Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-08-25

dsy and is adopted BY the Canadian Govern.
ment with the deliberate intention and obvious
expectation of forcing concessions from this
government. A few facts in the long contro'
versy over the fishery question may be per-
tinently recalled as bearing on the present
situation.
Let us frankly admit at the outset that we are
governed in this matter by the terms of the
Treaty of 1918. OF the injustice of which this
country was made the victim before that
treaty was ratified. we need not here and now
speak We accepted the Treaty OF 1918 IN
good faith, and though il largely curtailed
privileges which were the birthright of Amer
lean fishermen, those hardy men went ia
work under it and by their enterprise largely
expanded their businsss-increasing in an
amazing ratio the number of the vessels, their
aggregate tonnage, aud the number of men
engaged in the hazardous calling. This rap d
progress alarmed the Canadians, and with the
view of depressing rivalry and Gripping
American fishermen, q new construction was
applied to the Treaty nearly quarter of a
century after it had been in peaceful opera
ton.
From lS4l to 1916 it was for the first time
contended by Great Britain that the American
right to fish within three miles from sh re
meant three miles from the headlands which
marked the entrance 10 bays, and on this new
and strained construction of the Treaty they
sought to exclude American fishermen even
from the Bay of Fundy, which is sixty miles
wide at its mouth. After a long diplomatic
discussion, maintained with signal ability by
Edward Everett, our Minister at London,
Lord Aberdeen-a name identified with JUS
,,tx-,y, fhov nj No Uan r.
ation-then at the head of the British Foreign
Office, acknowledged that the ground taken
by England in regard to the Bay of Fundy
was indefensible, the Canadian position was
reversed, and the Bay was re-opened to Amer
lean fishermen
But the design of coercing the United
States into opening her markets to Canadian
fishermen was not abandoned. In 1852 q
fresh and determined series of hostiligies was
begun against American fishermen. A naval
force was sent out from England, and the whole
COST of Nova Scotia was guarded by the guns
ofthe Royal Navy-thirteenw war vessels patrol
ing the fishing grounds. 1t was again pro-
claimed that the three mile limit of the Treaty
OF 1918 was not three miles from the shore.
but three miles outside of line from head
land to headland of bays. This construction
of the Treaty would place the American fish
ermen in many places thirty miles from shore
instead of three, as provided by treaty. Mr..
Everett had pertinently reminded the British
Government that by this construction 1.-THE
waters which wash the entire South Eastern
Coast of Nova Scotia from Cape Sable to
Cape Canso-a distance of nearly three hun
DIRE miles-might constitute bay from which
the United States fishermen would be ex-
cluded." In other words, the argument of
Mr.. Everett showed that the British construc-
ton, il admitted, would destroy all American
rights intended to be guarded and guaranteed
under the provisions of the Treaty.
When the attempt of 1862 was made to en-
force the 'headland" construction of the
Treaty, Mr.. Webster was Secretary of State,
in the Administration of Mr.. Fillmore. 10
an official paper over his own signature, Mr..
Webster recorded his opinion that the British
construction of the Treaty "ts not conform
able to the attentions of the contracting
parties" Those are weighty words, and
spoken by Mr.. Webster, they give an almost
authoritative construction to the treaty. 1t
is certainly not discourteous or invidious to
say that in legal ability, especially on points
both of Constitutional and International Law
Mr.. Websters opinion is entitled to more
weighty consideration than that of any British
official who was then dealing or who has since
dealt with the fishery question.
Mr.. Webster's official proclamation, from
which have quoted, WAS issued on the 9th
of July, 1852. A fortnight later he addressed
a large audience from the front door of his
house at Marshfeld, and then he spoke with
entire freedom. The treaty of 1873" said
Mr.. Webster, twas 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 it 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 seized BY
constables and other petty officers. and con-
demned by the municipal courts of Quebec
Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Canada.
In the meantime be as
sured that the fishing interest will not be ne
elected by this Administration under any cir
cumstsnces. The fishermen shall be protect
ed in all their rights of property and in all
their rights of occupation. To use Marble
head phrase, they shall be protected hook and
line, bob and sinker.'"
Mr.. Webster fell i'll 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 in
furious to American fishermen. Before its
termination in 1866, our government refused
to renew it and our fishing interest immedi-
stely began to revive, and Immediately the
Canadians began to agitate for another treaty
by which they could reach the markets of the
United States. Their wishes were gratifed
and by the strangest of all diplomatic juggles
the United States paid five and half millions
of dollars for a 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 hsrrass and worry and out
rage American fishermen until by sheer weari-
ness, after the manner of the unjust 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 a
majority of the Democratic party 10 the House
of Representatives to throw open the markets
of the United States to British and Canadian
fishermen, without duty or charge and with
out securing to American fishermen the right
to fish in British and Canadian waters. This
Is an act of such unaccountable, rancorous
hostility to the fishing interest of New Eng
land that it is difficult even to comprehend its
motive. John Randolph so hated the wool
tariff that he felt like walking mile to kick
a sheep. Do the northern Democrats feel
such determined hostility to the fishermen of
New England that they would sacrifice a
ore al mt -