, 1888-08-25
Opinions on the Message.

Aug. - preSl
dent message was the all absorbing topic
Of conversation among the few members
present in the house to-day, and party
lines are already being drawn. 1t Is
purely political. Representative Hooker,
Democratic member of the committee on
foreign affairs, which will deal ~initially
with the message and the Wilson bill, to
give effect to the presidents views said:
II think 1t a very able exposition of our
rights under the treaty OF 1878, and the
presidents very cogent reason for enfurc-
ing the act investing the president with
the power to r~etaliate against Canadian
importers and exporters. Unfortunately
the senate, when it found it could not
agree to the original treaty, did not pro-
pose amendments which might have been
submitted to the government of Great
Britain and thus settled by negotiation
the controversy between the two coun-
tries.
stRepresentative Payson of Illinois said:
Without fully committing myself to it.
| think the president has sufficient power
under the existing law to express the SEN
timent of our people, and not only to
compel a recognition of our rights but to
secure an equitable adjustment of the
trouble. There are more politics than
necessary in the message"
Representative Crisp of Georgia said:
II think the message a decidedly proper
thing to do under the circumstances. The
president waves his own opinion on the
subject of the treaty and accepts the de-
cision Of the senate as final as to the fish
cries treaty, but at the same time he re-
sorts to the next best thing and asks con-
gress to allow him to adopt retaliatory
measures. The country will accept the
message as an earnest of his desire to pro-
tect the rights of American citizens. Rep
resentative Adams of Illinois, Republican,
said: IF he needs the power he asks he
shall have it as far as my vote goes. |
am doubtful about the existing law, how
ever" Representative Bayne of Penn
s~ylvania said: 1T is a remarkable docu-
ment. In the first place the president
sent a treaty to the senate which confess
eddy conceded away our rights. After its
rejection ne sends a message insisting
upon having more power to carry out Wig
orous retaliatory measures in the very
teeth Of abundant legislation. There is
nothing IN it but a scheme to recoup some
of his lost political influence and | pre-
iect OF the tariff"
Sayers of Texas, who has charge of the
house Notifications bill, said: ITS all
right. We will take care of the fortified
tons.
ENGLISH OPINIONS.
LONDON, Aug. 24.-The 81. James
Gazette, commenting On Cleveland's mes
age says: The position is awkward and
unpleasant for both countries. The re
~taliation threatened is so illogical and I'M
reasonable that - 10 liH a,lt 10 -nlo,rtonl
its precise cause and meaning. Two
plausible explanations occur. 1t may have
been intended to influence votes or merely
TO bluff Canada into granting American
demands. There is no doubt the matter
is a serious one for Canada, not merely as
far as local affairs are concerned, but i'm
perial interests also are involved. Eng
land must and will supply proper safe
guards for her Canadian interest. We
must await the next step. 1t is difficult
to suppose the matter will be allowed to
end otherwise than in a perfectly friendly
manner.
The Globe says: Cleveland makes a
strong case against Canada and surmises
that Canada will doubtless be able to
show equally as good a case. If the Ca
nadians had rejected the treaty it would
be easy to understand why Cleveland
should ask for retaliation; but it cannot
understand why Cleveland, generally a
just man, should punish Canada for the
act of the American senate. 1t asks if
Cleveland has attempted to bid for the
Irish vote.
The Pail Mall Gazette suspends opin-
ion upon the real significance, but says it
looks ugly.
The Star q. P. O'Connor's paper
says it has no fears of war over the mat.
ter, but is of the opinion that a serious
friction is certain.