The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-08-25

oPoheu ny MI. webster, Lney give al stihio9ss
authoritative construction to the treaty. 1t
is certainly not discourteous or invidlous 70
say that in legal ability, especially on points
Dotn OF constitutional and international law,
M: Webster's opinion is entitled to more
welghty consideration than that of any Brit
Ism official who was then dealing or who has
since dealt with the fishery question.
MI Webster's official proclamation, from
winch have quoted, was issued on the 6tn
OF July, 1852. A fortnight later he addressed
q large audience from the front door OF MS
house at Marshfeld, and then he spoke with
entire freedom. "The treaty Of 1878, SAID
MT. Webster, was made with the crown OF
England. If an American fishing vessel is
captured by one of her vessels OF war. the
Crown OF England is answerable: but 1t IS
not to be expected that the United States
will submit their rights to be adjudicated in
The petty tribunals of the Provinces, or that
we shall allow our own vessels to be selzed
by constables and other petty officers, and
bee, Newfoundland New Brunswick or Can
ada In the meantime be
assured that the fishing interest will not be
neglected by this administration under any
circumstances The fishermen shall be pro
tested in all their rights of property and In
all their rights of occupation: To use
Marblehead phrase they shall be protected
hook and line, bob and sinker.'
Mr.. Webster fell ill very soon after these
vigorous expressions and the negotiations
passed into other hands and were adjusted
| finally by the reciprocity treaty of 1854 The
operation of that treaty was highly injurious
| to American fishermen Before its termina-
| ton in 1866, our government refused to re-
new it and our fishing interest Immediately
began to revive, and Immediately the Cana
| dams began to agitate for another treaty by
which they could reach the markets OF the
United States. Their wishes were gratlfled,
and by the strangest of all diplomatic jugges
| the United States paid five and half mil
| lions of dollars for treaty which it did not
want and which the other party earnestly
| desired. Time has passed and the treaty OF
| 1871 has expired. The Canadians again come
| back to their old tactics to harass and worry
and outrage American fishermen until by
| sheer WEAKNESS, after the manner OF the I'M
| just judge in Scripture, our government may
| give them what they want, even to the INJURY
| of our own people.
! The humiliation of our situation has been
gratuitously increased by the vote OF ma
| iority of the Democratic party in the House
| of Representatives to throw open the mar
| lxets of the United States to British and
| Canadian fishermen, without duty or charge
| and without securing to American fishermen
| the right to fish in British and Canadian
waters. This is an act of such unaccount-
able, rancorous hostility to the fishing inter-
est OF New England that it is difficult even
to comprehend its motive. John Randolph
so hated the wool tariff that he felt like
walking mile to kick sheep. Do the
! Northern Democrats feel such determined
hostility to the fishermen OF New England
| that they would sacrifice great national IN
terest in order to infict a blow upon them?
Itwould certainly be refreshing If we could
| hear Mr.. Webster's words repeated from ON.
eial sources today. 1t would be refreshing II
it could once more be asserted with q. the
| United States will not submit their rights to
be adjudicated in the petty tribunals OF the
| PROV inces," that american fishermen shall
| be protected in their rights of property and
| IL, l. 30 s Mr.
ster did not expect and did not intend that
| his position would lead to war. He simply
| expected that firm, decided tone would
| bring English officials to their senses and
make them feel the responsibility and danger
| of transgressing the rights and touching the
| sensibilities of proud and powerful people.
| Mr.. Webster knew, as those who learned
from him have since known, that England
| could even less than the United States afford
| to go to war about the fisheries. Mr.. Web
ster knew, as those who have learned in his
| school have since known. that England and
| the United States can never go to war except
ON some point that touches the imperial in
| tegrity of the one or the other-and even an
offence of that magnitude we agreed in 1871
to settle by arbitration and not by gage OF
| battle. But the country IS weary OF hearing
| in Mr.. Webster's phrase that Canadian con-
! stables are arresting American crews and
that Canadian gunboats are capturing vessels
| on the high seas floating the American nag.
| And all this on the assumption of treaty
power which the United States denies and
upon technical construction put forward a
| quarter of a century after the treaty went
into operation and had received peaceful
publication of Mr.. Bayard's correspondence
! with Great Britain on the subject of the seiz-
ure of American fishing vessels with deep
| interest-shall wait wit the hope if not the
| expectation that he will leave his country in
better position at the close of the negotia-
ton than he has thus far maintained for her.
| RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.
| Another international trouble has increas-
| ed our sense of chargin and humiliation. In
| contrast with our patient endurance of Cana
| dian outrage towards American fishermen,
| we have made an unnecessary and undigni-
| fed display of insolence and bravado towards
| Mexico. There is no adequate cause for the
| demonstration. LIDO not stop at this point
to narrate the precise facts attending the i'm
| prisonment of Mr. Cutting. know that we
| cannot without loss of character for honor
and chivalry begin our negotiations with
| threats of war. | maintain that when the
| United States agreed to accept arbitration as
| the means of adjusting our grave difficulties
with England we came under bonds to the
| public opinion of the world to t0ffer arbltra-
| ton to any weaker power as the means of
settling diffinulties in all cases where we can
not adjust them by direct negotiations. If
| we are not willing TO accept that conclusion
we place ourselves in the diSreputable atti-
| power and resorting to force with weak
| power. | am sure no American citizen of
| self-respect desires to see his country sub
jected to that degradation. For the United
States to attack Mexico without giving her
an opportunity to be heard before an impair
tial tribunal of arbitration would be for
great nation of unlimited power to put her
self to open shame before the world.
| There could not, fellow citizens, in my
| judgment, be more deplorable event than a
war between the United States and any 9TH
| er Republic of America The United States
| must be regarded as the elder sister in that
family Of commonwealth. Even in the day
of our weakness, we gave aid and comfort to
them in their struggle for Independence, and
let us not fail now to cultivate friendly and
intimate relations with them. Refraining
from war ourselves we shall gain the lnfiu-
ence that will enable us to prevent war
among them--so that peace shall be assured
and perpetual on this continent Ii | recall
any part of my own participation in public
affairs with special satisfaction it is that l
endeavored and almost succeeded in having
the American Republics assemble in Peace
Congress in order that war between nations
on this continent should be made impossible.
War in any direction would prove great ca
lamity to the United States-but war forced
on Mexico would be crime, marked in an
especial degree by cruelty.
THIRD PARTY PRoHIBITIoNIsTs.
The pending contest is marked by the pres
ence of third party, organized as its leaders
say, to enforce the prohibition of the liquor
traffic in Maine. There are some singular
features pertaining to this movement, The
Republican party in Maine from the day of
its organization has been pledged to prohibit
tion-enacting the principal Statute now in
force in 1878, and since amending it from
year to year as the leading temperance men
requested. The changes to make it more eff
fective have averaged nearly one for every
year since the original law was passed.
The third party, in their convention, cheer
fully testify that prohibition has been so
well enforced by the Republicans, that in
their judgment Maine is a quarter of CEN
fury ahead Of the license States in all that
pertains to the temperance reform. The Re-
publicans have this year, with special en-
phasis, in their State convention, reaffirmed
their faith in prohibition and nominated for
governor a pronounced supporter of the
law. But all this does not suit the third
party Prohibitionists. They desire party
of their own just small enough to have no
effect at all, or, if possible, just large enough
to throw the State into the hands of the
Democratic party. which has been as con-
slant in its hostility to prohibition as the
Republican party of Maine has been con-
slant in its fidelity to prohibition.
The position and platform of the third par
ty might in fact be thus abbreviated: Where
as, the Republican party of Maine enacted
prohibitory law thirty years ago, and has
since amended it as majority of the friends
of temperance demanded, and has in conse-