New-York tribune., 1886-01-20
1aW.BRE1KJYG CONFESSED.

The hon. hlcnaru .. OpOuOru has hh""o "'
effective reply to the pretended defences OF the
Administrations Fishery policy. He has pro-
duced memorial adopted last spring by the
American Fishing Union and laid before the
State Department, in which the case OF the
New-England fishermen was distinctly stated.
He also afiirms that the Hon. G. l.. Woodbury.
called at the State Department and thoroughly
EXPLAINED the position of the American fisher
men. The plea offered In defence of the Ad-
ministration's action was that 1T was seeking 10
protect an American industry by p"oonglng
the operation OF the clauses and negotiating
for a new treaty. The representatives OF that
industry are shown to have demonstrated In
the strongest terms against the renewal or the
clauses and any attempt to secure international
action.
But this is not the only point which Mr..
Spofford makes He produces letter from
Mr.. Bayard, written May 2, 1885, in which
this significant remark occurs " The
" Ereoatue has no power to ertend the
" time fixed by Congress for the termination
"of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washing
"ton. Our fishermen. like the rest of their fell
"low countrymen, must prepare to Obey the law
"proclaimed by the President in January last"
NO u6IenUer OF Tic hfto yN'
ventured to justify its action in nullfying the
will OF Congress and ceding to foreigners mari
time rights. The Constitutional aspects OF the
question have not been considered by the
Democratic press. 1t ia so much easier to
thrust the whole matter aside as q petty quar-
rel about the duty on fish Ii will startle the
Administrations partisans, however, to find
that the State Department itself has confessed
its Constitutional offences. Here is an explicit
statement from the Secretary of State that the
Executive had no power to prolong the opera
tions OF the fishery clauses after Congress had
abrogated them. This was the very thing which
the British Minister had proposed, and which
the Administration actually accomplished.
While counselling the fishermen to obey tho
laws the Administration itself was preparing
TO violate the Constitution by a direct act OF
usurpation.
The question Is raised by Senator Edmunds
whether, in extending the operation of treaty
without consent of the Senate, and in spite
of the fact that Congress had by joint resOlu-
ton, March 8, 1888 deliberately given notice
that the operation of the treaty should cease
last year, the President has not exceeded his
powers, encroached upon the preIogative of the
Senate by making an international compact
without its consent, and set aside resolution
which had all the moral effect of an act of
Congress. In reply it was stated by Senator
Morgan that the abrupt termination of the
treaty, in the midst of the fishery season, would
have had ruinOus effect on American fisheries.
The unsoundness of this plea was promptly
exposed by Senator Dawes, who showed that
no one could be taken by surprise, since public
warning Of the date on which the treaty would
cease TO have effect had been given by the act
mentioned, nearly three years ago. AS to the
injury to commerce, Senator Frye showed in a
strong speech that the treaty had from the first
been most perniciOus to American interests,
and largely beneficial to Great Britain and
Canada. IL was q great mistake that the treaty
was ever made, but for that mistake a past
Administration and Senate are responsible.
Now that It's hurtful effects have been clearly
demonstrated by years of experience, in which
800 vessels have been added to the fishery
fleet of Canada and 1000 TO its merchant
marine, while the United States has correspond
lngly lost in consequence it seems something
worse than a mistake for the President 10
assume power to extend the treaty and give it
longer life, without the consent of the Senate,
and in direct disregard of joint resolution
passed by Congress.
This criticism appears to have great force.
The country will avail; with interest what Sen
atOrs have further to say in defence of the
President, who is now charged by his own Sec
retary of State with violating the fundamental
law. 1t is not forgotten that there has been
great scandal about the improper means used
to fix the amount to be paid by the United
States as a compensation for supposed benefits
under this treaty. Nor is 1t to be overlooked
that, in taking The step he has taken, the Pres
ident has - II on the suggestion of British
authority, .I.nough, when the letter making
that suggestion was published, it was met with
indignant protests by those people of this
country who are most affected by the expiration
OF continuance of the treaty. The President
seems to have dsregarded the people, as well
as Congress and the Constitution.