New-York tribune., 1888-08-25
TIRE RETALIATION MESSAGE.

for enlarged retallatOry powers, on uhe sIo"i,u
that those with which he has been already
armed are inadequate If he had enforced
either of the Retaliation acts he would have
been in position to decide whether they were
or were not adequate for the protection Oh
American interests If he had avalled hlmSeiI
Of the legislation already enacted and hao
found il insufficient he would have been
;ustiicd in recommending more stringent meas
ures. As it is, he simply begs the question:
Having persisted in negotiating treaty III
oppostion to the advice given TO him al hls
request by the Senate in 1886, ana having
Systematically neglected to make use OF the
Retaliation acts, he is not justified in complain
inc that the powers conferred upon him are IN
sufficient. Having abruptly decided to reverse
his entire policy in dealing with GreaI britain
and Canadian corporations. it would nave oeen
more becoming If his message to Congress hau
been less defiant and aggressive IN TONE lie
has tried to have his own way and has mace
vrotcbed failure Of diplomacy. In submitting
TO the will of Congress, as expressed IN the
Retaliation acts, meekness would have been
graceful virtue on his part. Actual experience
from the operation of those acts ought to have
preceded shrill demands for addiuonal re'ai-
atory powers. ;.
The Presidents message contains two ulS-
tinct recommendations, with an argument sand
wiched in to the effect that Article AAlA OIL
,be Treaty of Washington is no longer OPP
eratye. The argument while plausible IS
refuted by the plain fact that Congress- III
abrorating nine articles of the treaty WIN
which il is intimately connected, deliberately
allowed il TO stand. He makes out speclous
case on its technical merits but after all 1t is
bcneath the dignity Of the Chief Executive Oh
a great Nation to quibble as he does over .neSo
fine points of phrasing in treaty. we nave
not one word to say in favor OF the retention
of the article, and have repeatedly urgeu us
abroeation by Congress. This should be done
in \ dignifed way by joint action of Congress
and the Executive, and not by any spurious
method of pettifOgging AS Tor the reconi-
mendations. neither Of them is original. Inc
suggestion that the regulations respecting inc
transit of merchandise in bond through lhe
United States to Canada should be suspended
was first made by Mr.. Nimmo and has been
warmly seconded by THE TRIBUNE. 1t would
undoubtedly prove an effective means Oh re-
taliaton but would inevitably carry WIN IL
the repeal of all existing arrangements feiatlns
to the transit of merchandise through CANADIAN
or American territory. The formal ab'ogauon
of Article xxx ought to precede such action.
As for the Presidents second recommendation,
in relation to discriminating tolls against
American vessels in Canadian canals, 1t has
been anticipated by Mr.. Nutting Mr.. Dinsiey
and other Republican Representatives IN the
Vouse. These determinations are in direct
violation of Article XXVII of the Treaty ol
WASHINGTON. and. as has been repeatedly shown
in the debates, should be met by retaliation
in kind This subject, while now under In
vestigation in Congress, is not connected even
remotely with the fisheries question.
1t is quite evident that the President ma
taken up this subject in d reckless spirit wltn
a view to retrieving the reputation OF his Az
ministration as nduly favorable TO f0relsr
interests and coldly Indifferent to the require
ments of National honor and eXpedency 1her'
are more signs Of spirit and temper III I'M
message than there are of discretion ana gooc
sense. With all his bair-splitting argument
his case for reprisals hangs upon infringe
ments Of treaty article which he insists ma
become nothing less than dead letter. Ih'
refusal of Canada TO allow transshipment
cargoes in bond is made a peg on which t.
Hano = scheme of retaliation. Had the Presl
dent been more cautious he would not nav
reminded the country that this deliberate IN
fraction Of treaty law, instead oi beng re
sented by his Administration, was followed b.
the necotiatiOn of disgraceful treaty, in whlcl
trapsshipment of cargoes in bond was reserves
under Article XIV until Canada should be al
lowed free market for fish. The very PRIV
ilege which the Canadians denied to Amer
cans. while not deprived themselves of the en-
! ioyment of transit rights from our ports, wa
converted by Secretary Bayard into form O
: barter by which American rights were to b
exchanged for free fish. AS for Article XXlX
which the President discusses with such sophis
trv. it contains discretionary authority 10
those transit privileges through foreign terri
tory which the Canadian Pacific is now abusln
, with the direct sanction Of the Administration
That and other foreign corporations are no.
enabled to engage in the domestic commerc
of the United States in competition with Amer
can railways which are regulated by the Inter
state law This favor, carrying with 1t nor
payment of duty on merchandise when n
entering American territory, was had for tn
asking, and has proved a license of immens
vahe to foreign subsidized monopoly. Th
President says nothing about this gratuit
when he is prompted TO strike an attitude an
J proclaim his spirited retaliation policy.
Retaliation in our judgment should be stnc
. ly in kind Such measure as Is meted
" American fishermen should be given to Canad
. ans in return That is the precise theory
u the Retaliation law which the President h;
= neglected to enforce. At the same time II
: aggressive warfare upon American interes
: carried on by Canadian corporations on Ian
. and sea calls for the suspension OF the tran
u portation of merchandise in bond through Ca'
ada II il not a question of retaliation 4