Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1854-12-21


, more exposed condition, of our wild
spread commerce, would give an
of them like advantage over US.
The proposition to enter into Ell
gagements to forego resort to priys
teers, in case this country should b
forced into war with great nav;
power, is not entitled to more favor
vorable consideration than would b
a proposition to agree not to accep
the services of volunteers for opera
tions on land. When the honor 0
the rights Of our country require i
! to assume a hostile attitude, it conf
IDENTIFY relies upon the patriotism o
its citizens, not ordinarily devoted
to the military profession, to aug
ment the army and the navy, SO as
to make them fully adequate to the
emergency which calls them into &C
ton. The proposal to surrender the
right to employ privateers is profes'
sedly founded upon the principle, that
private property of unoffending non.
combatants, though enemies, should
be exempt from the ravages Of
war; but the proposed surrender goes
but little way in carrying out that
principle, which equally requires that
such private property should not be
seized or molested by national ships
of war. Should the leading powers
of Europe concur in proposing, as a
rule of international law, to exempt
private property, upon the ocean.
from seizure by public armed cruis-
ers, as well as by privateers, the Uni
ted States will readily meet them up
on that broad ground.
Since the adjournment of Con-
gress, the ratification of the treaty
of the United States and Great
Britain, relative TO coast fisheries,
and to- reciprocal trade with the
The British North American Prov
inccs, have been exchanged, and
some of its anticipated advan-
tages are already enjoyed by us. al
though its full execution was to
abide certain acts OF legislation
not yet fully performed. So soon
as it was ratified, Great Britain
opened to our commerce the free
navigation Of the St. Lawrence, and
% our fishermen unmolested access
% the shores and bays, from which
hey had been previously ex-
GUIDED on the coasts OF her North
American provinces; in return for
which, she asked for the introduc-
ion, free Of duty, into the ports OF
he Cnited States, OF the fish caught
N the same coast by British fisher
nen. This being the compensa-
ion, stipulated by the treaty, for
privileges of the highest importance
Ind value 20 the United States,
which were thus voluntarily yielded
before il became effective, the re-
quest seemed to me to be reason
lble one; but it could not be acce-
led to, from want Of authority to
aspend our laws imposing duties
lpon ali foreign fish. In the mean
ine the Treasury Department is
ued a regulation for ascertainins |
he duties paid or secured by bonds
N fish caught on the coasts OF the
British provinces and brough: to
'ur markedly British subjects, az
er the fishing grounds had been
made fully accessible TO the citi-
.ens of the United States. ! re-
to yo'r favorable consld-
ration a proposition, which will be
admitted 10 you, for authority to
eiund The duties and cancel the
'onds thus received. The provin-
es OF Canada aud New Brunswick
ave also anticipated the full ope-
alton of The treaty, by legislative
respectively 10 admit, !.
rec of duty, the products Of the
United States mentioned in the free
st of the treaty; and an arrange
nent, similar to that regarding
British fish, has been made for du-
les now chargeable on the products
1 those provinces enumerated in
be same free list, and introduced
heiefrom into the United States; a
roposition for refunding, which
viii, in my Judgment, be in like
aanner entitled TO your favorable |
consideration. |
There is a difference Of opinion
'etween the United States and