Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-09-19
WASHINGTON.
John Sherman Makes Love
to Mistress Canada.
NEW IDEAS ABOUT RETALIATION.
The Correspondence on the Chinese
Treaty-DemOcrati Caucus.
Capital Cuttings.


Capital Cuttings.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD
WASHINGTON, September 1S.-In tn,
Senate to-day Sherman's resolution, of
fered yesterday, instructing the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations to inquire
into the state of the relations of tht
United States with Great Britain ant
Canada, and report at next session sucf
measures as are expedient to promote
friendly commercial and political inter
course between these countries and the
United States was taken up. Sherman
proceeded to address the Senate, deliver
ing his remarks from manuscript.
After alldsion to the Presidents Retail
iation message and the justification o.
the rejection of the Fisheries treaty, he
asked why should Canada refuse to al.
low American fishing vessels to enter hel
ports and ship their fish to the American
market. The denial of that priv.
ilege appeared SO unchristian and
so selfish, that he wondere d
that it had not long since led to violent
retaliation. If the President had by
proclamation withheld a like privilege
from Canadian fishing vessels the evil,
he believed, would have been quickly
corrected; but the President, instead of
exercising the powers which he had
under the act of March 8, 1887, had
asked Congress, in his Retaliation mes
sage, for power to suspend commerce
which amounted, for the last six years,
to $270, 100000. No wonder that this
sudden change of base had excited sur.
prise in both countries and was
movement. The Presidents proposition
barrass the commerce of exports and i'm
ports, amounting to nearly one hundred
millions yearly. Such a proposition,
made without warning, in the midst of a
popular election, had been the Presi-
dents response to the earnest demand
made by the American fisnermen, that
they should be secured in the enjoyment
of what they believe to be their unques-
tionable rights.
Why had the President, he asked,
blended the dispute about the tranship-
ment Of fish with the vast interior COM
merce of the country? Why connect the
controversy in the waters about the
mouth of the st. Lawrence with the com.
mercial relations along the boundary
line of four thousand miles? No good
could come of such movement. unless
it was decided to establish non-inter-
course between the two countries. The
measure of retaliation proposed by the
President was far beyond the range of,
and out of all proportion to the COM
plant.
He denied the position taken by the
President, that Article 20 of the Treaty
of 1871, had been terminated on the 1st
of July, 1885. Its repeal by construction,
he argued, was not favored by law.
Besides all the contracting parties
treated that article as in full force. The
retaliation proposed by the President
was retaliation against the United States.
When Grant asked Congress for powers
like these which Cleveland now asks,
they had been refused him and was
Congress, he asked, now going to give
Cleveland powers which it refused
Grant? Even if Great Britain
had violated or failed to OBJ
serve the provisions of Article 80
Congress alone could prescribe the pro-
per remedy, either by the abrogation of
the whole treaty, or a portion of it, or by
retaliation in kind. And in that case
Congress had furnished a remedy, sim
pie, ample, complete, in the act of March
3, 1887. Congress had not undertaken
to abrogate article 20 of the Treaty of
1871, and according to his construction
that article was now in full force.
Neither the interests of the American
people nor public policy demanded its
abrogation, but rather that it should be
in full force.
He referred to the Retaliation bill
passed in the House as a bill that had
got into the House "by the grapevine
line." Discrimination against American
vessels in Canadian canals, although un.
Just, had been settled upon as pretense
for that bill. Why, he asked, seek a
quarrel on such an old pretense? 1t was
neither manly, dignified nor just. He
concluded, therefore, that it was not wise
to give the President the additional
powers of retaliation which he has asked
for. The time had come when the peo-
pie of the United States and Canada
should take broader view Of their re-
lati ons to each other than has been
hitherto practicable. The whole history
of the two countnies has been
a continuous warning they could
not remain at peace with
each other, except by political, as we'll
as commercial union. 1t would be better
for all if the whole continent north of
Mexico, shared in the prosperity and
Blessings of the American Union. But
ahe way to union with Canada was not
hy unfriendly legislation, but by friendly
overtures.
The true policy of the Government Of
the United States was to tender to Can
ada freedom of trade and intercourse,
and make that tender in such fraternal
way that it would be an overture to the
Canadian people to become a part of the
American Government He saw in the
success of that policy much that was
good, and nothing that was harmful tc
any part of the country; nor were there
any difficulties which should deter the
Senate for moment.
The institutions of Canada were sub
stantially like those Of the United States
the proximity of the two countries was
such that while separated they might be
enemies; if united, they would be
friends. Their union could only be &C
complished with the free and hearty as
sent of both people. The use of any
force would defeat the object. 1t coule
not be promoted by controversies or. re
taliation. Those measures looked to ant
ponerallv ended in war. No create