Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-08-21

sides which could be imagined In 1885 Mr. FORSYTH the
then Secretary OF State was pacific and friendly that
he informed Mr. Bankhead by direction Of the Pesident
that masters owners and others engaged in the fish
cries were to be informed Ny the collectors that
plants had been made and that they were enoned TO
the strict limits assigned for taking fish under the
yenton OF 1873 So in that year the Secretary of the
Treasury addressed circular letter to the collectors Of
customs directing them instruct the American fisher
men not to encroach upon the fishing grounds secured
exclusively TO British fishermen by the convention Of
1915" So in 1889 Mr. VAIL Acting Secretary of State,
in an official communication, said
Under the supposton that many the seizures had
upon insufficient grounds and in order possible preclude
for the future the Of such proceedings the Acting
Secretary of State in dated the 10th of july called
attention Of the British Minister the Of seizure which
had come to the knowledge of the Department and requested
him to direct the attention Of the provincial authorities the
runous consequences Of the seizures the Of the
ses whatever might be the issue Of the legal proceedings
stitued against them and to ero them exercise great
caution and orbeaance in future in order that American
citizens not anye encroaching upon British rights should
not be subject to interruption in the pursuit Of
cations"
Sir, think you now that this present Administers
ton has roared in tones of defiance Of Great Britain
least loud these uterances Of the Administrations
MIR. Van Buren, and of Gen. jackson 1t has been q
ground of censurc, and cause of complaint and
citement here that notice given by the British
Government the United States that they had changed
their construction of the treaty. That is oil right 1t
is good ground of complaint, provided the condition
holds II they had changed the construction of the treaty
changed, then the complaint Of of notice must fail
1t has been complained here that the President with
held information 1t is enough to know that he had
nothing official worth communicating and that when
quested he furnished all that he had.
II have been successful have shown the Senate that
there is not in the present difficulties about the fisheries
any ground Of for the that moth
ing has occurred; that circumstances remain Just
exactly they that there is ground appre-
bend war; because the dispositions Of the British Gov
eminent remain just as pacific they before; and
the dispositions of the colonies to retaate were well
known before and that if there reasons for
in any quarter, it must fall elsewhere and not on the
Administration The President transferred the subject
to Congress last December The Senate implies that this
was right because it rejects the idea ofnegotaton Who
then, has right to complain? Is it Congress- that the
Executive has not acted is it the Administration
that Congress has been silent?
shall be told, indeed, that the notice of the British
Minister ambiguous. But it was no more ambigu-
than the MISUNDERSTOOD reserve practsed by that
Government for . dozen and more years past.
The Executive is be censured for not having re-
sisted the British force for there has been none there
hostility to resist 1t has resented indgnty because
there has been no indigny offered This is SO, unless
the Government of the United States shall claim right
to prescribe to the Government of Great Britain what
portion Of her naval force and of what kind she shall
maintain on this station and what on that should like
to see how the Senate Of the United States would regard
notice from the British Government that must send
not than one two ve or ten war steamers or
shpsofthe line off the of Nicaragua or into the
Mediterranean. The Executive has acted with all suf-
cient promptness and when it seemed necessary the
Mississippi sent into those From accounts
received 1t appeared that Commodore Perry found the
British authorities adhering practically to our own con-
strucon Of the convention of 1918. What is the Misss-
sppi to do? She must not protect fishermen who,
cording to construction, epcroaching, and
those who are not seem to need no protection.
Sir it has been complained by the honorable Senator
from Louisiana Ar. SoULE) that Mr. Webster conceded
too much in his official notice of July 6, 1851 Now,
hnra Sc NJ Wnla
ty, he says
at would appear that by strict and rigid construction of
this article fishing vessels Of the United precuded
from entering into the bays" &C.
And, in the same connexion he adds
1T undoubtedly oversight in the convention of
1878 to make so large concession to England"
That is to say it oversight to language in
that convention which, by strict and rigid construction
might be made to yield the freedom of the great bays
1t is, then, question Of mere verbal criticism The
Secretary does not admit that the rigorous construction
is the just and true And he does admit
there any concession in the sense of the term which
the honorable Senator adopts Now other honorable Sc
majors, recolec arightand particularly that very
accurate and exceedingly strong minded Senator the
teman from Massachusetts, MR. DAVIS conceded that
the treaty oud bear this rigorous construction insist
ing, nevertheless just the Secretary of State did
it forced and unjust The Senator from Lousi-
dssents from him and other Senator'S and maintains
that ii viii not bear that construction all because he
says that the other portions of the convention show that
minons. He adds that in order to bring bay within
the dominion of any Power il must be such that its
sage to the sea shall not exceed six miles in width and
that the shores both sides belong the Power claim
ing dominion over the water. cannot the force
Of this argument of the honorable Senator from Lous-
ana. am the more Inclined to 90 against il because
believe it getting pretty late in the day to find the Sc
creary of State wrong in the technical and legal
structon of an instrument Let test the argument
The honorable Senator says that where the
occupies both sides OF the bay and where the strait
through which the waters Of the bay ow into the
is not than six miles wide then there is dominion
over il.
Now, then, the Gut of Csnso is most indispensable
communication for fishermen from the Atlantic ocean
to the Northumberland straits and to the Gulf Of St.
Lawrence for reason which any will very readily
see by referring TO the map yet the Gut Of Canso only
three-quarters Of mile wide should be sorry to adopt
an argument which Great Britain might turn against us
to exclude us from that important passage.
Again, recall the honorable Senator's argument viz
1.-Two things unite to give country dominion in.
apd The first that the land both sides must be
within the dominion Of the Government claiming
and then that the strait Is than six miles wide but
that the strait than six miles wide no such jursdc
ton can be claimed"
Now sir this argument to me TO prove too much
think 1t would diyes the United States Of the harbor
of Boston, all the land around which belongs to Massa
chusett the United States while the mouth OF the bav
is six miles wide 1t would surrender our dominion over
Long Island Sound dominion which think the State
Of New York and the United States would not willingly
give up. 1t would surrender Delaware Bay: IL would
surrender think, Abemarle Sound and the Chesa
Bay; and believe 1t would surrender the Bay Of Mon
terey, and perhaps the Bay Of San Francisco ON the
Pacific coast.
Sir il to that we have been laborinr for the
last fortnight under strange Misrepresentation that we
have been arguing here the freedom Of the seasof open
and broad seasthe freedom Of great bays which free
dom is not practically denied or newly brought in