Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1888-08-31
higher and better than the treaty cove

nants.
While keeply sensitive to all that was
exasperating in the condition, and by no
means indisposed to support the Just
complaints of our injured citizens, l still
deemed 1t my duty TO attempt by nego-
tlatlon to remedy the existing
wrongs, and finally terminate by
falr and just treaty these
ever recurring causes of diff
hcuity. | fully believe the treaty lust
rejected by the senate was well suited to
the exlgency, and that its provisions
we're adequate for our security in tho
future from yeSatious incidents. and for
the promotion of friendly relations aud
intimacy, without sacrificing in the least
our national pride or dignity. 1t is of
importance to note that this treaty has
been rejected without any apparent dis
position on the part of the senate to alter
or amend Its provisions, and with the
evident intention that
NO NEGOTIATION SHOULD AT PRESENT BE
CoNCLUDED
touching the matter at issue. | am by
no mesns disposed to abandon the inter
ests and rights of our people in the
premises or TO neglect their grievances,
aud | therefore turn to coutem plation
of q plan of retaliation "a mode
which still remains of treating
the situation. ( am not uumindf1l of
the gravity OF the responsibility assumed
IN adopting this line of conduct, nor do
fail in the least to appreciate its serious
consequences. 1t will be impossible 70
lnIure our Canadian ueighbors by retail
atory measures without intilcting some
damage upon our own citizens
The policy of national retaliation mani
fesly embraces the infiiction of the great
est harm upon those who have injured US
with the least possible damage to our
selves. And above all things the plan of
retaliation, if entered upon, should be
thorough and vigorous. These considera-
tions lead me to invoke the aid and
counsel of congress and its support in
SUCH FURTHER GRANT OF POWER
as seems necessary and desirable to rem
der effective the policy l have indicated
Congress has already passed law provid
ing that in case American fishing yes
sells being at or visiting ir tho waters or
at any ports OF the British 6ominions of
North America, should be, or lately had
been deprived Of the rights to which
they were entitled by treaty or law, or if
they were de MED certain privileges there
in specified the president might
deny to vessels and their mas
tors and crews of the British
Dominions of North America any en-
trance into waters, ports or harbors of
the U. S. and also deny entry into any
port or place of the U. S. of any product
of said Dominions or other goods coming
from said Dominion to the U. S. While
| shall not hesitate upon proper occas-
sions to enforce this act it would seem
unnecessary to suggest that if such an
enforcement is limited IN such manner
as snail result in the least possible injury
to ou7 own people the effect would prob
ably be
ENTIRELY INADEQUATE
to the accomplishment of the purpose
desired. deem it my duty to call the
attention of congress to certain particu-
lars in the action of the authorities of
the Dominion of Canada, in addition to
the general allegations already made,
which appear TO be In such marked CON
trast 20 the liberal and friendly position
to oail for such legislation as
will, upon the principles already
stated properly supplement the power to
inaugurate the retaliation already vested
in the executive. Actuated by the gener
ous spirit which has characterized our
legislation our tariff laws have since
1866 been so far waived in favor of Can
ada as to allow free of duty the transI
across the territory OF the United States
of property arriving at our ports and
destined to Canada or exported from
Canada to other countries. The
president here quotes the 29th
article of the treaty of Wash
iDgton between the United States
and Great Britain, negotiated il 1871,
which he says was largely q modification
of the treaty of 1918, in which the priv
ileges above referred to we're made re-
ciprocal, and given in return by Canada
to the United Ststes.
Continuing the president says: Dur-
ing the last six years the i'm ports and ex-
ports of the British Canadian provinces
carried across our territory, under the
privileges granted by our laws, amounted
in value to about two hundred aud seventy
millions, nearly all of which were goods
dutiable under our tariff laws.
By far the largest part of this traffic CON
sisted of exchanges of goods between
Great Britain and her American prov.
inces, brought to and carried from our
ports in our own vessels. The treaty
stipulation entered into by our govern
ment was in harm my with the laws which
we're then on our statute book and are
still in force.
THE PRESIDENTS PLAN.
I recommend immediate Legislative
action comforting upon the executive
power to suspend by pro ;lamation the
operation of all laws and regulations per
mitting the transit of goods, wares and
merchandise in bond across or over the
territory of the United States 10 or from
Canada, There need be no hesitation in
suspending these laws arising from the
supposition that their continuance is Sc
cured by treaty obligations, for it
seems quite plain that article
29 of the treaty of 1871, which was the
| only article Incorporating such laws,
| terminated July 1st, 1885. The article
itself declares that its provisions shall
| remain in force "for the term OF years
mentioned in article 90 of the treaty"
| Turning to article 35 we find no men
| tion of the 29th article, but find pro
visions referring to articles Is to % in
elusive, and article 80. / am OF
| the opinion that the "term
| of years" referred to in article
| 90 means the period during which arti
clss IS to 25 inclusive, and article 80,
| commonly called Fishery articles" shall
! III 1OiSt, Al tuNlSAOA W OthCI
| satisfactory evidence supporting the con
strUction of the language of article %,
| it will be found ths5 the law passed by
congress March 1, '73, to carry the treaty
into effect, furnishes conclusive proof of
| the correctness of such constructions.
After quoting the act of March, 1873,
| the president says: Here then is dis
tinot enactment of congress limiting the
| duration of this article of the treaty to
| the time that article 1S 20 % inclusive
| and article 30 should continue in force.
There appearing to be no conflict or in
| consistency between the treaty and the
| act of congress last cited, 1t is not neces-
| sary 20 invoke the well settled priuci-
| pie that in case of such a con
| fict the statute governs the question
| whether the law of 1873 construes the
| treaty or governs it. Section % of such
| treaty, l have no doubt, terminated with
| proceedings taken by our government to
terminate articles IS to % inclusive and
article 30 Of the treaty. These proceed
| ings had their inception in
| joint resolution OF congress passed
| May 3, 1883, declaring that these
| articles ought to be terminated
and directing the president to give no
| tice 10 Great Britain provided for in
| article 80 of the treaty. Such notice
| having been given two years prior to the
| first day of July, 1885, the articles men
| TONED were absolutely terminated on