Morning journal and courier., 1888-07-24
Fiftieth Congress--First Session.

| agreed to in the Senate to-day without dis I cussion or division The Senate then proceeded to the eonsid eration of the fisheries treaty in open exeeu. ] tive session and was addressed by Mr. Dawes in opposition to it's ratification. Proceeding to the question of American rights in the fisheries, he declared that the Declaration of Independence was the title of the United States to the fisheries in the northern waters, and that the treaty of 1875 was but the re-
 cital of that title When that treaty was
 adopted the rights of the United States in those waters were precisely the same as the rights of the British crown in them What- ever British fisherman could do there cit- 1zen of the United States could do. And wherever a British subject could drop line an American citizen could stand by his side and do the same. They were tenants in com mon.
 MT. Morgan asked MT. Dawes whether his opinion of the colonial rights in respect to the fisheries was that the Canadians (prior to the revolutionary war; had the same fishery rights on all of the American coast down to Georgia as America had in the Canadian waters. Were these mutual colonial rights7
 Mir. Eawes declined to be drawn from the line of his argument, but expressed his will Gngness when he had leisure to sit at the feet of the Senator from Alabama and learn all about the subject. He went on to- say that if to-day the title of the United States 10 fishery rights in those waters fell short one particle of it's title when the treaty of 1873 was signed, it was the result of diplo- macy.
 rights was in the treaty of 1918, and out of that treaty had grown all the American woes. The present treaty was an experiment of the administration in that field where so few laurels had been gathered heretofore by the diplomacy of the United States. It would !, ha1-, administration to consider whether it was not in it's power to recover the ground here tofore lost, and to restore Cf not absolutely as nearly as possible) the condition of things which the fathers of the republic had deliY- cred over to their sons. If the administra1 tion had entered upon the negotiations with any such purpose as that, and had given notice that it did not propose to make further concessions, but to ob- serve the mutual obligations of the two countries, far different result would have been attained than the treaty before the Sen ate. The treaty had been commended as a treaty of peace, not because Great Britain had been compelled to recede from it's en- croachments hitherto persisted in, but be- cause the consequences might otherwise be mostly disastrous. The story of disastrous consequences in case of the rejection of the treaty had been repeated over and over again until war had been intimated. That method of commenting the treaty was not sstisfao- tory to him. He would rather hear some one show what had been gained for this country or what was to be obtained. He would like to know how many of the rights which the United States had contended for seventy years were secured by the treaty and conceded. The idea as to the consequences that would come out if the United States longer persist ing in it's contention against the unjustifa- ble claims of Great Britain had but one par allel in the annals of Congress, and was when the navy yard, at Pensacola was surrendered by the Secretary of the Navy in July, 1861, in order to preserve the peace. AS treaty of peace he declared the treaty to be an utter failure. Those who negotiated on the one side and on the other would find (if it were ratifed) that the occasions for strife would multiply, and twelve months would net pass after it's ratification before the United States would wish that it were in it's power to re- trace it's steps. One reason why it never could be treaty peace was because 1t was not the treaty which it pretended to be.
 Mir. Dawes quoted from the speech of Sir Charles Tupper, one of the British negotia- tors in the Canadian parliament to show that the concessions were made not by Great Britain, but by the United States, and that he returned thanks to Sir Charles for the obligation he had put the American people under in furnishing them with materials to form proper judgment of the treaty, which
 
 their own negotiators. Sir Charles Tupper, he said, was as frank as he was bold and able, and was determined Whatever might be the effect of his statement in the American Senate) that the Canadian people should believe in all steps taken he was true to their traditions and true to their policy. Coming down to the question of "headland theory" Mir. Dawes said that if anything in American politics should nave been allowed to fall into ssinocuous desuetude" it was the headland theory and that if spirited stand had been taken by the American negotiators it's public renuncistion would have been made by Great Britain. In discussing de- statements of the President and of Sir Charles Tupper as to the navigation of the straits of Canso to show that they were contradictory, and repeated his former declaration that he could not vote for a treaty as to the meaning of the phraseology of which there was doubt.
 Mir. Morgan asked him whether he was un- der any obligation not to offer an amendment to the treaty and suggested that any supposed obscurity in it's language might be thus cor rected
 Mir. Dawes replied that he was not under any such obligation, but that in his opinion the treaty was not treaty of peace, but treaty full of strife and contention and dis clared, never had the power to interfere with the free passage of the straits of Canso by any vessel of the United States. As se- curity the treaty was not worth the paper on which 1t was writ ten because it's conditions were subject to all the capriceB and hostilities of local and of courts.
 There was another reason why the treaty was not a treaty of peace and that was that the Canadians themselves had utterly failed in obtaining that for which they had entered into the negotiations. Simultaneously with the accession of the present administration it had come to be understood that was Cansda's opportunity for arranging for commercial re- lations with the United States.
 Mir. Hoar-I do not understand that the authorized statement contains a disavowal There has been no contradiction, no denial that the Secretary of State uttered any par ticular statement.
 Mir. Gray-I will leave it there. Among those with whom l have associated a disavow- al is always sufficient.
 Mr. Dawes-The Secretary has not denied the interview. It merely got out without his authority, and that is all. If the words were to be disavowed they should be disavowe6 to the man whom they affected (referring to MT. Hoar). I ask the Senator from Delaware If he means to say that the Secretary never said anywhere that England had made full apol- ogy for the Canadian insult to the flag.
 Mr. Gray-I merely rose to state that in the same paper in which the interview ap- peared, a statement was made that it was not authorized and that MT. Bayard disavow- ed it. Ihave nothing more to say about is.
 MT. Dawes proceeded with his argument against the treaty. The question has been asked, he said, what were to be the conse- Quences if the treaty were rejected. He ex- pected that "that will be which has been." The same course would be pursued by the Canadian officials as has been pursued in the past. As to the intimation that the Presi- dent would exercise the powers of retaliation conferred upon him in the act of 1887. MT. Dawes expressed his willingness to commit that matter to the President to leave the responsibility with him. The President had the power to say to the Canadians: "You shall obey and keep the treaty of 1918, or you shall keep out of our ports." If, beyond that, the President had any power under law and chose to assert it, the responsibility was with him. In conclusion, MT. Dawes said: ssLet it be understood that negotiations shall go no further until present damages are re- dressed. Inmy judgment, no man can cast his vote for this treaty as treaty of peace. It is full of strife and contention and dis turbance and will multiply trouble on all hands. For that reason cannot give it my vote.
 After an argument by Senator Stewart against the treaty the Senate proceeded to