St. Cloud Democrat. [volume] (Saint Cloud, Stearns County, Minn.) 1858-1866, 1865-02-09
Reciprocity Treaty.
-.. 49,. ..s +.
: SPEECH OF
HON. ALEX. RAMSEY,
Dcliv cred in the United States Senate.
January 1lth, 1865.

has been made to excite hostility
against the reciprocity treaty, by en-
larging upon the advantages to Canada.
and the other British provinces Of North
America under its third article, as if
that article, and the commercial cx-
changes which it authorized, was the
total scope Of the negotiation of 1854.
We hear nothing, or next to nothing,
of the extension of our American rights
in the Newfoundland fisheries noth-
ing Of the free navigation secured to
the western States both of the lower
channel OF the St. Lawrence river and
Of the ship canals If Canada and yet
sir, these are leading aud vital prcvis-
ions in favor Of the United States, and
were the consideration received for. the
free exchange Of natural products across
the northern frontier If the United
States. l cannot think that the dis
cussion here or elsewhere transpiring
Of late has fully considered the histori-
ic'l bearings Of this subject; and l pro-
pose to present a simple narrative in re-
spouse to the question, what is the rec
iproci'y treaty? IT, the answer to this
question shall comprise nearly all tha,
| desire to urge i" opposition to the
resolution reported by the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, which is now BE-
fore the Senate. -.
Mr.. Pierce wa, inaugura'cd Prcsi-
dent in March, 1853. Hc was im,ne-
dlately confronted by serious dispute
as to he:rishts Of American fishermen
npon the banks OF Newfoundland and
the adjacent fishing grounds. At the
conclusion Of the peace Of 1888, the
treaty between the United States and
Great Britain had secured to Americans
the same lights in the cod aud mack
erel fisheries of the northeast Atlantic
coast which they had possessed prior ia
the Revolution. After the war Of 1872
a controversy arose whether the stipu.
lations cf 1888 upon the subject OF the
fisheries we're abrogatcd by that war.
1t resulted in the convention Of 1918,
whereby the general liberty Of taking
and curing, fish, although yelled BY
Great Britain, was most seriously i'm
paired BY provision that the United
States reoounced forever any liberty
previously enjoyed or claimed by the
inhabitants reofto'takc, dry, Or cure
fish on, or within three marine miles d
any Of the coasts, bays, creeks, or har.
bors of the British d"'ninions, except
certain districts of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The colonies always claim.
ed, and the English Government final.
ly adopted the construction; that these
three marine miles were to be measured
from headland to headland, and not
from the coast line !; while, on the
American side, it. was contended that
American 6she. men had q right TO en-.
ter aad fish in any Of the bays which
indent the shores, provided they never
approached for the purpose Of taking
fish within sthree m,,ius miles Of the
coast BY which such bays were encom.
passed.
The danger Of collision, unavoidable
from such n provision, s. culminated in
1853. In that year, as Lord Elgin
once eaid ina speech at Liverpool
4 "a British admiral and anH American
commodore were sailing on tie coast with
instructions founded upon opposite conclu-
sions, and single indiscreet act upon the
part Of one Or the other II those naval Of
ficers would have, brought on q conflict
involving al the horrors Of war;
= S-- fI.sS k,-<F