New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-04-23

force the bargain by threat TO commit an out
rage upon our fishing vessels In case we decline
70 accept the proposition. By act Of June 10,
1886. Congress authorized the President
Of the United States to exclude from
our ports vessels similar in character
to those Disseminated against in foreign ports,
and by Act Of March 3, ss7, this measure OF
retaliation was extended to the entry Of fish or
any other product of the Dominion Of Canada
in any port place Of the United States The
latter act also embraced provisions designed to
protect American scamen against inhospitable
treatment in British ports. The House OF Rep
resentatives had previously passed q much more
comprehensive measure of retaliation in which
the Senate did not concur The Hon. Daniel
Manning. late Secretary Of the Treasury, In an
official letter. dated February 5, 1887, character
lied the conduct of the Dominion Government in
refusing our fishermen humane treatment in their
ports as AN act of barbarism fit only for saw
ages
coMMxRciAL CHARACTER OF AMERICAN FISH
ERIEs.
The prosecution Of the fisheries Of North Amer
lea is commerce, and il is also navigation, and
no quibbling over the language Of marine docu-
ments nor regeneration Of diplomacy can cast
the shadow Of q doubt upon the proposition As
maritime commerce, 1t is entitled to all the rights
and by the reciprocal commercial leg
islation and regulations applicable to
merchandise generally, and TO Arneri-
can vessels without distinction. Any theory
regarding the fisheries on tine high seas which
seeks to abridge or TO deny to our nshermen
the rights and privileges thus fully secured is
not only an insult which ought to be resented
but q wrong which ought to be resisted py the
United States from its first suggestion to the
bitter end For what does the denial OF the
commercial character Of American fishing vessels
in Canadian ports necessarily involveP Evidently
the admission Of the assumption attempted to be
raised by the Dominion of Canada that she has
In some sort an exclusive right or at least better
right than the United States TO each fish on the
he seas Of the coast Of British America, and that
this better right may be asserted in The form OF
commercial discrimination in her own ports. But
that would be to surrender a right for the main
tcnance of which Samuel Adams was willing TO
resume the War Of the Revolution, and for which
John Adams stood like rock at Paris in 1888 in
framing the Treaty Of Peace. II there is anything
which the men of this country will not yield, 1t is
the fruits Of that struggle by which Independence
was won. The rights thus secured are fortified
in the hearts of the American people
The treaty Of 1918 provided that American
fishing vessels might enter certain bays ana
harbors Of the British Provinces for shelter,
repairing damages purchasing wood obtaining
water and "Jor no Other purposes whdterer.' 1t
is asserted by the diplomats Of the Dominion of
Canada and Of Great Britain that the words itai-
cired forever exclude American fishing vessels from
commercial privileges in Canadian ports This
is q sophism Of the most absurd character. The
historical significance Of the words Is that they
simply formulated the general condition Of nom
at that time Our Retaliatory Act OF April 1s.
1918 closed our ports to British vessels coming
from or departing to ports in the provinces. This
act took effect September 80, 1918. The treaty
above mentioned was concluded October 20,
1918, and was ratified January 80, 1919. In
stead, therefore, Of cutting of American fishing
vessels from commercial privileges, it conferred
upon them special privileges denied to all other
American vessels since the close Of the Revolu-
tionary War. In reference 30 all questions which
may arise touching the phraseology OF treaty stip
ulations which may appear to limit the commercial
rights Of American vessels, or their rights to the
bumanities Of maritime pursuits, it is sufficient to
say that If any such limitations do exist, the honor
and dignity of the United States demand that they
shall be at once and forever abrogated
TRANSPARENT PRIVILEGES
The transshipment Of cargo from one vessel
70 another Of the same nationality in a foreign
port is commercial privilege generally accorded
by civilized nations, independently of treaty
stipulations. 1t is considered to be o mere right
of hospitality, and its denial is properly regarded
rs act of unfriendlncss. But the practice of
the more advanced commercial nations goes far
beyond this privilege. Under our laws merchan-
disc may be brought into the United States and
deposited in bonded warehouses. and there held
for one year without additional duty, and two
lanoe of
aitional duty. This is q privilege Of enormous
value to the foreign importer. 1t enables him to
take advantage of the fluctuations in our mar
kets and also to avail himself Of the option of re-
exporting his goods to a foreign port without the
payment of duties In this country. The value OF
dutiable goods withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption amounted during the year ended
Juno 80, 1887, to s122,4s3,60O This valuable
warchousing privilege places the foreign producer
In almost instant competition with his American
rival, and seriously affects many industries in
this country. No nation the globe profits
half SO much by these warehousing privileges as
ioes Great Britain, and they are OF great value
also to the merchants of Canada. And yet in the
face Of all these commercial privileges. which
have no expression whatever in any treaty be-
tween the United States and Great Britain, the
Dominion openly and defantly refuses to allow one
American vessel to haul alongside Of another Ameri
can vessel in any of her ports and there transfer
q cargo Of fish This is sheer bulldozing, and it
should at once be met by sharp retaliation in the
withdrawing Of warehousing privileges accorded
to goods brought into the United States in Brit
ish ships and such retaliation should be continued
until the Dominion Of Canada has learned that
there are obligations Of good-fellowship to be OBJ
served in commercial intercourse besides those
embraced in fishery treaties The privilege OF
shining fab bv rail from Canadian ports through
Canada into the United States without payment
OF duty has its counterpart in the privilege ac-
corded Canada to ship goods in bond without pay
ment Of duty through the United States. sus-
pension Of such reciprocity of privilege would DO
very much more detrimental to the commercial
interests Of Canada than Of this country
If the right of American vessels to catch fish on