The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-08-30

sailor lad was then conducted to car
riage, and this procession proceeded to the
cemetery.
Debate on the Fisheries Treaty.
From the New York Herald
The debate on the fishery convention
is closing and vote will probably be
taken to morrow. The administration
has elected to accept vote, although it
was quite within its power to have sent
the question over to the winter session.
For some reasons we should like to have
seen this done, although there is much to
be said in behalf of the intrepid policy
which the administration has concluded to
adopt. This senate debate is the mani
festation of an evil of the GREATEST magni-
tude-namely, the disposition of a politi-
cal majority to imperil the national peace
to gain temporary party advantage. 1t
is we'll, perhaps, that the administration
permits the issue to take its course upon
the unpatriotic lines the republicans
have laid down. 1t may prove the true
way of awakening public opinion to the
gravity of tae act.
The record of the treaty question has
been made with shameless audacity. In
order that republican orators may depict
Mr.. Cleveland as tool of Great Britain,
ready to sell the country, the vast interests
of humanity and civilization which are
included in the peaceful and friendly
relations between the English speaking
peoples of the world are deliberately and
wantolly imperilled. Let whoever may
be president or secretary of state, repub-
lican or democrat, it is an act of moral
treason to obstruct, thwart and embarrass
him in International affairs. Only the
other day, when an impetuous radical
member ventured to challenge Lord
Salisbury's management of some foreign
incident, Mr.. Gladstone interposed in sup
port of the government, with the intima-
tion that on questions of foreign politics
England had no parties In what posi-
ton Mr. Edmunds, Mr.. Allison or some
conservative senator would have been
had he said in regard to this convention
that he was not prepared to consider on
party lines measure OF foreign poll
which was not alone the work of Mr..
Bayard, but Mr.. Angel, an eminent re =
publican, who had held high diplomatic
office.
Il Il
The state department hoped to adjust
the spirit of the convention of 1878 to
the wants of 1888 in manner honorable
to ourselves and satisfactory to friendly
! power. But by the proposed rejection
the Jacobins of the senate revive frictions
and contentious. That this unpatriotic
course was deliberate is shown in the re-
port signed by Senators Sherman, Evarts
and Frye. at does not SEEM" said these
senators, "that the existing matters of
difficulty are subjects for treaty negotia-
tions." And the regret was expressed that
the democratic senators had not united
with them sin declining, at whatevr cost,
to enter into any new engagements with
the British government" upon the terms
indicated in the convention.
Our readers must note the extreme
gravity of this declaration and of the vote
of the senate following it. If we decline,
at 'whatever cost" new engagements with
the British government, based upon a
friendly understanding, what is the
alternative? And if this alternative is
forced by the republican party, whom
does it concern as much as the great city
of New York? One weeks expense of the
preparation necessary to fulfill the sena-
torial threat we have quoted, would buy
the whole fishery fleet ten times over.
One weeks interruption of our commerce
would be loss infinitely greater. If a
question of national honor or national
safety were involved the administration
would be the first to speak. No
man certainly had more to gain
than Mr.. Cleveland by a truculent ap-
peal to the war sentiment. 1t is to his
highest credit that he never considered
the temptation. Upon war issue which
Mr.. Bayard could have arranged in an
hour, he would have made his canvass a
walk ever. But Mr.. Cleveland felt, as
must all good citizens, that if the dreadful
responsibility suggested by the senate
committee is inevitable, we should go
about it in a solemn manner as national
duty, not as a wretched, cowardly political
expedient. The discussion fails to show
any basis, historical, legal or moral-upon
which Mr.. Evarts and his colleagues can
rest the grave responsibility they have
assumed of declining to have settlement
with Great Britain.
Mr.. Cleveland in his present time of
trial before the American people is
stronger in nothing than in the peaceful
dignity with which his administration has
directed our foreign relations. He has
maintained peace with honor in the pres
ence of opportunities which would have
given him great political advantages had
he pursued another course. And if the
country contrasts his patriotism and
moderation with the SPIRIT of insensate
barbsrism which inspires the alternative
involved in the proposed action of the
senate it cannot fail to have a decisive
effect on the campaign.