The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-07-11
THE FISHERIES TREATY DEBATED.
Senator Hoar Hurls His Lance at the
Administration.
The Worthless Treaty and It's Very
Ordinary Negotiators.
Discussion of the Possibilities of
War with England.

the fisheries treaty, has been the great event
in today's proceedings in Congress. Begin
ming with brilliant and forcible description
of the Importance of the fisheries as nur
sery for our navy, he passed on to review
of the legislative proceedings of Congress
since rthe question has been before it this
last time. The hesitating and contradictory
course of the Democratic Senator's the cow
ardly policy of the administration, and the
lack of special ability on the part of the
American negotiators were shown up clearly
and unsparingly. Concluding, Mr.. Hoar
summed up as follows:
Mr.. President, the whole of this treaty
recognizes what we strenuously deny-the
fitness Of maintaining discrimination
against fishermen. 1t turns their ancient
privilege and exceptional honor into badge
Of disgrace. 1t constantly affirms domin-
ion on the part of Canada over the fishing
grounds, which from the beginning have
been our Joint property. 1t establishes
throughout relation of control. License,
license; license is the stipulation at every
step. What we claim as right they compel
us to accept and hold only under their license
Instead of full, frank, free recognition of
general commercial rights, everything we are
TO have is q privilege, constantly to be the
subject, OF differences and quarrel until the
You will scarcely find claim of the
Americon opponents of this treaty that was
not supported by the speeches of its friends
IN the Canadian Parliament. Sir Charles
Tupper begins by appealing to that body not
to press him unduly to show the great ad-
vantage of the treaty to Canada until the
Senate has acted. The particulars in which
he has specially
oUTwITTED MR.. BAYARD
he keeps for the present in his own breast
But he admits, in express terms, that the in
shore fishery rights of Canada are Of great
value; that our markets are Of greater value
still; that Great Britain had, in practice,
abandoned the claim to exclude us from
great bays and headlands; that he was not
compelled by Great Britain to yield any
claim OF Canada, but was wholly response
BILE for the treaty himself; that the provision
in regard to the Straits of Canso is nothing
new; that the subjecting fishing vessels
Wnlcn dld not stay rwenty-four hours to re-
port was not enforced against Canadian YES
sells there or in the United States; that it
ought to be abandoned in the interests of
good neighborhood; that in the matter of
compulsory pilotage the play was not worth
the candle; that Canadian fishermen were
already exempt from it; that in allowing
us to tranship cargoes they were only doing
what was required by due regard for the
credit sand reputation Of their own country
all over the world; that the license to buy
casual and needful supplies was thing de-
manded in the interests Of good neighbor-
hood that he has left the penalty for unlaw-
fully fishing where he found it.
But the Senator from Alabama threatens
us with foreign war. He says we object TO
the door to new plain of redress which il
may be impossible to close until the war
has
FILLED OUR LAND WITH SLAUGHTER"
Why, Mr.. President, if ii were not for my
respect for the Senator from Alabama. /
shsuld say that this is supremely silly. The
whole matter is simple enough. The people
OF the United States will not be misled.
What we propose to say to Great Britain is
Just this: We do not agree that because we
made our fishermen an especially privileged
class IN 1878, when you would admit no
other vessel at all, we are now bound to ex-
cept them from the advantage of the decen-
cles OF hospitable intercourse as they exist
In 1883. But ii you think otherwise, so be
It,. You may write the law yourself; but the
rule, whatever it Is, must apply alike to both
parties. Ii our fishing vessels with their
cargoes can only enter into your ports for
the four purposes mentined in the cOnven-
ton of1S18, yours shall only enter ours for
the same purposes.
Let the same rule apply to both. If the
American fishing vessel in distress, or not in
distress, cannot enter Canadian ports to buy,
then the Canadian fishing shall not come in
TO our ports to sell. If we cannot unload
our cargo of fish there to send it anywhere
IN the United States to be there sold, you
shall not unload your cargo of fish here TO
send 1t anywhere in the United States to be
there sold. If our ship cannot stay twenty
four hours in Halifax YOUR shin shall NOT
stay twenty-four hours in Boston. What is
SAUCE FOR THE GOLDFISH
Co.
rule. Write your owl law. Take your own
medicine Put up your own prescription.
Sir Charles Upper says Great Britain did
not renounce any rights for her fishing YES
sells in 1918. That is true. But it is also true
that she did not get any rights for her fishing
vessels in 1878 Her rights depend on our
lamation. Our rights beyond the treaty of
1878 stand on the British order in council.
Ii that order in council can be recalled at
her pleasure, our statute and proc
lamation. can be repealed at ours.
If her order in council of 1880 did not mean
fishing vessels, or can be now so construed
or modihed as to not mean them, our statute
and proclamation did not mean fishing YES
sells, or may be so construed or modified as
not to mean them. The Senator from Ala
pama mlsconceives the spirit Of the Ameri-
can people If he expects them to submit to
other terms than an equal right and an
equal privilege for both sides. He under
values the intelligence Of the American peo-
pie II he thinks he can frighten them with
the idea that Great Britain will fight or will
engage in warfare of commercial restric-
tions in such quarrel.
But the Senator says Congress, in the
statute of March 8, 1887, put upon the Presi-
dent discretion it shrank from exercising it
self. If it meant retaliation it
SHOULD HAVE SAID RETALIATION.
Instead Of that, it put upon the President
the grave responsibility of doing an act of
commercial unfriendliness of his own mo-
tion. 1t is no such thing. Whenever he is
satisfied that our fishing vessels are deprived
of their rights, or are unjuitly vexed or har-
rassed in Canadian waters, the statute de-
clares "it shall be the duty of the President,
in his discretion, to deny the vessels of the
British Dominion or their fish entrance"
etc, with proper exceptions of vessels in
distress. lie is to make proclamation.
The President may, in his discretion, apply such
proclamation to any part or to all of the foregoing
named subjects, and may revoke, qualify, limit
and renew such proclamation from time To time
as he may deem necessary to the full and lust ex-
ecutlon OF the privileges Of this act.
The'discretion vested in him is only as to
the extent he shall go. That was clearly in
dispensable. If he had excluded fish only,
and had no power to go further, Canada
might in return exclude some other products
OF ours which she could get elsewhere as
conveniently. We had to arm him with dis
creton to this extent; and also that he
should not be compelled to 90 further than