The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1886-09-02

from Mr.. Bayard under date OF June 10, 1885,
Congress recommend the appointment OF "a
commission In which the governments Of the
United States and Great Britain shall be re-
spectively represented, charged with the con-
sideration and settlement upon a just, equita-
BILE, and honorable basis OF the entire question
OF the fishing rights OF the two governmental
and of their respective citizens on the coasts OF
the United States and British North America"
The stipulation definite and reduced To
writing that lin view and in consideration OF
such promised recommendations by the Presi-
dent the British would for the ensuing six
months enforce restrictive regulations
against American fishermen. In addition to
this Mr.. Bayard gave significant information To
MIR. West that the refunding OF duties mean
while collected under our customs laws upon
Canadian fish might be brought before the COM
mission thus promised.
Accordingly, in the following December, six
and n half months after Mr.. Bayard's memo
randum pledge that theP resident would make
the recommendation to Congress, the President
actually did incorporate il in his annual mes
sage and gave il in language which was "A tran
script verbatim Of the words which Mr.. Bayard
gave To Mr.. West II would certainly be apart
from my desire to pass any personal criticism
upon the President, Of whom wish ut all times
TO speak in terms of respect, but, viewing this
as public question, and speaking only with
the freedom Of a private citizen, must express
my belief that this transaction was throughout
most extraordinary and unprecedented lt was
extraordinary and unprecedented, and alto
gether beyond his proper power, for IA Secretary
OF State in the recess of Congress to revive any
part Of treaty which Congress had expressly
Terminated; il extraordinary for
Secretary Of State to begin negotiations for
the renewal of a Treaty which every
department of Government had just
united in annulling il was extraordinary for
Secretary of state 10 enter upon n trade with
foreign Minister for II present benefit TO be paid
for by the future action of tho Government;
and most OF all was it extraordinary that
pledge should be given to IA foreign Government
that the President OF the United States should
in the future-more than half year distant
make n specific recommendation upon specific
subject in specific words, to the Congress Of
the United States That pledge was given, and
was held in the British Foreign Office in Lon
don, and IL took from the President all the
power of reconsideration which the lapse OF
time and the change of circumstances might
impose. IL robbed the President pro hoe vice
of his liberty Executive. He no
longer free TO insert in his annual message of
December what might then seem expedient on
the question OF the fisheries, but was under
honorable obligations TO insert word for word,
letter for letter the exact recommends
ton which the Secretary Of State in the pre-
ceding month of June had promised and
pledged to the British Minister. The matter
presents curious speculation in the work
ing of our Government. What, for instance,
could or should the President have done, il be-
fore the date of his annual message no had be-
come convinced, as n large majority of the SEN
ate were convinced, that it was not expedient
&c organize an international commission on the
fisheries? He would then have found himself
embarrassed between this pledge given 70 n
foreign government in June and his convictions
of duty TO the citizens OF the United States in
the ensuing December.
Congress could not be induced to concur in
tho Presidents recommendations for an inter
national commission on the fisheries, and so
the scheme for which Mr.. Bayard and Mr.. West
had made such oXtrao rlinary preparations
came TO naught. 1t would have been strange
indeed il any other result had been reached.
Congress had for several years been diligently
endeavo ring to free the country from the bur
den of the treaty provisions respecting the
fisheries, and il could not be expected that they
would willingly initiate measures for Il new
treaty that would probably in the end be filed
with provisions as odious and burdensome to
the American fishing interests as those from
which they had just escaped.
AS soon as IL became evident TINT Congress
would not accept the proposal for n new COM
mission the Government of the Dominion OF
Canada with the presumed approval of the I'M
perial Government, began series OF outrages
upon American fishing vessels and fishing
crews-seeking in every way TO destroy their
business and deprive them of their fishing
rights That course continues 70 this day, and
is adopted by the Canadian Government with
the deliberate intention and obvious expecta-
ton of forcing concessions from this Govern
ment A few facts in the long controversy over
the fishery question may be pertinently recalled
as bearing on the present situation.
THE TREATY OF 1918.
Let us frankly admit at the outset that we are
governed in this matter by the terms Of the
treaty of 1918. or the injustice of which this
country was made the victim before that treaty
was ratified We need not mere and now speak.
We accepted the treaty of 1918 in good faith
and, though il largely curtaled privileges which
were the brthright of American fishermen,
those hardy men went TO work under il, and by
their enterprise largely expanded their bust
ness increasing in an amazing ratio the num-
Der of vessels, their aggregate tonnage. and the
number of men engaged in the hazardous call
| ing This rapid progress alarmed the Canadi-
| ans, and, with the view Of repressng rivalry
and Gripping American fishermen, new con-
| struction was applied to the treaty nearly q
quarter of a century after il had been III peace
| full operation.
From ls4l to 1915 il was for the first time con-
| tended by Great Britain that the American
right TO fish within three miles from shore
meant three miles from the heedlands which
marked the entrance 70 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 long diplomatic dis
cussion, maintained with signal ability by Ed
ward Everett, our Minister at London, Lord ABB
| erde en-a man identified with justice and mag
nanimity in more than one generation-then at
| the head of the British Foreign Office, acknowl-
edged that the ground taken by England in re-
| gard TO the Bay Of Fundy was indefensible, the
| Canadian position was reversed, and the bay
was reopened to American fishermen.
But the design Of coercing the United States
! into opening her markets TO Canadian fisher
men was not abandoned. In 1852 fresh and
determined series of hostilites was begun
against American fishermen. naval force
was sent out from England, and the whole coast
| of Nova Scotia was guarded by the guns of the
| royal naYy-tnlrteen war vessels putrOll1nB tne
| fishing grounds 1t was again proclaimed that
| the three-mile limit OF the treaty of 1918 was
not three miles from the shore, but three
miles outside Of n line from headland to head
| land OF bays This construction Of the treaty
would place the American fishermen. 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 the waters which
wash the entire southeastern coast of Nova
Scotia, from Cape Sable to Cape Canso-a dis
lance of nesry 800 miles-night constitute a
would be excluded" In other words, the argu-
ment OF Mr.. Everett showed that the British
con struction, IL admitted, would destroy all
American rights intended to be guarded and
guaranteed under the provisions of the treaty.
When the attempt of 1852 was made to enforce
the "headland" construction OF the treaty, Mr.
Webster was Secretary OF State in the admins
tration OF Mr.. Fillmore. In official paper
over his signature, Mr.. Webster recorded his
opinion that the British construction OF the
treaty lis not conformable to the intentions OF
the contracting parties" Those are weighty
words, and spoken by Mr. Webster they give an
almost authoritative construction to the treaty.
IL is certainly not dscourteous or invidious to
say that in legal ability, especially on points
both of constitutional and international law,
Mr.. Webster's opinion is entitled to more
weighty consideration than that Of any British
official who was then dealing or who has stree
dealt with the fishery question.
Mr.. Wobster's official proclamation, from
which have quoted, was issued the 9th Of July,
1852 fortnight later he addressed large au-
dience from the front door of his house at Marsh