The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-08-30

| NuS pSHlOu dNblSAOS *
to 20 inclusive and article 80, commonly
called the Fishery articles" shall con
tinue in force under the language of said
article SO.
That the joint high commissioners
who negotiated the treaty so under
stood and intended the phrase is GER
tain, for in a statement containing an
account of their negotiations, prepared
under their supervision and approved
by them, we find the following entry
on the subject: "Ths transit question
was discussed and it was agreed that any
settlement that might be made should in
clude reciprocal arrangement in thai
respect for the period for which the fishery
articles shall be in force"
In addition TO this very satisfactory
evidence supporting the construction OF
the language of article 20, it will be found
that the law passed by congress to carry
the treaty into effect furnishes
conclusive proof of the correctness OF
such construction.
This law was passed March l, 1873, and
is entitled "An act to carry into effect the
provisions of the treaty b tween the
United States and Great Britain, signed in
Washington May s, 1871, relating to fish
cries"
After providing in its first and second
sections for putting in operation articles
Is to rs inclusive, and article 80 of the
treaty, the third section is devoted to
article 30 as follows:
"Section 3-That from and after the
date of the presidents proclamation au-
thorized by the first section of this act
IL 10 AL,
sive, and article 80 of said treaty shall re-
main in force according to the terms and
conditions of article SO of said treaty, all
goods, wares and merchandise arriving"
etc.-following in the remainder of the
section the precise words of the stipula-
ton on the part of the United States as
contained in article 20, which l have
already fully quoted.
Here, then, is an enactment of congress
limiting the duration of this article of the
treaty to the time the articles IS to 25, in
elusive, and article 80 should continue in
force. That in fixing such limitation it
but gave the meaning
OF THE TREATY ITSELF
is indicated by the fact that the purpose
is declared to be to carry into effect this
provisions of thu treaty, and by the
further fact that this law appears to have
been submitted before this PRONUNCIATION
of the treaty to certain members of the
joint high commission representing both
countries and met with no conflict or dis
sent.
There appearing to be no conflict or
inconsistency between the treaty and the
act of the congress last cited, it is not
necessary to invoke the well-settled prin-
ciple that in case of such conflict the
statute governs the question.
In any event, and whether the law of
1873 CONSTITUTES the treaty or governs it,
section 30 of such treaty. have no doubt,
terminated with the proceedings taken by
our government to terminate articles 10
to 20, inclusive, and article 80 of the
treaty.
These proceedings had their inception
in joint resolution of congress, passed
May 3, 1883, declaring that in the judg-
ment of congress these articles ought to
be terminated by directing the president
to give the notice to the government to
Great Britain provided for in article 33
of the treaty. Such notice having been
given two years prior to the 1st day of
July, 1885, the articles mentioned were
absolutely terminated on the last day
named, and with them article 80 was also
terminated.
If by any language used in the joint
resolution it was intended to relieve SEQ
ton of the act of 1878, embodying arti-
Gle 30 of the treaty, from its own limita-
tions or to save The article itself, l am
entirely satisfied that the intention mis-
carried.
But statutesI granting to the people of
Canada the valuable privileges of trans
ferring their goods from our ports and
over our soil, which had been passed prior
to the making of the treaty of 1871, and
Independently of it, remained in force
and ever since the abrogation of the treaty
and, Notwithstanding the refusal OF
| Canada to permit our fishermen to send
their fish to their home market through
her territory in bond the people of that
dominion have enjoyed, without diminu-
ton, the advantages of our liberal and
generous laws.
Without basing our complaint upon
violation of treaty obligations, it is, never
theless, true that such refusal of transit
and the other injurious acts which have
been recited, constitute a provoking in
J fringemeut on right neither mitigated by
the amenities of national Intercourse mol
| modified by the recognition of our liber'
atty and generous consideration.
The history of events connected with
this subject makes it manifest that the
Canadian government can, if so disposed
administerIits laws and protect the inter
ests of its people without manifestation
of unfriendliness and without the IN
neighborly treatment of our fishing YES
sells, of which we have justly complained
and whatever is done on our part should
be done in the hope that the disposition
of the Canadian government may remove
the occasion of resort to the additional
executive power now sought through leg
islative action.
am satisfied that upon the principles
which should govern retaliation our in
| tsrcour5e and relations with the Dominion
of Canada furnish no better opportunity
| for its application than is suggested BY
the conditions herein presented; and
that it could lot be more effectively in
augurated than under the power of 5us-
| pension recommended,
| While have expressed my clear con-
viction upon the question of the coutinu
ance of section 80, of the treaty of 1871
1, of course, fully corcede the power and
the duty of the congress in contemp latins
/ legislative action to construe the terms o.
| any treaty htipu' alton which NAV by any