The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1888-03-01
Republican Journal Pub. Go.
CHARLES A. PILsBURY. EDITOR.
RUSSELL q. DYER............. LOCAL EDITOR.
The British-Bayard Treaty.


space to discussing the iti>h-Bayard fishery
treaty. as it cannot be ratified while there is a
ma jority of Americans in the United States
Senate. The substance Of the document is
given. lin nut SHE'LL. on the fourth page and it
need only be said here that it makes no cor
ce>sions on the part of Canada. while restrict
ing our present fishing area in Canadian waters.
Indeed. SO far as this government is concerned.
it is an abject surrender of the main points for
which the American fishermen have conteEded.
The rights" given our vessels are such rs are
accorded by civilized nations without treaty
and refusal to grant them should he followed
by reprisal in kind. and would be if this Adj
miui>tration represented the American people
The whole treaty is simply a thinly disguised
entering wedge for free trade. This is admit
ted 10y the London Press. All that America
gains, says The Times. in effect. is an extension
of what it calls the humane provi>os of the
former conv ention. 1t continues thus: Can
ada. in fact. makes certain concessions of no
substantial importance to herself. except in the
eyent-which we ought not to conIemplate-cf
their being dishonesty used. and obtains in re-
turn clear recognition of her rights under
the convention Then follows another charac-
tcri>tic view: The most important provision
in this treaty. says the leading free-trade
journal of the world. lis undoubtedly that
fishing and fish tariffs
This is what the American opponents Of this
one->ded treaty have asserted. Senator Frye
says: The only things in this whole treaty
from beginning TO end that We want we are
permitted TO purchase by paying at least 81 ooC,-
900 a year for them. Secretary Maddox of
the National Fishery Association SAYS: at is
di>creditabe for the United States to accept an
agreement to pay tonnage tax Of sl.Jo Il ton
for trade privilege, which is really of more
benefit to the Canadian than the United States
fishermen THE last clause he continued.
lis an open bid for free fish, of course, and
carries the inference thar the tishermen's
privileges will he >tinted in the strirte>t way
until We come TO their terms, except When
fishermen are driven into their ports by di>a>-
ter" Mr.. Richard ). Spotford. Democrat,
says: Making no indemnity for past outrage>,
it not only cancels our commercial rights. but
robs the United States of large and valuable
fishing areas both in bays and seas. Thank
God that the American Senate is still cNtlnt
and no inconsiderabe part of the treat -inak-
ing powers. Congressman Dingley The
real sl>t of the treaty is in what will be called
the snapper The snapper Of the treaty is
this: That whenever we put upon the free list
IL. of, u !, halt
things for which we have contended. the right
TO tranship fish in bond. the right to buy bait.
etc. But these things must be purchased bv
our free list" Capt. Fitz j. Babson. of Glouees-
ter concludes Il letter from Washington TO the
New York Herald as follows: This is the
great diplomatic triumph of the administration
accepting a Canadian disclaimer of absolute
wrong committed as UNSUITABLE cause of sur
rendering vital American policy. Have we
an American government
Mr.. Babsons pertinent question must lie an
swered i'll the negative. in view of this dis
graceful surrender on the part OF the Admins
tration to the British diplomati>t>. Our fisher
men are not the only victims. Nova Scotia has
been benefited by her trade with American
vessels and by selling bait to American fisher
men, while she gains nothing under the pro-
posed treaty. But Canada. it is suggested. will
subsidize Nova Scotia by large government en-
penditures in that Province. although this will
not reach the traders and bait fishermen whose
means of livelihood are cut off.
Mr.. Blaine has been interviewed in Florence
By correspondent of the New York World.
and is reported as saying that he meant exact
ly what he said in his recent letter. that he
does not care to 20 through another national
campaign, and that he will not return home ull-
til after the convention. The following remark
from Mr.. Blaine, if correctly reported. is i'm
portant:
Il hold that l have no right 10 be Il eandi-
date again. \ man who has once been a can-
dldate of his party and been defeated. owes it
to his party to Withdraw and not be candidate
second time. More than this he added,
there Is another plain reason for nv with
drawing, could not 90 through the burden
and fatigue of another Presidential canvass
such as the canvass of the last campaign. 10
accept nomination and do less than before
would be impossible. 1t would look as if | had
no faith in myself or in the success of the par
ty.''