Morning journal and courier., 1888-06-12
Fiftieth Congress--First Session.

AdblnChttOA we were pound, u0 6hlQ, t(
 presume that this treaty was the outcome oi an honest endeavor and an earnest and patri otic desire on the part of the executive tc make a satisfactory and advantageous settle ment of the vexed question to which it re- lated and that the President was correct un til the contrary appeared. When he said that it had been made on a basis honorable and just to both parties he was proud to be- Geve that there never had been an American President to whose performance of the high function of treaty making this presumption did not rightfully attach, and he greatly mis. took the temper and sense of the American people if they would tolerate any other dis cussion of the pending treaty but one which appealed to their sober judgment, not to class or section, or if they would countenance a rejection of it for any reasons which did not concern the interests and welfare of the whole country, or the honor or the dignity of the republic. MT. Gray proceeded to state the facts and csndi- tions out of which the fishery question had grown and laid down the principle that all the rights of American fishermen in regard to Canadian fisheries were contractual rights on the terms of the treaty of 1918. By the terms of that deliberate and solemn convention the United States had undertaken to define and limit the territorial waters in which their common right of fishing was pre- served and to renounce (by no less explicit terms) the right to fish within three marine miles of the British dominions. In America, however, it might suit the purpose of the Senator from Maine (Frye) to denounce the of the treaty of 1918, that treaty had been believed at the time of it's negotia- ten to have achieved for the fishermen of the United States i'm portant and valuable advantages. Mir. Gray proceeded to discuss the fishery dahofod hatUnar, or1 and Mir. Everett (particulariy in regard to the cases of the Washington and the Argus) and to illustrate points therein by reference by charts of the Canadian coast line.
 A colloquy took place between Mr.. Gray and MT. Hoar as to the meaning and effect of the decision of MT. Bates, the umpire under the claims commission of 1853. MT. Gray contended that that decision so far from set- ting principle was confined to the single question whether the Bay of Fundy was un- der the terms of the treaty of 1888 8 British bay or whether it was bay at all in the common acceptance of the word, MT. Bates decision being in the negative on both those points. In regard to the supposed injurious effect of a reciprocity treaty on the interests of American fishermen MT. Gray cited the fact that the mackerel and cod fisheries of New England had reached their climax in 1862, eight years after the treaty of 1854 had gone into effect. He also quoted from speeches of Senators Sumner and Wilson of Massachu- setts in the Senate of 1865 in favor of the continuance of that reciprocity treaty on the ground that it had helped to remove irrits- tion and that was plain advantage which could not be denied. Some slurs, he said, had been cast by the Senator from Maine
 Frye) towards the Secretary of State, but there had never come from the s tate depaIt- ment anything like the surrender of Ameri- can rights in the treaty of 1871 under Presi- dent Grants administration, and yet the treaty was one of the triumphs of General Grants administration, although for the privilege of an inshore fishery, which Amer iean fishermen had just abandoned as not worth the license fee ofia dollar ton, it gave the American market to Canadian fishermen and five and a half million dol. lars besides. Notice had been given by Con- gress of the abrogation of that treaty at the expiration of its term and the United States had been again remitted to the privileges, conditions and restrictions prescribed by the convention of 1918. Was it surprising there differing interp1 citations should again recur? The treaties of 1854 and 1871 had not at- tempted to settle those questions. They had only postponed them. The United States he said could not in view of the valua- ble fisheries of Behring's Sea-that mare to establish any narrow or restrictive doctrine of territorial waters. Such had not been the doctrine of American publicists and statesmen.
 MT. Hoar asked Mir. Gray whether he knew of any human being in this country to put any claim to fishery rights on the denial of the jurisdictional rights of Great Britain to the waters in question.
 MT. Gray responded that there was no oth- CT ground for American pretensions than that Ia- Ne 1a fyo end Ma (which were six miles in width) were not territorial bays. He went on to argue that the pending treaty was practical, sensible and statesmanlike way of dealing with the question.
 MT. Riddleberger said the treaty ought not to be ratified because it was 6 cowardly sur- render of American manhood to Great Britain.
 MT. Gray, continuing, referred to the state ments made on the other side that the treaty was one which ought not to be made, that the subject was not one for negotiation, that the differences arising from the abrogation of the treaty of 1871 in 1885 were not to be again the subject of diplomatic correspond enee, and asked why the subject should not be one for international negotiation. What had occurred to change the disposition or character of the people so the United States should not endeavor to do to-day what the statesmen of 1871 had attempted and did in the negotiation of the treaty of Washington, and what the men of 1854 had attempted to do and did in the negotiation of the recipro- city treaty? He knew the New England Senators were opposed to a removal of the duty on fish, but this treaty did not trench on that. The treaty secured every right of American fishermen and left the tariff on fish where it ought to be left, as @ subject to be dealt with by the legislative branch of Con- gress. If in obedience to party caucus, which sat with closed doors and yelled the motives of opposition, the treaty should be defeated by 8 bare majority. an appeal would be made to the sober judgment of sixty million people and the brave and honest fishermen would be appealed to whose rights and interests were secured by this treaty.
 At the close of Mir. Gray's speech Mir. Hoar obtained the floor and the further considera- tion of the fisheries treaty was, on motion of MT. Sherman, postponed till Monday June %.
 The Senate at 5:25 adjourned.
 HoUsE.-After preliminary business the House proceeded to the consideration of Dis trict business, the first bill called up being that to increase the police force of the Dis trict of Columbia. Mir. Grosvenor took the floor upon this bill, commenting sarcastically upon the fact that all the great questions in able the body to consider 8 bill increasing the police force of the District. He referred to the fact that the surplus was still aecumu- lating, that the fiscal year was nearing its close with the appropriation bills still undis
 posed of and that up to this time the committee on rules had not assigned one day or one hour to the consideration oi
 pension bills. While it had given days to
 nearly every other committee it had stub.
 bornly refused to let the committee on in
 valid pensions have day. The Republican
 party in it's platform at Chicago had pledged itself to substantial pensions to the soldiers and the Democratic party in it's platform had
 also announced itself in favor of liberal pen.
 sions. But unfortunately in the recent ut
 terances of the Democratic party at St. Louis
 there was no word, no reference, no sugges
 tion that the Democratic party in the future
 proposed to carry out it's promises to tht
 Union soldiers of the country. The soldiers
 were becoming doubtful as to whether or not
 this Congress proposed to give them any con
 sideration. He asked that before the House spent it's time legislating on the police
 force of the District, the soldieri
 should have some time sci
 apart in which they nigh
 present their claims. The mails of members
 came laden with letters asking them to cal
 up some of the pension bills. He wanted
 the soldiers Of the country to understand
 that the minority was utterly powerless tt
 call up pension bill except with the con
 sent and through the will of the majority a
 expressed by the committee on rules.
 MT. Woodburn of Nevada made bitte
 personal attack upon MT. Cox of New York
 taking for his text extracts from MT. Cox'f
 tariff speech, in which he characterized Ne
 lo LII ..s1 1a1