The Sun.
London, England, 1870-12-07 00:00:00

OUR CO rE

h s rning

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

The Times, in discussing the American President's
speech, says: General Grant charges the Dominion Govern-
ment with unfriendly conduct in their mode of protecting
the fisheries on the Canadian shores, and in their mainte
nance of the right to close the St. Lawrence against the
commerce of the United States. Both charges appear to
be made on exparte statements, and there i 3 considerable
difficulty in meeting accusations without hearing the
other side, but the Statutes of the Dominion E re before
us, and we cannot discover in the Act of 1868, or in the •
supplementary Act of the last Session anything to justify
the President's reclamations. The Canadians have, by
the universal law of nations, an exclusive right of fish-
ing in the waters within a league of their shores, and
the Acts in question are simply devised to pre-
vent poaching in these waters. Foreign fishing
vessels wilfully trespassing in them are liable
to seizure at the hands of properly commissioned officers,
and to be condemned if the charge be subsequently pioved
against them in a civil court. The Canadians, in fact,
seek to protect their fishery rights just as England and
France have, by repeated conventions, protected the
fishery rights of their cwn coasts. If the Acts of the
Canadian Parliament do not contain adequate secu-
rities that they shall be properly executed, they
may be amended so as to remedy the defect ; but the
principle of the Acts is clearly just, and there is no
instance in which it is alleged that they have been
abused. The case of the navigation of the St. Lawrence
is equally plain. We should certainly never pretend to
deny the United States the use of this outlet of the
North-West, subject only to such conditions as are
essential for the independence of the Dominion, and to
such transit tolls as may be necessary for the preservation
of the canals used in the transit from the Lakes. On
such conditions the navigation of the St. Lawrence may
be free and neutral, and we do not know that the Cana-
dian Government have ever shewn any disposition to
close the river to commerce.

The Standard is surprised that even an American states
man can venture to accuse us of failing in due willingness
to settle the Alabama claims, if those claims can be fairly
established; or can speak of our " desire for a full and
friendly adjustment" as a future and problematic possi-
bility. We, observes the Standard, offered a general
reference of the whole question to arbitration,
on terms heartily approved by the then representative
of America, and endorsed by General Grant's predecessor.
The treaty was rejected by the Senate. It is somewhat
hard that the blame of refusing a "full and friendly ad-
justment" should be thrown on the shoulders of those
offered arbitration by those who suddenly, peremptorily,
and not very courteously declined it. By proposing to
purchase the claims of individuals, General Grant shows
that his Government looks upon those claims as
demands to be pressed, and one day likely to be satisfied ;
and we fear, therefore, that we must not hope from him
either a quiet abandonment of unreasonable pretensions,
or a colourable withdrawal of the refusal to submit to
arbitration which has hitherto rendered a settlement
impossible. A newer and perhaps more troublesome
grievance is found in the conduct of the Canadians. The
disputes concerning the navigation of the St.
Lawrence and the Newfoundland fisheries are of old date.
There can be no doubt that the Canadians are only acting
within their right ; though it is probable they are
pressing that right harshly. Under such circumstances
the proper mode of settlement is by a treaty, in which
the obnoxious right shall be exchanged for a fitting
equivalent. Such a treaty did exist between Vngland and
the States ; and under it the States enjoyed perfect
freedom from all the molestation of which they now
complain—were admitted to Canadian fisheries and to the
Canadian inland waters. They suddenly abrogated that
treaty ; and thereby renounced the privileges it con-
ferred ; and withdrew the benefits in exchange for
which Canada had conceded those privileges.
They cannot wonder if the Canadians are resolved
that they shall feel to the full the inconvenience of the
new state of things, in order that they may appreciate,
the mutual advantages of the Reciprocity Treaty. And this
General Grant admits to be the Canadian object. But in-
stead of proposing to restore the treaty he proposes t 3 reta-
liate upon the Canadians—to forbid the transit of goods
in bond across American territory, which would close the

markets of Canada against foreign produce during the
entire winter, and, if need be, to exclude Canadian vessels
from American ports. It is easy to see that such a course
of mutual injury and annoyance is not compatible with
friendly understar ding or permanent peace. If Canada
were an independent and equal Power such a policy would
lead to war.