krituin upon this question, to surrender that which was incuntcata))ly ours, as I intend to show when I take up the treaty in detail. We have under this proposed treaty nothing that we did not have without it. We have no opportunity for redress for the wrongs inflicted. We have, it is true, for tlic lowering .if the flog what they call an apology. Mr. Prcisidcut, I wish to say a word on that point, becanBc on two or three occasions when ihisiiuestion has been up it has beru saitl that Great Britain has apologized. I assert that Great Britain hris never indicated the slightest compunction as to the Canadian conduct, and I er 7, 1H80. Sib: I am iiistrui'ted by tlie Knrl of IddeHleiKh tocommunicnto to you the in* cloaeil copy of a dispntoh, witli its incIo9\irefl, from the offlcer iidii>iiiii ?! 35 a to port, fined, ', the Araerlcan i)ue without aa Ittjj aud the na- hia question, to d to show when proposed treaty opportunity for or the lowering becannc on two IS beru said that •ituin has never 1 conduct, and I le for anything. , at all, it should of an apology we er was under dis- at there hud been jman], who was lad been an apol- I say it was no , December 7, IHSa. ilciito to yon the in- r iuliuiiil»terliiKH>« ion (iovernniental owt^rhiK tlio United ■iincH, of ti loucestor, Novu Hoatirt. KVILLEWIiST. hope, [A, Oc(o6er 27, 1886. approved minute of >vernmeiit at tlieac- K the United States ,f 01oncest«r. Mass., » Scotia, by the col- i» reanlations. Icr Majesty's minis- USSKLL, Oeneral. at Canada, approved 1 council on tlie 26tli ickenzle Bowell, for ay, the 11th October of Gloucester, Mass., Hector of customs at it while so detained, utter.Terror, the cap- uigley, of the Terror, ention to rescue the n. This request was sain hoisted, and on id, and replying that g be lowered. This WMrefuflcd. when Captain Qiilgley himself lutverrd the flag, acting iioder the belirf tliiit wlillothe .Vitrloii Oriini^H was In poNHt*H.>4i(in of the cunlonm uuthoit- tleit, and until her case had been adjudicated upon, the vessel had nu right to fly the United States flag. Now, here ia the apology, Mr. President. The minister regrets that he should have noted with undue zeal, although Captain Quigley may have been technically williin his right while the vessel was in the custody of the law. The commitleo advise that your eacollency be moved to forward a copy ot this minute, if approved, to the right lionorable the secretary of Htate for the co< nies, and to llcr MajcMty's minlHtcr at Washington, expressingtlie regretoi the Canadian Oovernnicnt at the occurrence. All of which is respectfully submitted for your excellency's approval. JOHN J. M(U|;K, Clerk, I'riry Oouncll, Mr. President, I assert that no international lawyer in tlie Senate or anywhere will stand up and claim that before adjuilicution there is any right in the Governnieut seizing a ves.sel to take down its ling. It is a universal law of the world that tlie Hag flies until the ad judication de- termines the (luestion of the right of seizure. iSo the^e Canadian au- thorities siiiiply regretted that Captain t^uigley acted witii undue zeal, and then asserted tlie right to pull down the American Hag whenever they seized a vessel, and it is only a question with them of policy and not a question of law. The State I)e[)i»rtraentknew that that was not the international law, for the Secretary of State himself, in one of his letters to Mr. Phelpa, declares that the Canadians had no right to take down the tlag until it was determined there was a rightful and proper seizure of the vessel. Mr. President, how long do you think they would have been with- out an apology of a proper kind if we had pulled down the British flag floating over a Canadian flsherinan? How long do you think it would have been belbre we sliould have been notified that we were to disavow the act of that ollicer or to make an humble apology ? Great Britain does not proceed in that way when her Hag is insulted. She does not wait. Neither have we been wont to wpit when the Amer- ican flag was assailed. It is left for this Administration to accept an apri'ogy which says, "We had a right to take down your flag; you ou^.it not to complain; we think it was a little undue zeal on the part of our oflicer, and yet the right exists." Out upon such an apology, Mr. President ! It ought to make every American ashamed, and it does, I know that there are men in the Democratic party who are ashamed of it. I am sorry to say that they seem to have lost the cour- age to say what they must think, and what all honest, upright, brave people must think of such a transaction. Once upon an occasion an overzealous United States naval officer seized two Confederate messengers going abroad. You may remember it. It was in the fall of 1861. He seized a British .ship because it was carrying contraband passengers, but instead of complying with the law of nations and bringing in the ship, he let the ship go aud took out of it the men, and thus put himself beyond the pale of international law. What did the British Government do with us then ? They gave us no- tice that we should return those men to British control and authority inside of .seven days or there would be war. They did not wait seven days before they started by the quickest transportation in their power their troops to the Canadian provinces. There is not a man here who does not know that there is not any nation in the world who would dare to do such a thing to Great Britain; and are they to get off with an apology of the character I have read ? mTB % 1 i %^ m .16 I do not wonder that the Honntor from Maryland iiftld that It wiw not a natiHfuciory npoloj^y. Ktit, Mr. I'reHident, it i.s in ki'epii?^ with tlie whole coune of this AdniiniHtrntion on thiH qufHtioii. It Ih in keeping with the whol* courHe ot'tlie AdminiMtratiou in itH Ui'alinK>* with the HritiHh (iovern- ment. I can not ofwunie that the AdniiniHtrution wuHnfraid to demand a Htifllcient apology. I muHtONHunie tliatthe Admiiii.stration iHnotiiufll- ciently olive to indi^nitieH intlicted upon thin country. That \h the ex- cuHc, and that probaldy i.s theonly one. If ithad bevnNiifticientlyalivo to the wrongH intltcted no treaty would have been made, no ne^otia- tion would have been entered into until there had been Home redress at leant promised I'or all the wrouu;s inflicted upon uh by the Canadian offlcials. I desire to call the attention of the Senate briefly to some provisions of the new treaty and then I shall not detain the Senate longer upon this subject. The treaty comes here with the I'resiilent's approval. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. UKAYJsays it comes with Kreatpre- sumptive weight. He says that a treaty always comes with Kreat pre- sumptive weight from an administration, and it always basit. Time and again a Kcpublican administration has sent to a Hepublican .Sen- ate treatieii which have been rejected, and rejected, too, by Republican votes. When wjw it that the American Senate beciirae subordinate to the executive department in considering these subjects and deteimin- ing what treaties ought and what ought not to be ratilied? With great presumptive weight ! The President, after detailing the treaty, says: The treaty meelH my approval, hecaiife I holicve that itHiipplieHii satlHfai'tory, practical, iiixl lliiiil ailjiiHtiiiont, upon a IiurIh honorable andjunt luboth]>arliea, of the difllvult anil vexed c|iieNlion to which it relateft. A review of the hifttory of thin <(ueNtiiin will nhow that all former attempts to arrive at a common intcrpretiition,HatiHfactory toholh partieM, of the llrst article of the treatv of October 'id, IHIH, have been luiNUcceHHUil ; and with the lapse of time the dililculty and obs'.'urity have only increaHed. • •**••• But I t>elleve thetroaty will be found to contain a just, honorable, and there- fore Batisfactory solution of the difllculties ;vliich have clouded our relations with our neiKhbors on our northern border. Especially HatiHfactory do 1 lielieve the proposed arrauKcment will be found by those of our citizens who are eriKHKed In the open-sea tlsheries, adjacent to the Canadian coast, and resortiuK to those ports and harbors under the treaty provisions and rules of iiiteriiationnl law. The proposed delimitation of the lines of the exclusive flsherirs from the com- mon llsheries will give certainty and security as to the area of their legitimate tleld; the headland theory of imaginary lines is abandoned by Great lirilain, and the specitlcatjons in the treaty of certain named ba^s especially provided for Kives satisfaction to the inhabitants of the shores, without ^'iibtractinK ma- terially from the value or convenience of the fishery riKhts of Americans. The uninterrupted naviKatiou of the Mtrait of Canso is expressly and for the first time afltrmed. I shall show that the I're.sident could not have read the treaty with care or he would not have made that assertion — and the four purposes for which our fishermen under the treaty of 1818 were allowed to eitter the bays and harbors of Canada and Newfoundland within the belt of .3 marine miles are placed under a fair and liberal construction, and their enjoyment secured witiiout such conditions and restrictions as in the past have embarrassed and obstructed them »o seriously. I do not wonder that Mr.Tupper pointed to this and said with great glee, "What will that do for us when we come to negotiate agjiin?" Here is the President of the United States telling the whole world that our interpretation of the treaty ia a fair, honorable, and just one;, and that the treaty is all that the Americans can expect. Then the Pres- ident follows with his explanations. Now, let us s e what the Presi- id 37 it wM not iFHe of thl» the whole nh ISovern- , to demand ilHUotauffi- \t is the ex- jieutlyallv© no iienotla- [)iiie redress ae Canftdiaa le provisions louner upoa ;b approval, th ureiitpre- ilhKreat pre- law It. Time ublican Sen- f licpnhlican iibordinate to lid dettimin- > . With great ! treaty, ways: rt II satUfiulory, lobotliimrtie», mer Btteiiii>ls to I- the l\r»t arllile villi the liipso 01 iible, and tliere- fd our relftlion* nt will be found rlcH, adjacent to under the treaty rs from the com- Ihoir lenitinmta fcv Great Urllain, jctiiiUy provided , MibtrnctinK ina- Aniericaiis. essly and for the the treaty with eaty of 1818 were i.dland within the construction, anU Ions aa in the past _ said with great gotiate again?'' he whole world e, and just one;. Then the Pres- what the Presi- H. ilent HAjrs a))Out the coniniereinl ri^htM that the Hecrotary of State hud declared to American citizens exlNted, and which they hud been en- cournued to asHert under this AdniitiiHtrution: TlM>rlKbtofourMHhi>rnirn iinilrrtlictri-iily of |HlHtlldnolf>xli-n(ltiiililiHMl/.cil by llii> coiir-v of thu ni-K I of the convention of October 20, INIS, shall be iiiiMtsiiriMl si'iiward from low-water mark; but at every bay, crcfk, (If liarlior, not otherwise HpfrliiHy provideil for in tills treaty, such :j marine miles hIuiII be nifasiired scuwaril from a straight lino drawn across the bay, creek, or harbur. in thu part nearest the entrance at the Hrst point where the width does not exceed 10 miles. The .Senator from Delaware went into an extended argument to show that :t marine miles was not the present internationul law, and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. (tKok(JK] went into an extended argu- ment to show that the British owned all the country up there, and therefore allowing us to come within the lU miles was quite a favor. It is not necessary for us to consider what the international law is upon this subject. We had a treaty. We had fixed 3 miles. That had received its construction, which was, that the smaller bays that were (> miles or less were inclwled in the prohilrited waters; but now bays that are 10 miles wide are to be included in the prohibited waters. Bays that are much wider than that are prohibited by the delimitation in this treaty, and yet the President of the United States says that these delimitations "will give certainty and security" to the people of the United States who want to tish in those waters. The proposed delimitation of the linesof the exclusive flsheries from the com- mon Hsheries will give certainly and seeiirily as to the area of their legitiniato field. Mr. President, is that po.ssible? How can a fisherman see who is to keep outside of 3 miles, the line drawn from another invisible line that is lU miles long, being more than (i or 8 miles out from shore, and how can it benefit him any to have these delimitations? It only opens the door for more difficulty and more confusion and more trouble on the part of the fisherman. What he could see and might escape be- fore, he can not see now and can not escape. To say nothing of the great surrender of a large area of fishing ground that is rightfully ours, we are adding to the embarrassment of every man who goes into those waters to fish by lengthening the line so as to keep him from the shore, making it more dilHcult for him to determine where he is. 38 Then follow, in Article IV, the bays which are deliniited, of which I have not time to speak at any length. Then comes Article V: Article V. Nothing in this treaty slmll be construed to ineliule within the common waters any such interior jiortions of any liays, creelis, or harbors as can not be readied from the sea without passing? witiiin the 3 marine miles mentioned in Article I of the convention of October L'O, 1818. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to what Sir Charles Tnpper says about that, and why he says that was put in. Mr. Mills, of Both- well, asked him why this provision was inserted, and he said: Sir Charles Tuppek. I am obliged lo my honorable friend for liis question, and I will Rive him a most explicit and, I am quite sure, a satisfactory answer. I hold the delineation of a bay in my hands. It is imaginary, it is true, but it is none the less just what you may meet with at the mouth of any bay. This bay is 15 miles from mainland to mainland, and yet under the instructions of ray honorable friend from Northumberland [Mr. Mitchell] not to ro within S miles of the shore they could notget into that bay. Why? Uecausu there are islands in the mouth of the bay, and tlie island carries its 3 miles of marine jurisdiction stretched around it, the same as the nuiiiiland. I will send it over to my honor- able friend to show him just what that article means, and the reason why it was necessary, in order to provide for a possible contingency by which a bay being 1.5 miles wide they could not get into it now. I said; You do not propose by that 10-mile arrangement to enter a bay that you could not enter under the (3-mile arrangement, do you? Certainlynot. Then I gave them this r; iiig in ir- )re he of the port of Portlaud, who iisserted that for thirty years he had never known a vessel to be disturbed for remaining more than twenty-four hours without entering and clearing. Whatever might be the statute which was recited by the Senator Irom Delaware, it has been a dead letter as applied to Canadian vessels. If the fisherman communicates with the shore to get wood, or water, or a doctor, or for any other pur- pose whatever, he must enter and clear. There is no concession theie at all. That is the very extent that any nation requires of people com- ing into its porta. This article refers to those who come for shelter and repairing damages, for the purchase of wood, or to obtain water, and then they need not, unless they communicate, and as they must com- municate it amounta to saying that they shall enter and clear. Article X also provides that — They shall not be liable in any suuh bays or harbors for compulsory pilotage. Mr. Tupper said that the Canadian fishermen were not subject to that in American ports, and I understand that to be the rule. They are not in New England. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] thinks they are perhaps in some of the Southern ports. Perhaps there was a reservation some years ago in a statute to that effect. However, I think Mr. Tupper made the statement that there were no compul- sory pilotage dues exacted here. I have a reference to it. Article XI is claimed to have great merit, and to be a very great con- cession by the Canadian Government to us. It is one of the strong points in this treaty; it is one of the things on account of which it is urged upon our attention. That article provides: United Stiites Ashing vessels entering tlie ports, bays, and harbors of the east- ern and northeastern coasts of Canada, or of the coasts of Newfoundland under stressor weather or other casualty, may unload, reload, transship, or sell, subject tocustonis laws and regulations, all fish on Vioard, when such unloading, trans- shipment, or sale is made necessary as incidental to repairs, and may replenish o\ittits, provisions, andsuppliesdamagedor lost by disaster; and incase of death or sickness shall be allowed all needful facilities, including the shipping of crews. In 1794, when we were denied commercial relations with Great Britain, not only in Canada, but in all British colonies, we made a treaty with Great Britain which contained stipulations of greater value than this. The stipulation then was not only that we might do all that is now proposed to be done, but we might go further and barter our merchan- dise for such things as we needed. There is nothing in this provision of the treaty, as Mr. Tupper saj's. He says the Canadian Government ought to be ashamed to deny to any foreigners the privileges tliat are conceded here, not the privileges con- ceded here as claimed by the Senator from Delaware, not the privi- leges conceded if the President and Secretary of State are correct, but according to his interpretation, which is in accordance with the inter- pretation put upon it by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoarJ the other day when he addressed the Senate. The article refers only to vessels that go in there under stress of weather or other casualty, and when they so go in they may do what? Unload, reload, transship, or sell, subject to customs laws and regulations? Oh, no, not that. They may do all that when such unloading, transship- ment, or sale is necessary as incidental to repairs. When they are in siicli distress that they can not keep their cargo afloat in their ve>«el8, then they may apply to the British authorities, and if the British au- thorities think it is a case of distress, of casualty, they may be allowed to ship, provided they show that it is necessary as incidental to repairs. If they can not make their repairs without it, then they may do it. It 40 is a barren right. It is of no earthly account, and was not intended to be. "In case of death or sickness" they shall have "all needful facili- ities, including the shipping of crews." All this is dependent, first, upon the fact that they are driven in by stress of weather; tlien that the Canadian authorities think it is incidental to repairs, or that it is necessary. With the disposition that the Canadian authorities have shown toward our fishermen for the lust fev/ years, how much benefit do you suppose our fishermen will derive under that provision of the treaty ? There is another clause in Article XI which the Senator from Dela- ware insisted was an unrestricted license to trade by fishermen, or that at least was the theory upon which he went. hiceiises to purchase in establisiied ports of entry of the aforesaid coasts of Caiiadaor of Newfoinidland, for the homeward voyage, such provisions and s^ippliesasare ordinarily sold to trading vessels, shall be grantid to United States fishing vessels in such ports, promptly upon application and without charge ; and such vessels having obtained licenses in the manner aforesaid shall also be accorded upon all occasions such facilities for the purchase of casual or needful provisions and supplies as are ordinarily granted to the trading vessels; but such provisions or supplies shall not be obtained by barter, nor purchased lor resale or traffic. The Senator from Delaware insisted the other day that this was an unlimited riglii, to purchase for the liomeward voyage such provisions as were ordinarily sold to trading vessels. This license only applies to vessels that have gone into these ports in stress of weather. It only applies to such vessels as go there because they could not keep out, to such vessels as come in in distress or by reason of some disaster that has ocxjurred or will occur if they stay out. It is only to that class of vessels that this license is granted. Then what are they to buy ? For the homeward voyage only. If Ihey come in in the beginning of their fishing season, before they have had time to fish and get ready to return, and if they meet disaster and lose a portion of their supplies, they can not go in and buy. It is only when they can satisfy the Canadian Government that they are on the homeward move, and that they will starve to death, as suggested by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt], before they get home if they can not buy. Between two great nations speaking the same language, having so many things in common, do we need a treaty for things like that ? Can Great Britain afford to deny to the distressed fishermen of this country or any other that come into her ports the right to purchase supplies to take them home ? There is no nation to-day on earth that denies that to the distressed mariner. Yet that provision is pat in this treaty and it is held up to us as a great merit, one which we should surrender almost anything to secure, and because we do not see it in that light we are moved wholly and solely by partisan zeal and by a desire to embarrass the Administration ! I said that Mr, Tupper did not entertain the same views about this that the Senator from Delaware entertains. I will call attention now to what Mr. Tupper said about it. After quoting Article XI of the treaty, be said: That was another concession. There is no doubt at all, sir, that these were rights which under the strict terms of the treaty of 1818 they could not demand, nor could they insist upon them being granted ; but at the same time I think I am within the .jmlgmeut of the house on both sides when I s minister to Great Britain that it is outrageous to thus proceed. Mr. I'helps, speaking of this very principle, said in a letter of De- cember 2, 1886: Mr. Phelps to Lord Iddlesleigh. Legation op the United States, London, Deeemher 2, 1886. Mv Lord : Referring to the conversation 1 had the honor to hold with your lordHliip on the 30th November, relative to the request of my Government that the owners of the David J. Adams may be furnished with a copy of the orig- inal reports, stating the charges on which that vessel was seized by the Cana- dian nutliorities, I desire now to place before you in writing the grounds upon which this request is preferred. In the suit that is now going on in the admiralty court at Halifax, for the pur- pose of condemning the vessel, still further charges have been added. And the Oovernnient of Canada seek to avait themselves of a clause in the act of the Ca- nadian Parliament of May 22, 1868, which is in these words: "In case a dispute arises as to whether any seizure has or has not been legally made or as to whether tlie person seizing was or was not authorized to seize under this act * • * the burden of proving the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant." I can not quote this provision without saying that it is, in my Judgment, in violation of the principles of natural .iustice,as well as of those of the common law. That a man should be charged by police or executive officers with the commis- sion of an oflense and then be condemned upon trial unless he can prove him- self to be innocent is a proposition that is incompatible with the fundamental ideas upon which the administration of justice proceeds. But it is sought in the firesent case to carry the prdposition much further, and to hold that the party nculpated must not only prove himself innocent of the oflfense on which his vessel was seized, but also of all other charges upon which it might have been seized that may be afterward brought forward and set up at the trial. What will be the opportunity of the American fisherman to escape condemnation in a Canadian court — seizing him for one thing and com- pelling him to prove that he was not guilty of another? Whyv, Mr. President, it is a cunningly-devised scheme to confiscate the property of American citizens. It is not much better in my judgment, nay, I doubt whether it is any better, than the system by which the pirates went out and seized the vessels as they passed by. For them, at least, there was a chance lor a fair fight, but there is none given to these men, either before or after. Lord Iddesleigh replied to this by saying it was the usual customs law. Mr. Phelps denied it. I quote what Lord Iddesleigh said: Witti respect to the statement in your note that a clause in the Canadian act of May 22, IHOH, to the efl'ect that, " In case a dispute arises as to whether any seizure has or has not been legally made, or as to whether the person seizing was or was not authorized to seize under this act, the burden of proving the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant, " is in violation of the principles of national justice, as well as those of the common law. I have to observe tliat the statutes referred to is cap. 61 of 1868, which provides for the issue of licenses to foreign Ashing vessels, and for the forfeiture of such vessels fishing without a license; and that the provisions of Article X, to which you take exception, are commonly found in laws against smuggling, and are based on the rule of law that a man who pleads that he holds a license or other sim- 44 liar document shall be put to the proof of his plea and required to produce the document. • . , , I beK leave to add that the provisions of that statute, so far as they relate to the isHue of licenses, hati been in operation since the year 1870. I hnve, etc.. * IDDESLEIOH. To this Mr. Phelps replied: It is in the act to which the one above referred to Is an amendment that la found the proviHion to which I ns of tlie act, which covers tlie whole subject of protection ajjuinst illeKal llsliinjj;; and it applies not only to the proof of a license to lish, but to all questions of fact whatever, necessary to adetermiiiaiion as to the legality of a seizure or the authority of the person making it. There is no mistaking what this act means. It is not in accordance with our acts. We have nothing of that kind on our statute-hooks. Mr. Bayard's attention was called to it, and in a letter to Mr. Pheljjs, of January 27, 1887, Mr. Bayard said: Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps, Depautmest of State, Washington, January 27, 1887. Sir: Your dispatch No. 416, of the 12th instant, transmitting a copy of the note dated the 11th, received by you from the late Lord Iddesleigh, in response to your note of December 2, 1M8G, requesting copies of the papers in the case of Ihe David J. Adams, has been received. ******* The concluding part of Lord Iddesleigh's note seems to demand attention, inasmuch as the argument employed to justify the iirovisions of article 10 of the Canadian Statutes, cap. 61 of 1868, which throw on the claimant the burden of proving the illegality of a seizure, appears to rest upon the continued opera- tion of article 1 of that statute, relative to the issue of licenses to foreign tishiug vessels. The note in question states " that the provisions of that statute, so far as they relate to the issues of licenses, has [have?J been in operation since the year 1870." It appears from the correspondence exchanged in 1870 between this Depart- ment and Her Majesty's minister in Washington (see the volume of Foreigfn Relations, 1870, pages 407-411) that on the 8th of January, 1870, an order in council of the Canadian Government decreed "that the system of granting Ashing li- cense to foreign vessels under the act 31 Vic, cap. 61, be discontinued, and that henceforth all foreign fishermen be prevented from tishing in the waters of Canada." During the continuance of the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington Canadian Ashing licenses were not required for fishermen of the United States, and since the termination of those articles, July 1, 1885, this Department has not been advised of the resumption of the licensing system under the statute afore- said. This is an old statute. I desire to call atteution to what has been said about it heretofore. It does not seem necessary that anybody should be cited as authority on a question of that kind. It does seem to me that every fair-minded man will see that the law is an odious law, that it is liable to great abuse, and to bring our fishermen within that law is to expose them to great disaster. I have here Mr. Forsyth's let- ter to Lord Aberdeen commenting on this, and I will read it from Sa- bine's Report on Fisheries, because it is the handiest book to read. He says: Well did Mr. Forsyth say that some of its provisions were "violations of well- established principles of the common law of England and' of the principles of all juft powers and all civilized nations, and seemed to be expressly designed to enable Her Majesty's authorities with perfect impunity to seize and confiscate American vessels, and to embezzle, almost indiscriminately, the properly of our citizens employed in the fisheries on the coast of the British possessions." Well, 45 too, (lit) Mr. Kverett8t and unwarrantable weapons of warfare." So, Mr. I'reaident, the provision that they shall take nothing from these people who are guilty of unlawful tiMhiug, and those who are pre- paring to fish, etc., but their fishing vessels and cargoes, is, under the circumstances the way the law is administered, an extremely baishi provision. But they were not satisfied with that, and further penalties are provided: And for any other violation of thelawsof Great Britain, Canada, or Newfound^ land relating to the riahtof tinhery in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbors, pen- alties shall be fixed by the court, not exceeding in all 83 for every ton of tli«- boat or vessel concerned. The boat or vessel may be holden for such penallit's and forfeitures. This is the first time that the United States has anywhere recognized the right of the Canadian authorities to legislate in such a way as to interfere with the rights of American fishermen under the treaty of 1818. We have asserted over and over again that all this legislation was without authority of law, that we would not submit to have the Canadian authorities providing what we might do or what we might not do, except so far as provicled for in treaty; and it is a notable fact that Great Britain never ratified or approved any acts of this clwracter until 188(5 — until within the history of this present Administration. When this Administration came into power they were not attempt- ing and did not dare to attenipt to enforce these Canadian laws. It was out ol' an attempt to enforce these Canadian laws as to fishing on Sunday that the controversy arose in which the Secretary of State, Mr. Evarts. compelled a payment by the British Government, Now we have agreed in this treaty, if it becomes the law, that every petty British North American province and Canada and Great Britain can pass any law upon the subject of fishing that they see fit, ami we are bound by it. They fix the size of tlit- meshes of the seine; they fix when it may be thrown and when it may be drown; they tell us that we can nolr fish on Sunday or on the Queen's holidays, or any other time; and for the violation of such laws the American fisherman is liable to punish- ment in a Canadian court, administered, as I said before, by a hostile people. They may fish, as it is suggested, in the open seas, as they have done, to which we have pai.l no attention so far; butoui men are liable to be punished for violations of this kind of legislation, which we shall be estopped from complaining of, because we here say they have a right to made it it they see fit, and we reserve to ourselves no right of crit- icism. They may be taken into a Canadian court where they can be fined $i{ per ton on their vessel, and a vessel of 100 tons could be fined $1500, and how often may that be repeated 'f As often as any officious Canada official, moved by his desire to get part of the plunder that shall be taken from these fishermen, institutes a prosecution in the Ca- nadian courts. It is true they have provided in this treaty that "the ppoceedinjjs shall be summary and as inexpensive as practicable." But what of that? It may be of some advantage to a poor fisherman who is to be ruined to know how quickly he is to be ruined. It may be also of some advantage to his Canadian opponent to put him through the court on quick time, that he may try him again, because he can be picked up for all sorts of complaints. I think there is quite as much for Canada 46 in that as there is for ua, so far as the prompt proceedings are oon- cerued. Is there anybody living who has studied thisquestion and who knows the temper of the Canadians, who knows the difliculties surrounding the dshermen, who doe» not know that where there has heretofore been one fase of conflict between tlie Canadians and our fishermen there willbe a hundred sucli conflicts under this treaty? Does not every- body know that we are opening the door for continued agitation and continued trouble? It must be evident to everybody that when we surrender to the British Government th6 right to fix the season in which we may fish, the methods by which we may fish, the character of the fish that we may put in our barrela, and all this, we have subjected our people to such a condition of things as renders fishing absolutely worthless, and I do not hesitate to say here that, in my judgment— and I believe in the judgment of men better qualified to judge than I — that in two years they will make it impossible for American fishermen under this treaty to fish in waters where our rights are as unquestioned as they are in the Delaware Bay. There is one other provision in the treaty of which I will not speak at length, and that is Article XV. That is where we agree to buy com- mercial privileges at an expense, Mr. Tupper says, of about $1,800,000 a year. Mr. FUYE. Limited commericial privileges. Mr. TELLER. Limited commercial privileges, commercial privi- leges which I insist Canadian vessels have had for fifty years every- where in our ports, unless it may be in some few of the South Atlantic poits, and I do not believe they have ever been disturbed in them there, but on all the New England coa.st and in all the great harbors of this country they can go and do what we propose to pay to the British Gov- ernment $1,800,000 a year for, in the removal of import duties. The fifteenth article is what they started out for when they began this negotiation. Mr. Tupper declared that he came here, and he sup- posed that what they were to do was to get up a reciprocity treaty, and he cites Mr. Bayard's letter in proof of it, and nobody can doubt it. I do not know that anybody disputes it. So there is a combination, a union, between the Democratic party and the British party to secure to them legislation through this fisheries excitement that they could not hope and could not expect otherwise to obtain. I will not go through with this matter in detail. The Senator from Massiichusetts [Mr. Hoab] touched itwith great power and presented it in a way that it seemed to me ought to have made every American blush for his Government. One thing is certain, Mr. President. The masterly way in which he presented it caused the Secretary of State, usually calm and collected, to forget the high position which he occu- pies, and induced him to submit himself to a newspaper interview, wherein he speaks of the speech made by the Senator from Massachu- setts in terms more consistent with a fish-market than with a diplo- matic position, and in that same interview he takes occasion to say that the Kepublican members of the American Senate are not honest, that we are not truthful when we say that we do not regard this as a proper treaty, that we are moved simply by our hatred of the Demo- cratic Administration, and then he slaps himself on the chest and de- clares that he is above partisanship, and he only of all people is above such small and wicked things. Mr. President, if there is a disgraceful chapter in American history 47 it is in connection with this negotiation, by which it is undertaken by the Secretary of State to aid and assist the Democratic party by ally- ing it with the Canadian party and the British party. It is fortunate for us that in a hundred years no such exhibition han been made hereto- fore, and it is to be hoped that it will not occur again. It was not in- tended that it should be known; there was nothing uuid about it, and if Mr. Tupper had not, in his innocence, mentioned the subject in the Canadian i'arliauiant, I suppose it would have escaped observation ex • cept in a general way. Those who believed this treaty was a surrender of American rights without eciuivalents might have believed that there were some reasons for it, I do not know what; I am unable to state. I know that here is a treaty made by the present Administration which, if it bad remained of the opinion that it was all through the year 188(» and through a good portion of the year 1H87, it would not have sent to the Senate. I do not know what intlueuces were brought to bear. I do not know whether it was supposed it would be popular with Great Britain and Canada and whether it would or would not assist in the coming election. I know that it is a treaty unfit to be made, and the t ransaction is one lor which the Department and the whole country, so far as it has had any connection with it, ought to be ashamed. Mr. Tupper told us that this was but the beginning, in substance that they could not carry this load all at once, but we were coming to the question of free fish and free intercourse between the United States and Great I'.ritain. Thd President told us in his message that he did not think it was worth while to pass upon that question in the treaty, but to make it contingent. Why, sir, the ''resident of the United States knew that he could not modify or change the impost duty laws. He knew that the duty on fish was part of the law of the land. The Democratic House of Representatives referred that matter in the Forthy-eighth Congres.s to its Judiciary Committee, and its Judiciary Committee with one accord, without exception, both political parties concurring, re- ported that it was not in the power of the executive department to ne- gotiate a treaty that should amend, modify, or change the import laws. But there was an understanding that the Democratic party should work in the House for this purpose, and they did so work. I desire to submit some portions of Mr. Tupper's remarks upon this question, which have already been read in part, and, therefore, I will ask to put them in without reading: Sir Chari.es Tuppkr. I do iiotintend to innultbotlilheKreat political parties of tliis country who have since isrvl iind long iH-fm-e ninintiiincu that the inter- esls of Canada— tlje intei'ests of I5i-iti»h North America— were intimately bound up inobtrtininfjfrceinten'onrse with the I'nited States for onrnatnral products — I do not intend to insult the two ffreat parties in this country l)y telling tliem that tlicy were fools, that they did not know what they wore doint;. Down to the present hour we have adopted the policy on both sides of the House, and we have pledged ourselves totlie people to do everj-lliiiifithal hxy in our power to obtain a free market for Die iiaturiil products of our country with the tJnited State, and I say you must answer mo the question as to whether that was an act of supreme folly, or whether it was wise statesmansliip on the part of both parties in this country to adopt that policy, before you ask me such a question as " who pays tlie duty?" I say tliat under this bill which has been introduced and which I believe will pass, for it does not require two-thirds of the Senate, where the Republican ma- jority is only one in the whole House, to pass the bill, it requires a majority of one only, and I am very sanguine that this bill will pass duringtho present ses- sion. Modified it maybe, but I am inclined to think the amendments will be still more in the interests of Canada than as the bill stands to-day. If this is the case I think we may congratulate ourselves upon securing the free admis- sion of our lumber, upon which was paid during the last year no less than 91,315,- 450. On coppor-ore, made free by the Mills bill, we paid, or there was paid— to 48 make it me«t the vIpwpi of the honorable Kentlemen oiposite more correctly— StN),949. On salt, S2l,<.K*2duty wiih tiitid. Tliis in renilcri'd friu by the MilU hill, i am Hurry to lliid, hh I hoped would be the cane, lY-oni the flrnt copy of tho bill that cniiii> to mo, tliat potalooH were not inoliidod amonKxt VfK<'tHl)lt-H. lam Horry to tliid there Ih a doubt Hft to whether the term " vcKetuMuH not specially «numcrated" will not excliKle potaloex. InKrappliiiK with thlH policy of nmlxioK the natural pmductHof the two coun> iricH free, you do not expect any perHon who wnntti to carry a hill to put u heav> icr load upon IiIh Hhouldern than he is able to carry, lent he may break down and do nothiuK. You expect him to take it in fletail,and,aH I believe, you will tlnd the policy contained in tliiM bill of niakhiK thone natural produotH of Can* ada free, carried out until you hive i)erfcct freedom of InlercourHi- lu-tweon the natural pruductx of Cunada and the United Mtatesof America. Of wool we sent 1 iHt year I.i'n9,3()t> pounds of one kind and a variety of other kinds, upon which a duty waa paid to the extent of 4Ih;s,H,'S2. Now, as I nay on articles ofprime im- portance and iutercHt to Canada the removal of duty by the Millx bill amounts to no less than SI .'^lO, I '•*'<■ Vou will be Klad to hear that I do not intend to de- tain the houHO any louKer. In discharKe of the duties— the very onerous and important dutieit — of one of Her Majesty's plenipotentiaries at that conference, I have steadily kept in view what, in my heart and juity for any further treaty, are now up- braiding us becau.s'i we do not see the ncocs-sity of this treaty. They upbraid us because we do not approve of the provisions of this treaty. The Secretary of State, who liad declared through his mini.st«r that it was not a (jtiestion of a new treaty, but a <(uestion of the construction of the present treaty, says that it is a valuable treaty and one that ought to be ratitied by the Senate. I denied before that it was a con.struction of the treaty of 1818 and I declared then that it was a new treaty. 1 desire to read just a few words from a letter of Mr. Treseott, a prominent Democrat, upon that point. Mr. Treacott is well known in this country as an able diplomat, and passing upon this (luestiim he says: There is not in this treaty .'in article, a jiliruse, a word, which recognizes our construction. It is absolnteiy rejected. The consequence is'that this is a new treaty, not a consti uction of an old one. Whatever it may do for the future, it can not help the past, and thus the position taken by the country through Con- gress as to our reciprocal commercial rights and the protests by Mr. Bayard against those rights can tind no support in any of its provisions, and our claims for compensation must either he abandoned or we must begin over again the 49 angry and UHPlrnn rerlRmalionn of the laHt two or three yearn. Tt Is indacd • verv ciirtoiin ftict thnt, RlthoiiKh the iiecenHlty for any treaty HpranK from the violent, iterHinlenl, nixl iiniKiyliix wi/.tireH liy tlio ('aiiadian and Newfoundland authoritioH, there 1h imt hi the whole treaty n reference to thene seizuree or a ■uggestiun uf any right to or any method of compensation. Mr. President. I Imvo iilluded to an interview of th* Secretary of State. ThiH interview purports to have l)een on tlie llth ot July of this year. I wonltl nut willingly do injustice to the .Secretary of Ktate, and I would not iiMsunie that any newspaper article ex preHsed his views if there were not )(0(m1 reiUMiiis to .suppose that such was the lact; but this publication in the Sun, of the city of Baltimore, ha.s been before the country for some time, and I am not aware that the Secretary has ever in any manner indicated his disapproval of the sentiments put in liis mouth and said to have been uttered by him. The editor of this paper proceeds, tiefore he reaches the inter- view, t<) ctuti^ate the Senate, undoubtedly upon information Air- uished hitn by the Secretary of State, and then he reaches a point where he says the Secretary was interviewed and mode " the following statement." It is too lon^ to read, and I propose, unless there is ob- jection, to put the w.ole interview, including the comments of the newspaper, in my speev-h. I propose, if this article is not trtie, to put it in ofticial form so that the Secretary of State may, if he desires, con- tradict it. He may think it beneath his di^^nity to deny a newspaper report, but it is a report so unjust to him if untrue, and ho unjudt to the Senate if true, that I do not think be can afford to overlook it. Therefore I will insert it in the Kbcord: THR FIHHKRIE8 DISCUSSION— MR. RAVARD REPLIES TO SRNATOR HOAE— THK ADMINISTRATION JEALOUS OV THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN SEAMEN, AND HAS MAINTAINED TUEM. [Special dispatch to the Baltimore 8un.] Washinoton, JxUy 11. , The elaborate production with which Mr. Hoar occupieeiirM the murks lican aide of the Senate is piilpably dislionest. The evidences are thick that had it be — legotiiited by a Republican administration it would have been de- fended as solidly l>y them as it is now denounced. Unbiased public sentiment in New England, according to all reliable reports, steadily tends to approve of its provisions. But witli the desire and hope of making political capital and preventing a Democratic Administration from hav- ing the honor of reconciling internatiom.l ditferenccs, which at one time threat- ened to lead to such serious results, the Senate Repubiica'xs have deliberately addressed themselves to the tartk of falsifying facts, perverting argument, and obstructing a settlement which they know in their hearts abates not one jot or tittle of American rights and American honor. If they w?re sincere in their denunciation of the treaty they would reject it outright, as they have the fnll power to do. To the contrary, the programme is said to be to exhaust all the vocabulary of vituperation and misrepresentation upon it, to be used as cam- paign literature, and then postpone its further consideration until December next. Should the Senate reject the treaty, there ar*; goodgroundsfor belief that the President would immediately put into execution the provisions of the re- taliation act. Although BO much stress has been laid upon this act ^nd the failure of the Ex- ecutive to avail of it by Republican Senators and members from New England, it is the very last thing they want him to do, for it would injure New England ten times more than it would Canada. In all probability Senators Fryr and Hoar would be among the flrst to rush to the White House and beseech the Presi lent to withdraw his proclamation. A very striking illustration of hon- est sentiment in Now KiiglanM 1)1 Miiliie. mill wherever he •penkN he luukeii the treaty ndiHttiiutUsuc, He writeM hitre that there have never been larger or mure enthUMlaiitlo meet* hiira In (lie HlHte. Other Malnti I>cme regarded uN tuo HaiiKnine, hut lliu taiit of hlg Deniouratle nieetinui and in- leiiHe piihlic entliiiNianm ia quite aufflcleni |>riM>r that tliere la not a universal deniro in Maine to crucify Cleveland and Hayard for aurrendering everything t4> ('luiada, aa Henator Kkvk wanta ua to hellevo. Henator Huau'h remarkable niiit-tiitonient of facta will, of cuurne, be rtolied to in due time by Henatora on tlie other aide. He aeeiiied to take eNpRcial pleaaure In attacking and miarep- reHenting the action of Hecrelary Hayard. In view of the important queatlona involved and the pulilic intereat the commenlNof the Secretary on Mr. HoAR'a apeech will be eagerly read. In uonveraation with yuur correapundeut on the auhject livday Mr. Hayard nald : "It ia hardly worth the trouble to deny the uttoranoea ot men who willfully pervert the truth to suit their own purpoaei. " The remarkn of .Senator Hoak are diaeiigenuoua in the extreme; thea|>eecb ia a hyalerical Mcrenin fmni beginning to etui. Hiaatutenienta are moat untrue, moat unfair. He makes chargea wliiih he niunt know to l)e without founda- tion, aa the full recorda concerning them iru in the arohiveaof the Henate in the form of executive docuinenta. ilia dlHctnirae ia more barren of fairneaa and honestv than any document I have known, wliich conaumed three weeka in the preparation, and aiippoaed to be the reault of reaearch for the truth otdy. It la not to l)e wondered that we failed to conault with the New Kngiaiid Hena- tora aa to the nature of Ihu negutlationa with the Uritiah and Ciintniian pro* tocollHta, Wo hardly nock roaes where tliorna only ahim replied, ' Neither.* These men were sworn to dofeatany attempt to settle exiating ditllcult)'. Kvidently their purpose was, and ia. to einliiirras.'* the Ailuilnialration. Waaittoauch men tliat we sliould turn for friendly cDunwl? "Mr. HoARavera that this Department declined to furnixh the .Senate, in re- sponse to resolution calling therefor, the proposal and counter proposals made while the joint commission was in seaaion. This ia HliMolnt«d this charge. My statement is printed in Kxecntive Document 127 published by the Senate March 2li, l.SXH, it being an answer to n Senate r<'solulw>n caliiUH: for the transmission of copies of the minutes and daily i>r(itruii<>ntnitiilt' !>«• iiiiiiiircNily irii|ink('lU'iil>l<' <)r iii'<'<^r wiix Kri-ntly liitcrfHtcil in (lit- ni'ceplniicfitf tliln |irii|ii>Mul, wlilcli liiid for Itn olijcot (ho iibullMhrncnt of thi- duly on llHh and llnh oil. IIIh irov<'rnmtMit Ki'<'ntly drHircd (hut iin iirriinK*'nicnl (o (hiH end ithonld lii^ inHdi*. 'I'luTcfore, when Hlr CharlrM Tu|>|mt riMuriH-d hotnt-, hi* whu confronted with the denmnd, ' VVht-ru Ih thu frcu lUh lind frt't^ IImIioII yini |irornlHfd !<■ olitiilii fornx?' 'I did not RUcveud,' ho WHH olillifed to unNw«>r, 'but I nuide th<> t-D'ort.' To provo (hat lie hnd endfuvorcd to lU'rornpHHh that whit^li tlio pfoph- mo Krriidv di-sirod hn iiHkfd for pormlHHion to print IiIh propomil itnd our dccllniitlitn. ft WHH liiit fair (OKrHhl thu riniitl,(MI0 and abolished theduty on tub and HhIi-oII. I'rovluiia to the meet iik of the coninilHMion a HritiKh fleet hiid Heizi'd a number of American vesoelH, but no redre»H wan obtained or even demanded. The ratill»r)ia.rtmeiit for failing to obtain Ihe o<<>nceiu aion, which he knew depended ii^iion tK«> abolllion of the duty on tinh and tlHh- oil. It wait amoatimpiident reNMiutioKi.aH well an iiiconslHtent, forthePrcNident wuM at lil>erty to enter Into aii<. iie|[i>l(iation bo Haw Ht. Ah a matter of fact, no Bitne man would Kive SfViilitK) « war for Iho privlleKo ot flHhiiiK within the 3- mile limit, notwitlmtandiiiK ^h« eiiurmoUH hiiiii paitifor the concetwion by the commlHHlon of 1871. I did not consult with the New Kn^lund Senators, but I did hear the opinions on this point of men known to be thoroughly convernant with the subject. ProfesMtr Kairil told me that the men I had here in connec- tion with the 3-mlle limit queHtloii knew more about the tlHliery (itiestion than any one eUe in New KiiKland. They told me the privileKe was value- less. Moreover, there is areporl wliicb .Mr. lIoAKiniKht have read coniinKfrona a committee of liepiililieaii H«'!iatorH. which aluo avoWHlheprivile((o to be o' no value. I therefore had the best of inforniation and advlcean to the wortl- i>i the concession which once cost SR.WKi.lKlO. " It is not true that tlie Htate Department does not press clainm for danuaKes. The case referred to by Mr. Hoar iHthat which was covered by the tollowinK para- lO'Hphofm^ letter to the Senate published in Kxecutive Document No. 127. tfarch 26,1888: ' Kvery point submitted to the conference is covered by the paper now in possession of the Senate, excepting the question of damages Hustained by our fishermen, which, beiuK met by the counter claim for damaKes to British ves- sels in Bering Hea, was left for future settlement.' This was determined the best course tiiat could be 'pursued by the coinmiHHion. As their claim exceeded ours I WIIH very willing to agree to this. Senator Hoak also refers to the case of the BridKewater. VVlthin two days after the case was reported to this De- partment the claim for damages presented by the owners of the vessel was on its way to Kngland. "The British Oovernment is now investigating the case. Again he charges that 1 allowed the flac of an American vessel to be hauled down by the officers of a British cruiser. For tliait act this country received a full apology from Kngw land. As much ctui not be said when indignities were heaped upon American seamen in years gone by. The Administration is jealous of the rights of Amer- lean seamen and has maintained them. There was more trouble of this char- acter during General (Grant's administrations than there has been In Mr. Cleve- land's. " No provision was inserted in the treaty toprevent theorderingoff of Ameri- can veasela from the jurisdictional waters of Canada, because the surrendering of the headland right by the British plenipotentiaries rendered such provision • ■MiicceHsnry. 'macine a line drawn fro'n oii" headland of Prince Kdward'B Islaixl to the other. It woiiUI he ithoiit 10) miles lotiK- It would inclose at th« farthest point from shore about 5il mi leH of water. Under the old riKht.s the Canadian Government could order beyond that line any American vessel that happened to get within it. This rijjiht lias been surrendered. For tliis reason it was not necessary to provide au;ainst the orderiiiH; oH'of vessels. " Henator Hoar did not read Hir Charles Tnpper's statement with the proper knowledge of tlie meaning of Knglish words or he would not have made ihe rash statement that that gentleman said I made promises for the President, House of Representatives, and Democratic party as to what would be done for Oreat Britain and Canada. Hir Charles's speech contains no such statement. I did tell Sir Charles Topper that when Canada treated American citi/.ens tu ily he might then expect some steps looking to the esiab.ishment of more friendly relations between the two countries. " For my own part I favor reciprocity with Canada. The existing conditions are absurd. We pay Canada for our coal and we pay her for hers. A duty is paid us on Canadian fish and we Iiave to pay Canada a duty on our llsh. It is manifestly wrong. Reciprocity has been favored by such men as Webster, .Miu'cy, Everett, Arthur, Frelinghuyaen, and many others. Some of the Repiil>- licans go so far as to favor commercial imion. "There is one statement I wish to make particularly emphatic, and that is. the American fishermen have under the treaty every riglit of value to them, and the Government has been put to no expense thereby. Their interests will lie guarded and noattempt todeprivethemof their rights tolerateil. It is my hope that all trouble will be ended by the establishment of full reciprocity between Canada and the United States. I had hoped, as a step toward tliis end, free tish and free oil would have been one of the provisions of the Mills bill, and trust that it may yet be inserted."— BdViimore. Sk/i, July 12, 1H88. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Chandlkr] the other day introduced in the Senate a letter front Hon. Charles Levi Woodbury concernino; this matter, which is such high authority on this subject that I am inclined to add it also to the letters that appear upon thi.s lained to the .Senile and to the country who Charles Levi Woodbury was and who he is. I suppose there are few men in the country, if there are any, who are as well qualified to speak on this subject as Mr. Woodbury; probably no one unless it be Mr. Trescott, who is also a Democratic diplomat and who has spoken in the .same general direction that Mr. Woodbury has. So when Mr. Tupper says the entire Democratic party of the country are in accord with the ideas of this treaty he is mistaken. That is not the fact. The letter of Mr. Woodbury is as follows: To the Editor of the Sun : SiE: The Chamberlain treaty is now before the Senate. It surrenders every- thing the United States have contended for since IS.'W, when the dispute on the 3-mile limit began, contentions which the British authorities have assented to or temporized about as often as pressed, so that really in no entire year since then have they insisted on enforcing their headland theory. The commercial rights of the United .States inxler the agreements of 18.30 were utterly abandoned by Mr. Bayard after much previous insistence on their obli- ).ation. The rightsof common humanity toward our vessels in distress, accorded every- where except on the Caiiadian coast, are hereafter tO be allowed only upon tliQ condition that the United States shall change its present registry laws by repealing them, and enacting such new ones as are acceptable to the British Government before going into efliect. This of course leaves the humanity of Canada to vessels of the United .States in distress withheld until the United States shall pay the consideration by repealing its laws and making such new ones. Commercial intercourse by our fishing vessels is disallowed, but they may he permitted to buy a narrow line of supplies, whose extent would not exceed ^,000 a year, when the United States shal.' have repealed existing duties, now over 8611,000 a year, on Canadian fish and oi.', and made them free in our mar- kets. This is the substance of the treaty, all losses to the United States bothin honor and profit. General .hickson and Mr. McLane, Van Buren and Forsyth. Ste- venson and Everett, Webster, Rush, Grant, Evarts. and even Bayard and Phelps, for two of their otHcial years, are buried beneatti this treaty and their memories dishonored by its retreat from their patriotic contentions lor American rightaw 53 Cavilern have said the treaty of 1818 was wrung fi-om our weakness, but this treaty, made in the hour of our streuKth, surrenders what that never did— our markets; and it doubles the waters from which it requires we shall be forever excluded. The consequence of adoptiuK this treaty would be the destruction of the fish- ery under the American HaK, the paralysis of our hope of naval power, and a British monopoly of our markets, aggrandizing its dangerous naval power. Let the treaty be rejected. CHAULES LEVI WOODBURY. Boston, May 4, 1888. Mr. President, there are some provisions of this treaty the details of which I should like to have gone into more extensively, and there are several thinj^s in connection with the history of the transactions ot' early times that I should like to refer to if I had not already detained the Senate to an unusual length on this subject. Suffice it to say that it is one that the American people have interest in ; it is one that the American people do not consider a local question; it is one, as was said by more than one member of the Houseof Representatives in 1887, that does not concern a few fish. It is not a local controversy, said they; it is not a skirmish about fish, said two members at least, one of whom is now an honored member of this body; it is not a question of property, but a question of honor, of dignity, and of right, and aquestion whether we are to surrender for the purpose of escaping a threat of war or to escape evils of any other kind. Mr. President, we were told here and we have been told elsewhere, that the PresideuL of the United States would put in force the act of 1887; that he would put it in force in such a way, we have been told in substance, as to disturb and destroy the business of the country ; that we had armed him with a power which was very dangerous. Why, sir, if the President of the United States chooses to disturb business for the purpose of compelling decent treatment to our seamen on the north- ern seas, very well, let him do it. If any other method can be devised by which the seamen may be pro- tected in their rights, let him put us in a position of complete non- commercial intercourse, and the people of the United States will not complain. If the exclusion of fresh fish from Canada will do it, the people will not justify him in going beyond that. He can not by way of punishment to the Se"ute disturb the business of the country, and the Senate will not be influenced by any suggestions of newspapers, whether they get their ideas from the Secretary of State, as the Balti- more Sun seems to have done, or from anywhere else, that the business of the country is to be disturbed if we do not accept this treaty. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. George] said it is foredoomed to defeat. Undoubtedly, and it is foredoomed to defeat at this ses- sion, I want to say to the Senator; and if the President of the United States declines to put in force in any proper manner the statute that we enacted for that purpose, he must take the responsibility if disturb- ances arise, and not we. We can not be moved by threats of dis- turbed business any more than we can by the suggestion made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Mokgan] that this might lead to war, that commercial war was close on to real war. When the act of 1887 was before the Senate, the Senator from Alabama said it does not mean war, it means peace. Now, we are told that it may mean war. Who has the right to threaten the American Senate with war ? Who makes war ? Certainly nobody in the Senate individually and nobody in the executive department is likely to make war. Great Britain is not likely to go to war with us for that which she has absolutely abandoned 54 and surrendered and for that which she has never vigoronsly enforced at any time in the history of this claim by the Canadian authorities. Great Britain does not go to war without cause, unless she knows that she has it in her power to acquire great good to herself by so doing. It is simply absurd to talk about a war with Great Britain; it is folly. But we are as ready for war as Great Britain. We may not have as many guns, but we would have means for maintaining the honor and the dignity of the American people in a war with Great Britain or with any other country, and we will not surrender one jot or one tittle of that which belong to us for fear of war, nor under covert threats that if we do not accept this treaty something will follow it that will be worse and the business of the country will be disturbed. We can say for ourselves on this side of the Chamber that we approach this question with as much patriotism as Senators on the other side, and we can point to the fact that until recently the legislative depart- ment of the Government and the executive department of the Gov- ernment were in perfect harmony with xu npon this qneetion.