Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-08-25


onies all the rights and powers relating
to the northeast coast fisheries that they
had had previously as subject provinces
of the crown of Great Britain. These
rights and powers were commensurate
with those of Canada. No question of
headlands or of meandering lines
was made until after the
treaty of 1918. That treaty
was engineered on the part of the United
States by Mr.. Gallatin and Mr.. Rush
two gentlemen of the most exalted char
acter. Into it, by some means, was in
jected the article or provision that has
caused all our ills. How it came there
has never been explained. The English
diplomats, as far as can be learned, did
not demand it, nor was there
any suggestion or discussion OF
the topic which would have rem
dered it a douceur desired, but
not directly asked for. 1t seems to have
been sort of grandiose concession made
by our diplomats Of rights which were
not at that time considered of any great
value. But mark the sequel. From that
day to this the Treaty of 1918 has been
obnoxious to our interests in the Fisher
les. 1t has caused more difficulty, more
diplomatic notes, and more danger OF
rupture between the two countries than
even the old question of neutral ships
make free goods" From time to time
it's provisions have been suspended and
its rancorous tendencies softened by
special and limited treaties, but it has
ever stood in our diplomatic controversies
as Banquo that would not down.
The Bayard treaty was certainly a
great improvement over that of 1878, to
which We are now relegated. By it
headlands and boundaries were defined,
and the acts of hospitality, intercourse
and landing rights were clearly ex-
planned. Whilst the treaty was not all
we could have wished, il was a step in
the direction-and long one, too--of
finally securing such arbitration and con-
cessions as would lead to absolute justice
in the fisheries question between Canada
and the United States. Because this
treaty had been negotiated and concluded
between Democratic administration and
the English Government, that was suffi-
cient to array against its confirmation
the bigoted and unpatriotic votes of the
partisan majority in the United States
Senate. To spite Democratic admins
tration-and not in the interest of right
or patriotism-it was rejected, and that
is all there is in it.
Congress having granted indefinite
powers to the President to retaliate upon
Canada for her acts towards our fisher
men, Mr.. Cleveland, when the treaty was
rejected, promptly sent message to
both Houses, in which he asked for def
mite powers by Act of Congress author
izing him to (lst) enforce equal tolls on
the American side of the lakes as against
Canada as are enforced upon the Cana
dian side as against American commerce;
(2d) to compel all goods now passed over
the United States in bond for Canada to
pay the tariff upon them.
The message is clear, bold and manly
document. 1t says that the President is
ready to carry out the logic OF retaliation
to its extreme conclusion as soon as he is
invested with the necessary and explicit
powers.
There can be no doubt of Mr.. Cleve-
lands courage-of his determination and
will in the line of duty. Congress must
either give him the power he calls for,
or the Republican United States Senate
must assume the responsibility for the
crisis to arise and for the outrages to our
rights that may ensue. If the powers
demanded by the President be granted,
there are war clouds ahead. It is not
Cleveland nor the Democratic party that
will shrink from the ordeal. But the
responsibility for a war which more
patriotism and less partisanship could
have evaded will be at the door of the
Republican party.