, 1888-08-25
HOW THEY TAKE IT.
The Senate Discussion on the
Presidents Message
On the Rejection of the
Fisheries Treaty.
Some Comments From the
English Press.
Discussing the Message.

senate and read by the clerk.
The reading was listened to with close
attention, and when it came to the close
Sherman moved that it be printed and
referred TO the committee on foreign rela
lions.
Edmunds-On that motion | would
like to say a few words. Although l am
in favor Of it. had | been five or six years
younger than | am, | should have been
surprised at that message. But | am
not. and | am only very highly gratifed
at the patriotic expression of the hopes,
wishes, and honest intentions of the
president Of the United States in refer
ence to the protection of American inter
ests and American rights, but the pecu-
harity of the situation las it seems to mel
is that, having had a statute
providing for self defence approved by
the president of the United States and
passed by a substantially unanimous vote
of both houses. (f hat made any differ
ence to his duty in faithfully executing
the law and after a full consideration of
all its points and bearings, the extent to
which it should go, the objects to which
1t should be limited, and the circumstan-
ces under which it should be brought into
play eighteen months Tin round numbers)
have gone by and we are now informed
by the ~presidentof the United States (for
L take it that is what he means, although
nc word of that kind is in the message)
that no step of any kind has been taken
to carry into execution the plain provis-
ION of that law.
1t is true the law did not require the
president to put INTO effect measures in
the way of self defense until a case should
have arisen of injustice which should sat
isfy him that American rights were being
u~njustly dealt with. If there has been no
instance of injustice since the passage OF
the act the president has been right in
taking no step in respect to the matter.
If, however, in his opinion las he now
states it) there have been instances of
denial of just rights, why is it that the
president has not taken any steps in the
| exercise of the powers imposed upon him,
in the exercise of the high duty which the
constitution imposes upon him, of seeing
that the laws are faithfully executed
Why has he been silent for eighteen
months with the whole power of the law
in his hands2
l must express my surprise, not as a
partision, but as a citizen, that he has
failed to take any steps and now sends a
/ hlCoDdk aohlhk llhb hihtllOLldl pOmClo DG
| given him. The Canadian government
has not refused to tranship fish on the
ground that Article 30 of the treaty of
Washington was not in force. 1t has re-
fused to tranship fish on the ground that
that article did not override the v
ton of 1878 by which an American fish
ing vessel was not to come within the
three mile limit. When the Canadian
authorities denied to American fishermen
right to tran ship their fish from Halifax
to Boston or New York, the president
was justified in denying to Canadian fish
or other goods transhipped across our
country. That is the fact and the presi-
dent tells us that 1t has existed now for
two years following.
That fact, which the president says is a
gross outrage, is the statute of the United
States, which says that if he is satisfied
that such a fact exists, he shall apply the
means of redress which the statute has
put in his hands, and why does he not do
it2 Why misrepresent2 | think it is an
infinite pity that in SO simple a case an
adequate and full statute which has never
been tested by the first step should re-
main unexecuted and in a state of 'in-
nocuous desuetude" until the president
may see whether congress will not put
more ammunition into his hands.
Morgan said the evidence is clearly es-
tablished that the purpose of all this OPP
position to the president in respect of
these fisheries had not been to get the
government into better shape, but to en-
trap the executive and put him into a
strait jacket where he would do the
bidding of the minority of the people of
the United States represented in this
chamber. They had even threatened the
president with impeachment if he dared
to dlsobey their commands and to coun-
tervall their will. He thought the coun-
try would appreciate the fortitude of the
man who could stand up against the utter
ances of the senate from Vermont and
perform his duty without tremor.
Morgan said he had discussed the retail
iation law as a law looking to the treaty.
As a result the senator from Vermont had
discussed it as a law which looked to war
as the result. The senator from YER
mont had drawn the law and if he had
known of cases then recently occurring
that violated the treaty of 1918 he ought
to have put them in and made them the
basis of the legislation. The president
says he finds a statute in the way of retail
iation. | desire to exclude from the right
OF transit through the United States the
products Of Canada and goods imported
by her from foreign countries and AMOUNT
ing in the last six years to nearly $780,
600, 600 and desire to stop this. Am
under compulsion to r~etaliate because the
heavy part of the blow will fall on the
people of Canada and not on my own
people, the president asks congress to
declare whether he has the right to do
that.
Under the law as it stands he says:
Remove that difficulty if you want retail
alton and | will prohibit the passage of
goods between the United States and
Canada on these railroads" But that is
not the thing which the senators on the
other side want to have done. The rail.
roads have been the pets OF Republican
senators. Compel the president to retail
ate, and yet take good care that certain of
your great interests shall not be interfered
! with. Your candidate for the vice presi-