Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-11-02
HE GREAT ISSUE.
Pith and Point of the PO-
litical Battle.
THE PRESS AND PLATFORM
Democratic Doctrine on Tariff Re.
form as Taught by the Great
Leaders East and West.

York Times, which Minister West sem
to the perfidious scoundrel who marks
his identity under the assumed name
Chas. F. Murchison. Reference to the
intent of this article is not necessary. i
is most severe and highly meritec
arraignment of the Republican party fol
its unpatriotic and in all ways false
position on the
THE FISHERIES TREATY.
The discussion and rejection of the
fisheries treaty is, perhaps, the most re
markable instance of narrow partisan
ship in the treatment of great inter
national question ever known in oul
history.
The controversy over the rights oi
American fishing vessels in Canadian
waters and Canadian ports has been
waged, off and on, ever since the found.
alton of the Government. The treaty ol
1918, when left in unqualified effect, has
been the subject of constant dispute, and
out of the different interpretations put
upon it by the parties interested have
sprung the various collisions and griev-
ances that have disturbed the relations
of two friendly countries with large in
terests in common. After the abroga-
ton of the fishery clauses of the treaty
of 1871, they were thrown back upon the
old convention that had been prolific oi
so much Misunderstanding.
Those interested in the fisheries pro-
fessed to be satisfied with the privileges
granted by that agreement, if only the
duties on Canadian fish products were
maintained, but it Immediately gave rise
to new troubles because they claimed
more than the treaty granted. The
Canadian treatment of our vessels under
the Interpretation which the Dominion
authorities gave to the treaty renewed
the old controversy.
There was one of two things to be
done. Either new agreement must be
entered into which would remove all
doubts as to mutual rights, or course Of
retaliation must be adopted as means
of bringing Canada to terms. AS to the
comparative wisdom of these two courses,
there could be no doubt. Retaliation
would settle no disputed question, and
instead of establishing satisfactory rela.
tions between the countries, 1t was sure
to exasperate their relations, making a
bad matter worse and leading to conse-
quences which no man could foresee.
Congress gave authority for such policy,
but it was the part of wisdom to avoid il
if possible. 1t was certainly an alterna-
tive worth trying.
The negotiation of a new treaty cover
ing this subject and nothing else had
never been attempted, and the Admins
tration determined to try it by the best
possible plan, that Of appointing joint
commission to take the whole subject
into consideration, and endeavor to preach
an agreement satisfactory to both sides.
Its overtures were received in friendly
spirit and the matter was taken up with
disposition to maintain all just rights
and claims and to reach conclusions that
would be mutually beneficial and pro-
mote friendly relations. The treaty that
was agreed to by the commissioners left
no doubt or ambiguity, and went far be-
yond the treaty of 1878 in conceding
privileges to our fishing vessels and
securing for them considerate treatment.
In fact, it secured everything that the
fishermen had insisted upon as of any
material importance to them. 1t was
calculated to put an end to dis
putes and grievances and relieve
the relations of the United States
and Canada from their one
source Of danger. But these negotiations
were undertaken by a Democratic Ad-
ministration, and their success would add
TO it's strength and prestige. This, and
this alone, was the cause of opposition
from the Republican majority in the
Senate. The tone and temper of nearly
all the speeches on the Republican side
have shown this motive for hostility un-
mistakably. In the first place, the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations took the
preposterous position that this was not
under all the circumstances OF the case a
proper subject for diplomatic negotia-
ton, and then it assumed, contrary to
the plain meaning of the Constitution
and the bulk of precedents, that the Pre-
sident had no right to initiate such nego-
tiations without the consent of the SEN
ate. This revealed at once the partisan
temper of the majority of the committee
and of the Senate.
Throughout the debate this temper has
been maintained, and nothing like a
calm and fair consideration has been
given to the merits of the treaty by Re.
publican Senators. They were deter.
mined from the first to reject the work
of the President and the joint commits
sion, and were intent only on devising
pretexts for their predetermined action.
Regardless of consequences to the
relations of the country with a friendly
power or to the vast commercial inter
ests involved in those relations, they
were eager only to deprive the Demo
cratic Administration of credit for i'll
efforts to obtain a peaceful settlement o
the difficulties and of the prestige tina
would come from the success of those ef
forts. That was the sole aim and objec
of the Republican Senators, and it wa
obvious on the face of all they said an,
did down to the final vote of rejection
The most remarkable fact in connection
with their proceedings has been tn
calmness and apathy with which tn
commercial bodies of the country an,
representatives of our great trade inter
ests have allowed them to 60 on withou
raising hand.
We are confident that the sober sens
of the people all this while has not beel
deceived. Every legitimate claim of tin
fishing interests would have beel
secured by the ratification of the treaty
They certainly will not be benefited b
its rejection, while vastly greater an
more important interests will be put il
jeopardy. This ought to be understoo
and appreciated by the people, and 8
far as this question enters into politica
consideration in this canvass, it shoul
be regarded as question OF confidenc
in the Administration or of support fc
no,,rco ,f -, oov, nd rocE Iooo no rt r