6226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-sENATE. JULY ,131
question is on the motion of the gen t1leman from Indiana [M.x:. MATSON], Byl\Ir. MATSON: PetitionofHiram furphyand87others, ex-Union that the ·House do now adjourn. soldiers of Owen County, Iowa, for the passage of the bill giving arrears The motion was agreed to; and the House accordingly (at ~0 o'clock of pensions---to the Committee. on Invalid Pensions. and 12 minutes p. m.) adjourned. By 1\Ir. OUTHWAITE: Petition of Hugh Ewing, for increase of pen sion-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. PRIV.ATE BILLS INTRODUCED .A.l\"1> REFERRED. By 1\fr. REED: Petition of Jesse Gould! and others, of Biddeford, Me., in fa\or of a pension for 1\Irs. Hattie H. Edgerly-to the Com Under the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced mittee on Invalid Pensions. and referred as indicated below: By J\.Ir. ROWLAND (by request}: Petition of Archibald S. MeNeil, By Mr. !cCULLOGH: A bill (II. R. 10311) granting a pension to of Richmond County, North Carolina, for reference of his claim to the Elizabeth Candy-to the Committee on IJrValid J:>ensions. Court of Claims.-to the- Committee on War Claims. Also, a bill (H. R. 10812) gl'anting a pension to Susan Barr-to the By Mr. TRACE.Y:- Petition of citizens of Albany County, New York, Committee on Invalid Pensions. in regard to reduction· of postage on merchandise-to the Committee Also, a bill (H. U.10813) gran:tin·g a pension to Jesse B. llamsey-to on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. the Committee on Invalid Pensions. By :Mr. WHEELER: Petition of Moses B. Keel, of Jackson County, By Mr. HUNTER: A bill (H. R. 10814) granting a pension to Mary Alabama, for reference of his claim to the Court of Ciaim..s-to the Smith-to the Committee on Invalid Pension . Committee on War Claims. By 1\Ir. FORD: A bill {H. R. 10 15) for the relief oi A..ndYcw :K. By lUr. J. R. 'VlHTING: Petition of Duncan Buchan:m and 107 Miller-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. others, of Huron County, and of H. H. Spencer and 70 others, ofl\facomb By Mr. OUTHW.AITE: A hilt (H. R. 10816) granting a pension to County; 1\lichjga.n, for amendments to the interstate-commerce law Hugh Ewing-to the Committee on Invalid Pen ions. . to the Committee on Com.meree. By 1\Ir. WILBER: A bill (H. R. 10817) granting increase ofpen ion Also, petition of J oi:m Donahne, fox :relief-to tli.e Committee en to Alexander Van Loan-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Private Land Claims. By Mr. G. A~ ANDERSON~ A bill (H. R. 10 18) granting a pension By 1\Ir. WILKl..L'{S: Petition of G. K. Arthnr and 200 others, citi to 1\Irs Adelaide H. Woodall-to the Committee on Invalid :Pensions. zens of Tuscamwas Conn ty, and of C. F Sangsten and 3D others, citi zens of C@shoeton County, Ohio., in relation to the duty on wool-to PETITIONS. ETC. the Committee on W~s: and 1\IeanQ. By Mr. \VISE. Petition 01 citizens of Riehmond, Va.,. :relative to a The following petitions and papers were Iaid on the Clerkrs desk, national! bureau of hru!hors and wate-r# ways-tl> th Committee on Ex under the rule, and referred as follows: penditures in the War Department. By Mr. ABBOTT: Petition of Edmond Raphailp and 40 othe:rs, of Ellis County, Texas, for amendments to the int~rsta.te-commerce l'.aw The following petitions, praying for the enactment of" a law provid to the Committee on Commerce. ing temporary aid for common schools, to be disbursed on the basis of By Mr. A. R. ANDERSON: Petition ofW. H. Abbott and 18 others, illiteracy, were severally referred to the Committee on Education~ citizens of MillE~ County, Iowa} for amendments to the interstate-com By Mr. DU~N: Ofl91 citizensofl\li i:ssippi County, Arka..nsas, merce law-to the Committee on Commerce. By l\Ir. LODGE: Of president and faculty otl he Boston nive:rsity, By 1\Ir. BREWER: Remonstrance of James A. Button ancl200 others, tho- U:niver&1,"lisb Minis1!ers1 Chili, and the supe.rvisoxs and commission- 'I citizens of Genesee County; of 750 farmers and wool-growers of Shi ers of BostO>.n schcols. awassee County; of C. 1\I. Wond and 200 others, farmers o{ LivinO' stone County; of T. S. Bausher and 155 others, citizens of Oakland County, and of L. G. Burch anclllO others) citize-ns of Clinton: County, SENA:rB :Michigan, against putting wool on the free-list-to the Committee on Ways and Means. FRIDAY, July 13~ 1888. By 1\Ir. CANDLER; Petition of Eli Lovinggood, administrator of Prayer by Rev. C. HERBERT RICIYARD OY, D. D.t oF Washington Samuel Lovinggood, of Cherokee County, Georgia, for reference of his City, D. C. claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings w. read and app.roverl. By 1\Ir. CARUTH: Petition of J. A. 1\-Iiller, of Louisville; Ky,.~ for relief-to the Committee on Claims. PETITIONS Al\J) 1\.IEMORI.ALS. By Mr. ENLOE: Petition of R. A. Guthrie, of Perry County, Ten The PRESIDENT pro tempore:presenteda. petition of citizens of Phil nessee, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Qom adelphia County, Pennsylvania pray~ for certain amendments of the mittee on Wa.r Claims. interstate-eommercQ law; which was referred to. the Committee-
I , 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SENATE~ 6227
Mr. EVARTS presented a. petition of the Saratoga (N.Y.) Monu The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con ment Association, praying that an appropriation be made for the com sideration of this bill ? The Chair hears none. pletion and dedication of the monument commemorating the surrender The bill (H. R. 5064) to construct a road to the national cemetery of General Burgoyne at Sara.toga; which was referred to the Commit at Baton Rooger La., was considered as in Committee of the Whole. tee on the Library. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to Mr. PLUMB. Two or three days since I presented the petition of a third reading, read the third time, and passed. John Cowdon in regard to the Lake Borgne outlet system ofimp~ove BILLS INTRODUCED. . ment of tlte Mississippi River; which was referred to the Comm1ttee M:r. MANDERSON introduced a bili (S. 3322) to increase the pension on the Improvement of the ~Iissi sippi River and tributaries. I now of George W. Montgomery; which was read twice !>Y its title, .and, mo>e that the petition be p1"inted as a public document. with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. The motion was agreed to. Mr. PLUMB introduced a bill (S. 3323) granting a pension to Flor REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. ence Reynolds; which was read twice by its tiC.e, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. :Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom Mr. CHANDLER (by request) introduced a bill (S. 3324) to make was referred the bill (S. 2680) releasing the est.ate of Asher R. Eddy, the Lake Borgne outlet, to improve the low-:water navig~tio.n of the late lieutenant-colonel and quartermaster-general United States Army, Mississippi River from New Orleans, La., to Cauo, IJ!. '· a~d 1?-Cl~entally deceased and Georo-e W. Gibbs and R. L. Ogden, sureties on his offi to reclaim and protect the valley la.Qds of the MlSSISSlppl RIVer and cial bond, reportel' it without amendment, and submitted a report tributaries from overflow; which was read twice by ilc; title, 3tnd re thereon. ferred to the Committee on the Improvement of the Mississippi River 1\fr. Y ANCE. from the Committee on the District t'f Columbia, to and Tributaries. whom was referred the .bill (H. R. 3329) to regulate the subdivision Mr. PALMER introduced a ·bill (S. 3325) granting an increase of pen of land -within the District of Columbia, reported it with amendments. sion to Julia M. Edie; which was read .twice by its title, and, with the He also from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill accompanving papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. (S. 1099) for the relief of the Church of the Ascension, in the District Mr. MITCHELL introduced a bill (S. 3326) authorizing the Secre of Columbia, reported it with a,n amendment, and submitted a report 1 tary of the Interior to negotiate with the Coour d' ~ene trib~ ofindi~ns thereon. for the purchase and release of a portion of theu re~e~atwn; wh~ch Mr. FAULKNER, from the Committeeon the DistrictofColumbia, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian to whom was referred the bill (H. R.10060) prescribing the time for Affairs. salei! and for notice of sales of property-in the District of Columbia for 1\fr. DAVIS. I move that Order of Business 1722, House bill 7749, overdue taxes, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report be now considered. thereon. Mr. EDMUNDS. Are bills in order? He also. from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. Mr. HALE. Let us get through with the morning business. 3168) regrilating n.dmi ions to the Institution of the Association f~r The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A request for the regular order is an Works of Mercy in certain cases, and for other pnrppses, reported 1t objection to the motion of the Senator from Minnesota. without amendment. 1\Ir. EDMUNDS. I ask leave to introduce a bill by request. 1\Ir. DAWES, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was The bill (S. 3327) to establish a council of ordnance was read twice referred the bill (S. 1950) to ratify and confirm an agreement with the by its title. Indians of Fort Berthold agency, in Dakota, reported it with amend Mr. EDMUNDS. I move the reference of the bill to the Commit- ments. :Mr. SPOONER, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grormds tee on Military Affairs. · . . . 1 I wish to say that the gentleman who prepared this bill and submlt to whom WM referred an amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. ted it to me for introduction is a gentleman of very high attainments STEW ART to the sundry civil appropriation bill, reported a substitute in respect to the matters embraced in the bill; but, of course, as I have therefor; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. nob had time to study it in detail I make the usual statement. Ur.SPOONER,from theCommitteeonPublicBuildingsandGrounds, The PRESIDENT pro temp01:e. The bill will be referred to the Com to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8183) for the erection of a public mittee on Military Affairs. building at Opelousas, La., report-ed it without amendment, and sub mitted: a report thereon. A.!!IENDMENTS TO GENERAL DEFICIENCY BILLr POLICE MATRONS. . 1t'Ir.PLUMB and Mr. MITCHELL submittedamendmentsintended Mr. FARWELL. I am instructed by the Committeeon theDistrict to be 'proposed by them, respectively, to the general deficiency appro of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8039) providingfor priation bill; which were referred to the Committee on Appropriations, the appointment of police matrons for the District of Columbia, to re and ordered to be printed. port it without amendment, and I ask unanimous ·consent for its con AME~JIENTS TO CLAIMS BILL. sideration now. Mr. PAYNE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by The PRESIDENT pl'O tempore. Is there objection to the consider- him to the bill (H. R. 6514) for the allowance of certain claims reported ation of this bill? by the accounting officers of the United States 'fieasury Department; Mr. COCKRELL. Let the bill be rea.d. which was referred to the Committee on Clainls, and ordered to be printed. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read. The bill was read. MISSISSIPPI RIVER· BRIDGE AT WABASHA, MINN. By unanimous consent, the bill (H. R. 8039) providing for the ap The PRESIDENT pro tcmpwe. Are ·there resolutions, concurrent or pointment of police matrons for the District of Columbia, defining their otherwise? If there be none, the morning business is concluded. dutieg, and for other purposeg, was considered as in Committee of the Mr. DAVIS. I move that Order of Business 1722, House bill 774.9, Whole. be now taken up. It proposes to authorize the commissioners of the District of Columbia The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the to appoint three matrons for the police department of the District, at a Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 7749) to authorize the salary of $600 per annum, as soon as the necessary accommodations building of a bridge across the Mississippi River at Wabasha, Minn. may be authorized and provided by Congress, and the work completed. The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an These police matrons are to search when necessary, examine, and amendment, which was to strike out all after tAe enacting clause and care for the female prisoners who may be taken into custody by the to insert the following: police, and to take charge of lost or abandoned children while detained That the city of W abasha, in he State of Minnesota, be, !)nd is hereby, author ized to construct and maintain a bridge for the passage of v ehicles of all kinds, at a station~honse to which a matron may be assigned, under suchruies animals, and foot-passengers, across that part of the :Mississippi River east of and re!mlations as the commissioners of the DiStrict may from time to the main channel of sa id river, at a. point op-posite or nearly opposite the said time ~ake. No woman is to be appointed a police matron unless suit city o! Wabasha, and to charge for such use such reasonable rates of toll as IJl:lY be approved from time to time by tlte Secretary of War. able for the position and recommended therefor in writing by at least SEC. 2. That any bridge constrtrcted nnder this act and according to its limita ten women of good standing, residents of the District. tions shall be a lawful structure, and shall be recognized and known as a post The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment ordered route, upon which also no higher charge shall bemadeforthe transmission over 1 the same forthema.ils, the troops, and the munitionsofwnro!the United States to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. than the rate per mile paid for their transportation oyer railroads or public highways leading to said bridge; and the United States and all companies and ROAD TO BATON ROlJGE NATIO:NAL CEMETERY. individuals shall have the right of way for telegraph, po tal-telegraph, and tel ephone purposes across said bridge. Mr. WALTHALL. The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom SEc. 3. That any bridge authorized to be constructed under this act shall be was referred the bill (H. R. 5064) to construct a road to the national built and located under and subject to such regulations for the security of navi cemetery at Baton Rouge1 La~, report it without amendment. gation of said river as the Secretary of War shall prescribe; and to secure that I unanimous consent to put that on pas object the said company or corporation shall submit to the Secretary of War, for Mr. GlBSON. ask bill its hi ex&m.ination and approval, a design and drawings of the bridge, and a map sage. of the location, giving, for the spa.ce of 1. mile abov~ and l mile bel?w the ~ro The PRESIDENT pro tempvre. The bill will be read for informa posed location, the topography of the banks of the nvcr, the sbore-lmes at h1gh tion. and low w-ater the direction and strength of the current at all stages, and the soundings. acc~tely showing the bed of the stream, the location of any o~her The bill was read. bridge or bridges, and shall furnish such other information as may be reawred 6228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13,
for a full and satisfactory understanding of the subject· and until the said plan Territory of Idaho, for the purposes of a town site, and for the grant and location of the bridge are approved by the Secret~ry of war the construc ~ion of said bri~ge s?a ll not. be commenced; and should any change be made of a right of w.ay through said reservation to the Utah and Northern In the plan of said bridge durmg the progress of construction, such change shall Railway Company, and for other purposes; and be. s!lbJect to the approval ~f the Secretary of War; and in case of any litigation A bill (H. R. 1659) to provide for taking the eleventh and sub~equent ar"!Sm~ from any obstructton or alleged obst_ruction to the free navigation of ~1d nv~r, c~used or alleged to be caused by said bridge, the case maybe brought censuses. m t.he Circmt cour~ of the United States within whose jurisdict-ion said bridge ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. or any portion thereof may be located. SEc. 4. 'l'ha.t the t:igbt to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed reserved, and the r1ght to require any changes in said structure, or its entire re· the following em:olled bills and jointresolutions; and they were there mova.l, at the expense of the owners thereof, whene,·er the Secretary of \Var shall decide tbat.the public interest requires it, is also expressly reserved. upon signed by the President pro tempore: SE?. 5. That. this act shall be null and void if actual construction of the bridge A bill (S. 11~9) granting to the Newport and King's Valley Railroad herem authorized be not commenced within one year and completed within Company the right of way through the Siletz Indian reservation; three years from the date hereof. • ' A bill (S. 2536) granting to the Oregon Railway and Navigation The amendment was agreed to. Co~pany the right of way through the Nez Perce Indian reservation; The 'J?ill was 1·eported to the Senate as amended, and the amenc;lment A bill (S. 2644) granting the right of way to the Fort Smith Paris was concurred in. and Dardanelle Railway Company to construct and operate a rahroad, The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read telegraph, and telephone line from Fort Smith, Ark., through the In a third time. _ dian Territory, to or near Bb.xter Springs, in the State of Kansas; The bill was read the third time, ·and passed. ~bill (S. 2807) to grant to the Puyallup Valley Railway Company BRANCH SOLDIERS' HOME IN INDIANA. a ngh t of way through the Puyallup Indian reservation in Washington !rfr. MANDERSON. I ask consent that the Senate consider Order Territory, and for other purposes; and . of Business 1607. I move to take it up. Joint resolution (H. Res. 196) declaring the trueintentandmeaning The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. 8391) to authorize of the act approved May 28, 1888. the location of a branch home for volunteer disabled soldiers in Grant THE FISHERIES TREATY. County, Indiana, and for other purposes, was considered as in Com- mittee of the Whole. - :Mr. GEORGE. I move that the Senate nowresolveitselfinto open The bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs with executive session to consider the fisheries treaty. , an amendment, which was, in section 3, line 7, after the word ''shall,'' The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi moves to insert the word ":first;" so as to read: that the Senate do now proceed to the consideration of the resolutions Provided, That the citizens of said county shall first drill a natural gas well or of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN] and the :fisheries treaty wells on said grounds, of sufficient capacity to furnish gas for heating and light in open executive session. ing said buildings, and shall supply an adequate quantity of such gas f1·ee of The motion was agreed to. cost to the Government. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is now in open executive Mr. MANDERSON. I hope that amendment may not be agreed t,o. session. If there be no objection, the reading of the Journal of the last I do not think it is essential. open executive session will be dispensed with. The Executive Clerk The amendment was rejected. will report the pending treaty by title. ' The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, orderetl to The EXECUTIVE CLERK. Treaty (Executive M) between United a third reading, read the third time, and passed. . States and Great Britain concerning the interpretation of the conven INDEBTEDNESS OF NEW MEXICO. tion of October·20, 1818, .signed at Washington, February 15, 1888. Mr. PLATT. I ask the Senate to consider at this time House bill Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I know of no higher duty of Amer 4423, Qrder of Business 1428. I move to take it up. ican Senators than giving their advice as to the making or rejection of The motion wa.s agreed to; and the bill (H. R. 4423) relating to cer a treaty settling grave questions which have arisen in relation to im tain acts of the Twenty-seventh Legislative Assembly of the Territory of portant righta of the American people. Our advice and consent have New Mexico, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It pro been asked by the President to the conclusion of a treaty Involving vides that the act of the Twenty-seventh Legislative Assembly of the many important questions of a most delicate nature, which have re Territory of New Mexico, entitled ''An act to create a funded indebted mained unsettled for many years, giving rise to disputes and differences ness of the Territory of New Mexico to pay and discharge certain claims of a. grave character, threatening serious complications with one of the for carpets, furniture, gaa :fixtures, gas and water, and fuel, a~d for great nations of the world, notwithstanding fonr previous treaties made shelving the vaults and library room, and for insurance and other in for the same purpose. cidental and contingent expenses, now accrued and to accrue during In the case before us we are not only to determine what is best for the ensuing two years," approved February 14, 1887; and the act of the American people, but we :find this first question involving the de the same Legislative Assembly, entitled "An act to provide for the pay termination of what obligations the American people have come under in ment of current expenses of the Territory until the tax income shall former treaties and what maytherefore be due to public faith solemnly . meet the same," approved February 24, 1887, shall be approved and pledged, what is due to an observance of compacts, what is due to that declared valid acts of t.he Legislative Assembly, and the Territory shall high honor, to thatscrupulouscompliancewith national engagements, be bound by their terms, and shall be held to the payment of the re which no people can sully or neglect without disgrace and without spective sums stipulated to be paid in the bonds, the issuance of which disaster. is provided in these acts, an<\ in the manner and form therein pre In dtscharging this high duty there is no room for considerations ot scribed. a mere partisan character, no place for passion, no rightful opportunity Mr. EDMUNDS. Will the Senator please explain that bill to the for appeals or argumenta founded in error or directed to any other end Senate? than the public good. Mr. PLA'r'£. We passed an act in 1885, I believe, that no special In their relations with foreign nations the thirty-eight American acts or laws could be passed by a Territorial Legislature for certain Statesareone, theAmericanpeopleareone; their interesta, their rights, purposes mentioned in the act, but that all such laws should be gen and their obligations the same. There may be differences of opinion, eral laws. The Territory of New Mexico has passed an act to provide as there always are, as to particular questions, but th~se differences for :finishing up their Territorial capitol and furnishing it, and some should have no relation to p:uty divisions. Foreign nations have no matters of that sort, ~hich I do not think interferes with or is pro right to participate in our domestic divisions. Ai3 to them we all be· hibited by the act of Congress towhich I have referred; but a question long to the same party, the party of our country. has been raised aqout it, and it is desired to ratify that action of the The proposed treaty is a substitute for or modification of existing Legislature. The Q'erritorial act was defective in that it did not pro treaty obligations, and this necessitates a comparison of the old and vide any means for paying the interest on the bonds which should be the new. This compels an inquiry-calm, deliberate, and just-into issued. This bill remedies that defect. There are about $250,000 of the true force and meaning of both. Thus only can it be known which 1 these bonds which have been sold arid the inMrest on which became is the better. Thus only can we make a rational choice. due the 1st of July. There are no means of paying it. The credit of OPEN SESSIONS. the Territory suffers and the bondhOlders have suffered. This is a Mr. President, for the one hundred years of the existence of our House bill, and at the request of the Delegate from the Territory and Constitution this examination and inquiry have been made under cir on examination by the committee we thou~ht it ought to pass. cumstances which allowed the freest interchange of views between The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to members of this body, the fullest discussion and the calmest consider a third reading, r~d the third time, and passed. ation. Our deliberations were confidential; foreign nations having MESSA'GE FROM THE HOUSE. adverse interesta were excluded. They were not allowed to know the A message from the House of Representatives, by M:r. CLARK, its argumenta, the reasons, the motives which controlled our action. Clerlt, announced that the House had pa.Ssed the following bills; in 'l'hat the American people, our masters, ought to be allowed to which it requested the coacurrence of the Senate: know what their agents, their servants, are doing, and the reasons for A bill (H. R. 8662) to accept and ratify anagreementmadewith the their action, may be admitted in a general sense; but it is also true Shoshone and Bannack Indians forthe surrender and relinquishment that it is unsafe, unwise to permit foreign nations with whom we to the Unitexl States of a portion of the Fort Hall reservation, in the are treating to be admitted into our secret councils and thus learn 0\!1' 1888. OONGRJiJSSIONAL RECORD-SEN4TE. 6229
views, our motives, the arguments and. reasons on which we act. engaged in taking and curing fish in waters near the British colonies. They give us no admission to theirs. There is not an American citizen-native or naturalized-who hazards · Up to this time the American Senate, without complaint from the his life in the oftimes perilous business of fishing in these tempestuous American people, have denied this privilege to foreign nations, sub- waters whose smallest right! would surrender or impair. On the con- . ordinating the lesser right of the people to be present at these delib- trary, whatever rightshehas Iwonldnotonly~rtify, butwouldenlarge erations to their greater right, the right to have their business trans- as far as in my power. I shall attempt no eulogy on the American fish acted in a manner most advantageous to them, most consonant to ermen; that has been better done by others. I will say this, that I their safety and welfare, the right to exclude foreign nations from recognize them, every one of them, as my countrymen, engaged under intrusion into their councils. This view prevailed in the American the sanction of public law and treaties in an employment of great Senate as to this very treaty up to and on the 14th day of May last. importance to the whole country, full of dangers and discomforts, and On that dav the Senate, by a vote of 41 to 3-the negatives being Sen- often unremunerative to the very men whose skill, whose courage, whose ators DA w'Es, SHERl\I.AN, and TELLER-refused to admit the British self-denial and endurance take these treasures from the seas. If I do Government and all others to our deliberations. On the 22d of the not unconsciously stumble, I shall cast my vote on the question of rat same month the British and all the world were invited to be present ific..'ttion on that side which, being consistent with the' faith of public by the vote of every Republican Senator but one, Mr. HALE. treaties, the sanctity of international compacts, most advances the wel- l believe, sir, it is an open secret that this change in the attitude of fare of these men. the Senators on the other side, resulting in a consequent change in the EFFECT o:F INTERNATIOYAL LAw oN THE SUBJECT. uniform practice of the Senate, was brought about by the action of a Mr. President, during the delivery of the very able and very instruct- caucus or conference of Republican Senators from which all the world ive speech of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] several weeks was excluded. What arguments were urged, what reasons presented, ago, he was interrupted by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER], · which worked this extraordinary change are unknown to me, unknown also by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR], both of these Sen to the world. The Republican Senators became in some unknown way, a tors stating that the claim to these fishery rights was not made under in secret council, from which the American people were excluded, con- international law, but was based solely upon treaty engagements. vinced-solemnly convinced-by arguments and on reasoning which That, sir, is not strictly correct. For the treaty of 1783, as well as the they dared not or would notcommittotheAmericanpeople, that secrecy convention of 1818, though fully specifying our rights and liberties in affairs, secrecy in making treaties, was all wrong; that the universal with respect to the fisheries, yet must be construed according to law practice of our fathers on this subject was all wrong. The inconsistency and by the law; and that law is the law of nations as it was under between the methods used and the end attained, the repugnance be- stood and acted on at that date by the United States and Great Britain, tween the principles of these methods and the principles involved in the parties to these international compacts. This position is distinctly this end, are so patent that it requires a large share of charity in j ndging taken by the Committee on Foreign Relations. mankind to believe that both are sincere. The result-a declaration Sir, if yon make a contract with another yourrights under it areas that secrecy in deliberations in conducting negotiations with a foreign certained and measured by its ter~; these terms are what the law says power is all wrong, the exclusion of that power from our counsels is the lanuna Without admitting or denying that such result would follow, if by fisheries "depended" on the mainland, were subject to the owners of the law of nations, as understood by England and the United States in the adjacent shores, and that this exclusive ownership extended at 1818 ''bays'' more than 6 miles wide were regarded as public waters, least 90 miles from the shore into the open sea. Thus it was in the I sh~ll proceed to. examine what rights England and the United States very inauguration of the practice of nations, under the law of nations, for many years, regarded with reference to these fisheries were subject to that there was not only no recognition, as to these fishery rights, of separate and exclusive national proprietorship. the common property of mankind in them as to all seas, bays, or gulfs Mr. President, it must be noted that there is nothing in the conven outside of 3 miles from the shore, but an express repudiation of such tion of 1818 which indicates an intention of the contracting parties to right. confine the word "bays" as 'therein used to territorial waters over TREATY OF PARIS. which the nation whose shores they indent had general municipal juris Mr. President, following the pr;tctice and opinion of nations, im-oked diction. As I understand it the word "bays" as used in the conven by the Committee on Foreign Relations, for the next half century, we tion is claimed to mean territorial bays, not so much by force of the come to the next treaty between France an.d England-the treaty of natural and ordinary meaning of the language employed as from the Paris, in 1763-in which there were stipulations in reference to this assumption that it is not to be presumed that the United States and fishery. During that half century France had enjoyed fishery rights Great Britain intended that the former should be excluded from pub on the coast of Canada, and such rights as were conceded on the coast of lic bays, to which all other nations were admitted. That neither party Newfoundland by the treaty of Utrecht. She had also :fishery rights would desire such a result, so discriminating against the United States, in virtue of her ownership of the island of Cape Breton. A main ob may be admitted; and it may also be admitted that it would require ject of the war whieh was thus ended in 1763, at least in America, was very plain language to indicate such a concession on the part of the to C{)nquer from France the remainder of the land on which these fisher United States. ies "depended"; and in this object the British colonies fully concurred, It becomes material, therefore, to inquire into the opinion and prac and to attain it contributed very largely of both blood and treasure. tice of both the United States and Great Britain at and before that The result was that Canada an.d Cape Breton were conquered, and by time as to the conceded and acknowledged rights of either or both in the treaty ceded to England, leaving nothing to France in these parts thes~ fisheries, as to the admission or exclusion of other nations into but two smnll and rocky islands as a fishing station. and from these waters. This tre::tty confirmed the previous cessions of Nova Scotia and New THE TREATY OF UTRECHT. foundland, and ceded Canada and Cape Breton to Great Britain. Again In 1713 a war between England and France was ended by the treaty the fisheries were the subj ectof negotiation and settlement. France was of Utrecht. That war was waged in both hemispheres, and between still allowed the liberty of fishing on the coast of Newfoundland, s the colonies as well as the principal nations themselves. At that time specifi.ed in Article XIII of the treaty of Utrecht; and the treaty }lTO England was owner on this continent of that part of the United States ceeded to say, "And his Britannic Majesty consents to leave," ye8, east of the Mississippi, excluding Florida and Louisiana. Fmnce "consents to leave" to the French the liberty of fishing in the Gulf owned all now embraced in the Dominion of Canada and the island of of St. Lawrence. This was no narrow bay or strait, but a great sea. Newfoundland. The British American colonies contributed in men Yet so firmly was the idea settled in the minds of the statesmen of and money largely to the success of the British armies on the North both nations that all these fisheries ''depended" on the adjacent American continent, and especially in all the operations against the lands and were a part of the property of the owner of these lands, -that territory on which these fisheries, in the language of the treaty of it was deemed necessary, in order to secur-e :fishing rights to the losing Utrecht, "depended." The acquisition of these fisheries was n. main party, when these lands were ceded, that the new owner should. con object of military move~ents in Nova S~tia and the adjacent French tract to "leave'' to the other as a part of his old property appendant territory. These operatwns were successful. to the lands ceded, n. portion of his ancient right to fish in that great Nova Scotia (then also called Acadia) an.d Newfoundland also were sea-the Gulf of St. Lawrence. But it was left, not as a. "right," for conquered by the British armies and ceded by the treaty of Utrecht to that was supposed to be lost with the lo~s of the adjacent land, but England. only as a ''liberty '' or privilege yielded by the gracious consent of the Article XII of that treaty is in substance as follows: true owner. ART.XII. Fra.noo cedes to England all Nova Scotia or Acadia, lllso city of But, sir, even this privilege was not left without restriction. It was POl't Royal, and "all other things which depend on said. lands and islands, and allowed only "on condition" that the French do not fish but at the the inhabitants of the same are yielded and made over to the Queen of Great Britain and to her crown forever, and the most Christian King doth at present distan~e of 3 leagues-9 miles-from all the coasts belonging to Great yield and make over all the particulars aforesaid; and that in such ample man Britain, as well the coasts of the islands in the gulf as of the continent. ner and form that the subjects of the most Christian King shall hereafter be And as to Cape Breton, the condition was that the French do not fish excluded from all kind of fishing in said seas, bays, and other places on the coast within 15 leagues, or 45 miles, from the coasts of that island. These of Nova Scotia;, that is to sar. in those which lie toward th~ east. within 30 leagues, beginrung from the 1sland commonly called Sables, mclus1vely, and stipulations in the .treaty of Paris were grants of privileges, and grant<:~, thence stretching along towards the southwest. . " too, on condition, grants on condition-subsequent; so that if there Article Xlli cedes to Great Brit.a.in Newfoundland and adjacent islands, and prevents French from fortifying any place in Newfoundland, or erecting any should be a violation of this condition by fish in~ beyond the prescribed buildings there, besides stages made of boards and huts necessary and usual limits, the grant was liable at the will of England to forfeiture, and for drying fish. - the French subject, by the force of the treaty itself, to be ejected from "But it shall be allowed" the French "to catch fish and dry them on land in that part, and in that part only, and in no other beside that of the said island of :fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the seas south of Cape Breton Newfoundland, which stretches from the place called Cape Bona Vista to the forever. As to the fishing adjacent tQ Nova Scotia, this treaty, at the northern point of said island, and from thence running down by the western end of fifty years from the treaty of Utrecht, solemnly and deliberately side reaches as far as the place called Point Riche. But the ishnd of Cape ratified and confirmed forever the exclusion of the French from fishing Breton, as also all others, both in the mouth of the ri~er St. Lawrence, and in the gulf of the sa.me name, shall hereafter belong of nght to the French, and the within 30 leagues of the coast of that province, commencing at Sable most Christian King shall have all manner of liberty to fortify a.ny place or Island, as it was stipulated in the treaty of Utrecht. places there." · Mr. President, to both these treaties we were parties, not merely A careful study of Article XII of the treaty is of great importance. silent, unwilling, and acquiescent parties, as humble an.d obedient sub France makes the cession of Nova Scotia or Acadia to England ''with jects of the British Crown, but active, aggressive parties, freely spending all other things which depend on said land * * * in such ample our money and shedding our l)lood to drive the French from these fish manner and form." that the French should thereafter be " excluded eries and to acquire them for ourselves in part as members of the Brit from all kinds of 'fishing in· said seas, bays, and other places on the ish Empire. \Ve had a.localautonomy, the power in ourselves, at our coast of Nova Scotia * ~* * which lie towards the east within 30 will, to raise men and money for this enterprise, and we did raise and leagues {90 miles), beginning from the island commonly called Sable, spend more than our proportionate share, as John Adams claimed. The and thence stretching along towards the southwest." advantage thus gained we enjoyed to our great profit; and the prin It is thus seen that in the opinion and practice of England and France, ciples on which the acquisition was made we sanctioned, solemnly and then the two most powerful of all European states, these fisheries '' de explicitly sanctioned not only in words, but by a century nea.rly or pended'' on the adjacent land, in such sense that the nation that owned active business life and enterprise in strict accord therewith. It is not the land also owned the fisheries, and that this exclusive national in our power to-day to deny or repudiate these principles and this con ownership of the fisheries extended more than 90 miles from the coast, duct. However much we may ll:.we changed, if change there has been, as Sable Island itself, the starting point, was away out in the open sea, in reference to the extent from the shores to which these treaties could m!my miles from the mainland. rightfully assign exclusive national rights, it is yet true that in 1783, By the thirteenth article N ewfonndland was ceded to England, but cer through John Adams, in 1816, through John Quincy Adams, and ever tain fishing liberties were ''allowed'' theFrench, notwithstanding the since, and now in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations and cession, on the coasts of that island from Cape Bona Vista on the east in every speech made in support of our alleged rights: it is made promi aronnd by the north and then down on the west to Point Riche, but in nent as the surest and best foundation for our claim that our rigbt to no other part. J. Q. Adams says Spain was by this treaty o.f Utrecht these fisheries is an ancient one, coming from our participation in those excluded from fishing in the ''neighborhood" of Newfoundland. very wars in which these fisheries were conquered from the French. ·- Going back to the early p:1rt o£ the eighteenth century, now nearly What this claim means in the report of the committee when they at two hundred years ago, to the first treaty between the great maritime the same time assert that the fisheries in. the open seas outside the nations of the world in relation to the North American fisheries, we 3-miles limit and in the great bays over 6 miles wide are and ha.-e al find it distinctly the -practice and opinion of these nations that these ways been the common property of mankind and can not therefore 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6231 be the exclusive property of any nation; and at the same time ad to persons who have inve-ti.gated this subject, but only to refresh fail mit tbat all the other waters inside the 3-miles limit and inside the ing memories, and to place it in contrast with the assertion of the Com bays 6 miles and under in width are the exclusive property of Great mitteeon Foreign Relations, thatin the opinion and practiceofnations Britain, I leave to that learned committee to explain. There remains these waters, when over 6 miles ·wide, were, for the purpose of taking nnder the theory of the committee nothing on which the claim by coo fish, public not national waters-the common property of all the human quest can be located, unles perhaps on and along that mathematical race, and to show how utterlydestitnteofsubstantial proof, howutterly line which, without breadth or thickness, marks the· 3-miles limit. baseless is the charge made by this committee and by others on the The value of such a right is respectfully left to the determination of other side of the Chamber, that the treaty proposed for our ratification that learned committee. by the President surrenders rights which belong to us under the public Mr. President, such wn the action and such the attitude in reference law of nations. This act, this solemn and deliberate action of the Con to public law, and under public law which the people of Massachu gress of 1776, shows beyond controversy or doubt that as to the Ameri setts and the other colonies, before their independence, assuined can :fisheries. the American doctrine, having its beginning in1713, when when they were British subjects. Now, sir, if it be argued against we were British colonies, and continuing from that time to the birth the plain fucts I have stated that the colonies were only a part of day of our separate and independent station among the nations of the a grea.t monarchy, were not possessed ·of national rights nor clothed world, was in every particular the exact reverse of that false and per with national responsibilities when they thus acted, and were, therefore, nicious, that un-American doctrine announced by the Committee on not responsible for nor bound by the attitudeassumed by England and Foreign Relations. That this doctrine thus reaffirmed in the most France as I have stated it, that their position was only of loyal and solemn manner in 1776, continued to be the American doctrine up to obedient acquie cence as dutiful subjects of the British Crown, a suf the convention of 1818 and later, will be shown hereafter. ficient answer will be found in what I have stated, showing their free Mr. President, the importance of this action of the Congress of 1776 and active particip::ttion in these wars and in the fruits of these wars. can not be overestimated. The great men oft bat day did not build wiser If further answer is' required it is furnished, abundantly furnished, by than they krnew. They, holding fast to just principles-suited to Amer their subsequent conduct when they were really free and independent ican conditions, thought and acted. even in temporary pressing emer States. And here again it will be found that the United States in the gencies, on those broad Jines of policy and justice essential to the fut· mo"'t solemn manner affirmed the doctrine of exclusive and separate ure grandeur of the nation they were founding. In the broad land national right and owner hlp in these fisheries, not only to the full they inhabited, washed by almost limitless oceans on either shore, extent stated in the treaties of Utrecht and Paris, but carrying these with broad gulfs, bays, and seas adjacent to and indenting the land, principles to their legitimate and logical result, they afiii'med this ex were also immense lakes, themselves inland seas, and the greatest rivers clusive right to all the fisheries as well on the ocean itself as on all in the world. All nature's works were on a scale of magnificence and -smaller waters. ' grandeur unknown in civilized Europe. With the certain conviction ACTIO:S OF COSG~IX 17i6. that they were laying broad and deep the foundations of a republic I now bring to the attention of the Senate this snbsequent conduct, which wonld have a continent for its possessions, they were utterly and I aver that it justifies all that I have sa.id. incapable of confining national rights and privileges over waters in 1\Ir. President, the first act of our international intercourse-our denting their shores to those contemptible and Lilliputian inlets which first actual and practical assertion of the principle asserted in the were under 6 miles wide. Already t.hey had claimed and exercised, Declaration of Independence, that the colonies, as free and and inde and we have ever since claimed and exereised, jurisdiction over Dela pendent States, "have full power to contract alliances and establish ware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound, all of which were commerce"-was the appointment of commissioners to make a treaty much larger thanthlslimit allowed by the committ_!!efor jurisdictional of alliance with France. John Adams was one of these. In Decem ·waters. Besides all this, as I have clearly shown, they bad, in conjunc ber, 1776, the Continental Congress, in secret session (for they did not, tion with Great Britain and France, in the most solemn public acts, as we now do in reference to this treaty, admit to their confidence in consented to the separate national jurisdiction contemplated in the plan matters of our foreign relations the nations of the world), appointed a I have referred to. committee of five to consider and report a plan for securing foreign as The occasion and the purpose of this assertion of this doctrine as to sistance in our war for independence. This committee consisted of John public and national waterswere a guaranty of its integrity and sincerity. Witherspoon, Elbridge Gerry, Richard Henry Lee,Abraha~ Clarke, and It was the first public act taken by them on their entry into the family Samuel Adams-three, a majority, from New England, one from New of nations. It was an assertion of our adherence to the doctrines ot J er.sey, ancl one from Virginia. public law established by the nations in reference to these waters. The This committee, as in fact did the whole Congress, turned their eyes specific purpose was to secure the friendly aid of a sister nation in our to France for the needed assistance. And considering maturely what struggle for independence. Ca,n it be said that this first entry was in it was in their power to give for the needed alliance and a.\3istance, duplicity, falsehood, and dishonor? Can it be charged that this first they remembered that this great fishery and the lands on which it "de great ac'3 was in violation of that pqblic law which regulates honorable pended" had once been the property of France; that only after two and friendly intercourse among peoples and nations, an attempt to rob bloody and devastating wars, in which the colonies actively and ef not only one nation, but all, of their just and acknowledged right to fectively participated against the country whose assistance they were share in the common property of the human race, the gift of a benefi cent God to all his children? Was this, the false and impious act of that 1 now seeking, and in favor of that country with which they were now at war, had this great property been wrested from France and conferred body of men, who at that very date had fresh on their lips the dec ; on England, leaving to France as a mere liberty, as a mere concession laration that in maintaining the right of their country to a place in the from the liberality and bonnty of England, the poor privilege of taking family of nations they committed themselves and their people to the :fish in circumscribed limits> and as to the most valuable part, based perils and hazards of war, ''with a firm reliance on the protection of ~ on a hard condition, that the taking of fish should not be within many Divine Providence," whose laws they were consciously violating? Was ': leagues of the shores. They remembered, too, that this fishery was the price offered to France for assistance-the exclusion of all nations l then the most valuable in the world, and, on the principles of the from the fishery-a false pretense, a sham, a counterfeit present treaties of Utrecht and Paris, to which the colonies were parties, as be ment of a. pretended substance? The.doctrine announced by the Com fore stated, that it" depended" on-that is, was appendant to the ad mittee on Foreign Relations makes an affirmative answer to all these iacent lands, then belonging wholly to Great Britain, and that if they questions necessary. . succeeded in securing their independence and a separation .from Great But, sir, this plan so adopted by the Congress of 1776 was carefully Dritain the fishery would be lost to them, unless they secured also a prepared by the distinguished patriots and eminent statesmen I have separation from Great Britain of these very lands and their annexation mentioned. When reported to the Congress it was carefully consid to the United States. So· this great committee, whose names I have ered for three days and amended so as to read as I have stated it. . mentioned, reported a plan to secure French assistance. This plan, Every word was carefully scrutinized and weighed, the import and after three days' careful and profound consideration, in secret session, meaning of every sentence thoroughly considered. The whole, as was , by the very Congress which made the Declaration oflndependence, and intended, conveys fully and explicitly the proper idea entertained. in less than six months thereafter, namely, on the 30th of December, ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OF li76. 1776, was adopted without dissent or division. In this document, so prepared, so designed as the basis of interna This plan, among other things, provided as follows: tional compact, there is no word wanting to convey the full meaning It "authorized and instructed the commissione}'s of the United States to of its authors, no superfluous word to confuse or mislead. A careful France to assure His 1\Iost Christian 1\lajesty that should his forces be employed analysis of it is essential to unfold its full significance. Proceeding in conjunction with those of the United States to exclude His Britannic l\Iaj with this analysis we discover that t he plan was- esty from any share in the cod fishery of America by redncing the islands of Newfoundland and Cape Breton, and should ships of war be furnished when First. Not only to exclude Great Britain, the common enemy, from required by the United States to reduce Nova Scotia, the fishing shall be en the fisheries, but something else. If the excln ion of Great Britain ioyed equally and in common by" the French and the United States, ''to the was all ·it might be said that was n{) evidence of what the parties exclusion of all other nations and people whatever," and half the island of New foundland shall be owned by the French: Provided, '.rhat "Nova Scotia, Cape thought of the law of nations on the subject, as this exclusion would Breton, and the remaining part of Newfoundland" shall be annexed to the ter be but an act.of force-of waT-a just return to Britain for her former ritory and Government of the United States." (See Secret Journal of Conti- exclusion of the French. So we see- nental Congress, vol u.me 2, page .39.) , Second. That the plan was to exclude also "all other nations and Mr. ~resident, I have read this, not as containing anything unkno-w-n people whatever," friends and foes alike, and allies as well. 6232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13, Third. The method of this universal exclusion is signiiicant. The and is based on the same principles as these former treaties and as set exclusion was not to be by a mere police of the seas stationing all over forth in this plan. What placeseitherparty might rightfully hold un the fishing waters armed ehips to capture or drive away all intruders, der the law of nations are such seas as were a.djacent to the land held but the exclusion was to be as a matter of right under the law of na by the party, out into the sea to at least 90 miles, as was stipulated in tions, as had been announced in the treaties of Utrecht and Paris, be one of these treatie3. Certainly there was no law of nations recognized fore referred to. The exclusion was to be accomplished by reducing; by either party as confining the provisions of either to the narrow bays that is, conquering from Great Britain, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, and and inlets under 6 miles in width which indented its coasts. The Newfoundland, the land and island on which the fisheries ''depended.'' stipulation against disturbance by the United States of .the French in Who owned these lands owned the fisheries aecording to the opinion fishing on the banks of Newfoundland, every one of which was in and practice of nations at that time as asserted in this plan. the open sea, certainly shows that· both parties recognized that such fish Fourth. The object and pn.rpose of this exclusion is set forth ex ing rights were not secured to all nations by the public law of nations, plicitly and clearly. ThiS object and purpose had no reference to the for otherwise the insertion of such a guaranty in the treaty would not common good of all mankind, either morally or financially. It was only have been wholly useless, but an insult to the United States in not pretended that the fisheries were an injury to the human race, and the supposition, on which the stipulation was in that view based, that ought therefore, like intoxicating drinks, or gaming, or piracy, to be such a guaranty was necessary to prevent the United States from vio prohibited, exterminated. Oh, no. A more practical end was in view. lating the natural rights of France secured to her by the law of nations. The purpose was, when all others s~ould be excluded, that then the The stipulation not to disturb the French in their exclusive and in :fishing ' should be enjoyed equally and in common " by the United definite right to fish on the coast of Newfoundland, as designed-by the States and France. treaty of Utrecht, is of itself a plain recognition of this exclusive right, Now, 1\fr. President, if the doctrine announced by the Committee on which being indefinite, as stated in the treaty, was not restricted by Foreign Relations be correct, all this plan, so deliberately and solemnly the 3-miles limit from the shores, as the committee insjstsall exclusive adopted by the Congress of 1776, was a mere attempt to form a con rights are. Moreover, the stipulation that each party would refrain spiracy with France to plunder and rob, not Great Britain alone, but from fishing in places held by the other, if intended to be confined to all mankind of their undoubted rights, and then appropriate the within 3 miles of the shore, and to bays and inlets not exceeding 6 plunder to the pious use of a fair and equal division among the con miles in width, is utterly absurd and useless, if it be true, as asserted spirators. by the committee, that both parties and all nations recognized, as a It is true, sir, that " cod fishing " alone is mentioned, but the right rule of public law, by which nations are governed, that such water.:; to exclude from that embtaced the ri?ht to exclude from all others. are territorial, and as such are held as exclusive rights without stipu It will be noted also that the phrase is • cod fishery of America," not lation or agreement with other nations. cod fisheries of Newfoundland, or of Nova Scotia, or of Cape Breton, but Mr. President, these last unilateral stipulations in favor of French of .America. It was from this that all nations were to be excluded. rights in the exclusive fisher~ on the coasts of Newfoundland and rights That this :fishery embraced all places then used and known as fish on the banksofNewfoundland, without corresponding and mutual stipu eries, those on the banks of Newfoundland, on the open sea, and every lations in favor of the right of the United States to fish on these banks, where else where codfish were caught in the American seas,ismanifest were doubtless introduced at the instance of France because of her ex not only from theforceofthe expression usedandfrom the former con clusion by the treaties of Utrecht and Paris from that immense portion duct of England and France and the United States, but from subsequent of the high seas lying within 90 miles of Sable Island, which included acts and declarations, including those of our most distinguished and some of those banks, and to prot.ect her exclusive, indefinite right to able statesmen and diplomatists, as I will show hereafter. Certainly, fish on the coast of Newfoundland. Mr. President, this crushes the assumed verity of the doctrine of the Mr. President, we have seen from this review of solemn treaties Committee on Foreign Relations that exclusive fishing rights were al made between England and France and betwee~ France and the United lowable only in small bays and inlets not over 6 miles wide. States, and the solemn declarations and actions of the Continental Con M:r. President, I have been considering what our fathers of 1776 sol gress, that from 1713 to 1778-si.x:ty-:five years-by the common con emnly proposed, and solemnly decided they had a right to do under sent of these nations (and of Spain, as stated by J. Q. Adams) that the public law of nations; in which they affirmed most explicitly, this idea of the Committee on Foreign Relations that all sea waters, without a doubt as to their meaning, a doctrine in reference to these including bays more than 6 miles wide, were public fishing waters fishery waters exactly and with pointed directness the reverse in all common to all nations, never had any existence as applied, at least, respects of the positions assumed by the Committee on Foreign Rela to the North American fisheries, which from the beginning were tions-positions which the committee propose, as the organ and in treated and held by these great nations as capable of and su~ject to structor of the Senate, for our adoption as a rule of public law, to be the exclusive dominion of the nation who held the adjacent shores, binding on the past and in the future, and as good grounds for reject and this, too, not only in bays and other inlets of the coasts, but on ing a treaty which secures to us in these waters, with an inconsidera gulfs, great arms of the sea, and even on the ocean itself. able exception, not only all that the false rule of the committee claims TREATY OF: 1782-'3. for us, but many valuable and important rights and liberties from We come now, Mr. President, to the treaty of 1782-'83, five years which we are confessedly excluded by the public law of nations. later than the treaty with France just alluded to. TREATY WITH FRANCE IN -1778. Thistreatywas the second solemn public act of the United States in Mr. President, I come now to consider what was really accomplished, the shape of a treaty which had reference to the fishery. We had made whatwasconsummatedandagreed to, in the treaty of 1778with France two other treaties besides those with France prior to the treaty of 1783, in relation to the matters contained in this plan, and in strict accord to wit, with the Netherlands and with Sweden. These two were trea with the principle announced in it. ties of commerce and amity, and embraced many and voluminous pro On the 6th of February, 1778, our commissioners succeeded in mak visions; but in neither was a single reference to these fisheries, showing ing a treaty of alliance with France, and on the same day also con by this omission conclusively that the United Sta,tes claimed, and these cluded a treaty of commerce. countries conceded, that they had no fishery rights whatever in the In .Article IX of the treaty of commerce there was a mutual cove American seas. In 1795 like treaties were made with Prussia. and nant that the inhabitants of eacn country should abstain from fishing Spain, and there was in these likewise no reference to the fisheries. "in all places "-not in territorial waters, not in small bays and inlets The :fishery article in the provisional treaty with Great Britain of 1782 not over 6 miles wide-but in all places whatever possessed by the is copied into the definitive treaty of 1783-the permanent and :final one. other and thattheFrench should not fish in havens, bays, creeks, roads, Up to this time we have abundant and satisfactory evidence of the or pl~{!CSwhich the United States should then holdor thereafter hold; position of both England and the United States, and of France as well, and a like covenant on the part of the United States not to fish in all as to the extent of national ownership of these :fisheries, all agreeing, these when held by the French. It was then provided, to secure the all asserting in treaties and in the most solemn public acts that they exclusion oi all nations by each pa.rty, that whenever the places of ex were-all of them-not in small bays and creeks alone, but on the high clusion :u; specified in the treaty, should be open to other nations, the seas, the subject of exclusive national ownership. same should be open also to French or .Americans, as the case might It had not entered the head of an American statesman or diplomatist be. that the mere acquisition of their independence by the United States, By .Article X it is stipulated that the United States, their citizens and their admission into the family of nations, gave them or their citizens inhabitants, shall never disturh the French in the enjoyment of the the right of fishery on the northeast coast of North America, in common right of fishing on the banks of Newfoundland- with the rest of mankind, in what is by the Committee on Foreign Re Nor- lations denominated as public waters, beyond the ordinary territorial And I quote the language of the treaty- jurisdiction of the state owning the adjacent shores. The fisheries were in the indefinite a.n The gravity of the present situation, the high character and the great tied in the treaty of 1778, as I have shown. .A.s to England there had and varied and extensiye knowledge of the members of that committee been no settlement. The Continental Congress, as I understand it, had making the contrary assertion constitute -the excuse for longer de instructed Mr. Adams to conclude no treaty at all with Great Britain tention of the Senate in furnishing further proof on a proposition al- without a settlement of the fisheries, and this demand was after ready abundantly established. ' wards limited to the making of no traaty of commerce without such Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? settlement. Mr. Adams, however, acted on the first, and declared to Mr. GEORGE. Yes, sir. · the British commissioners in November, 1782, that he would set ·his Mr. HOAR. I would like to ask the Senator from Mississippi with band to no articles for a treaty, even of peace, without satisfaction _as reference t{) the fisheries on the Grand Banks (without going into the to fisheries. question between bays 6 miles wide and bays 10 miles wide) whether, Great difficulty was found in the negotiations to frame a satisfactory taking the fisheries on the Grand Banks, it was attempted in former fishery article, and on that account the British commissioner proposed times to appropriate those fisheries to the private use of a particular to omit it till the making of the definitive treaty. Whereupon Mr. nation, or to the joint use of certain nations against the rest of man- Adams made the declaration above referred to, and forced a settlement ~? • of the fishery question in the provisional treaty it.self. Mr. GEORGE. That does not seem to be a question, but a statement. Mr. President, this particular point in our history is so important, Mr. HOAR. The Senator will not find that I violate his indulg6nce. even essential to the proper understanding of the subject before the I understand the Senator as applying the Grand Banks to the fisheries Senate, that it is necessary to trea~ of it with particularity and care of the ocean in the neighborhood of the coast. Is the Senator aware as to the details. that any nation to-day, anywhere, asserts an exclusive right to the ocean John Adams's diary throws great light on the subject. Still it does fisheries on the Grand Banks against any other nation? not contain such full details as to render it unnecessary to refer to Mr. GEORGE. I am not. If the Senator will pay attention to what other authoritative documents. I am saying he will find that my position can not be mistaken. .And first it is necessary to ascertain fully and clearly what was then .A.nd now, Mr. P1·esident, following the plan I have adopted, of dis the American claim to the fisheries, its full extent and character. The cussing these graYe and important matters by refe~ence to solemn pub most valuable document known to me on that subject is the letter of lic acts of nations in their chronological order, as near as may be, I John Q. Adams to Lord Castlereagh, dated January 22, 1816. In that" come to consider what were the opinions of the statesmen of the United letter Mr. Adams uses the following language: States on the law and practice of nations in reference to the fisheries The fisheries on the bank of Newfoundland, as well in the open seas as in the at the very dates of the provisional treaty and the definitive treaty neighboring bays, gulfs, and along the coasts of Nova Scotia and Labrador, were by the dispenMtions and io.ws of nature, in substance, only different parts of with Great Britain in 1782 and 1783. I might rely with confidence on one fishery. Those of the open sea were enjoyed, not a.s a. common and uni the presumption that these opinions, expressed in treaties, expressed versal right of all nations, since the exclusion from them of France and Spain, in the most solemn and deliberate act.s of the Continental Congress, in whole or in part, bad been expressly stipulated by those nations, and no other nation had, in fact, participated in them. It was, with some exceptions, and promulgated and acted on by England, France, and Spain, re an exclusive possession of the British nation. mained unchanged for the very short period intervening their date and the date of the provincial treaty of 1783. Yes, the exclusive possession of the British nation. I say I might safely rely on the presumption that these opinions and This, M~r. President, was the American idea as to this fishery at the principles were unchanged, since at that early day, in that proud era date of the treaty of 1783, so stated by the most accomplished diplo of American statesmanship, profound convictions long entertained were. matist of this country. not changed with the suddenness of the conversion of St. Paul or the This fishery, as a. whole, included the banks of Newfoundland, the almost equally sudden conversion, for political and party purposes open seas, the gulfs and bays and coast.s, all these being but part.s, as merely, of the majority in this Chamber as to the necessity of secret Mr. J. Q. Adams said, of one whole. It included. also, as will be seen and confidential sessions, as I have before stated. from the same letter, '• drying and curing fish'' on the adjacent shores, But there is no necessity to resort to presumption. The evidence is as "incidental and necessary to the fishery." full and complete, and needs but to be stated to convince the Senate With this understanding of the extent and character of the fishery, how utterly untenable is the position of the Committee on Foreign Re as well with reference to the high seas as the bays and shores and coasts, lations. It will be well, Mr. President, before proceeding further, to all these being but parts of one whole, and with the further understand recall at this place to the attention of the Senate the exact position of ing that at the date of the treaty the whole was in substance an exclu the committee on this subject-that all waters not inclosed in shores sive British possession, with the exceptions I have before stated (being 6 miles apart and under are public seas, a part of the property of all concessions of Great Britain to France, which, as I have shown, were mankind, belonging to each nation in common with all others, in vir solemnly recognized and guarantied by the United States in the treaty tue of its existence as a free and independent state or community; with France in 1778), it is easy to comprehend fully the meaning of that the right to take fish in these waters belongs to and inhe1·es in the Continental Congress in the plan adopted on the 30th of December, each nation, who has not renounced it, as one of the attributes of its 1776, which I have before setout-the·meaning of the treaties of Utrecht sovereignty and independence; that this same right; immediately be and Paris in 1713 and 1763, and our treaty with France in 1778, as well comes attached to a new nation on it.s creation and acknowledgment as as the treaty with Great Britain in 1783. a new, free, and independent nation by virtue alone of its sovereignty But it will throw more light on this subject to call to mind the and independence. This doctrine is certainly true in the abstract so claims and arguments of our commissioners who negotiated the treaty far as it relates to the equal rights of nations, and is undisputed by me of 1783 with Great Britain. They insisted, as is plainly inferable as to all real national rights which attach to states and communities from the propositions of John Adams, that the fishery, including all which are sovereign and independent. it.s parts, on the banks of Newfoundland, in the open seas, in the gulfs and bays and coasts of the British Provinces, and drying and curing, It therefore follows, Mr. President, that when a new community be were the common and exclusive property of all the people of the Brit comes an independent nation, by virtue of its independence alone, from the mere force and vigor of its independent national life and ex ish Empire, except as against France. They further insisted, as J. Q. Adams did in 1816, that as the people of the colonies had contributed istence, it be~omes clothed with all the rights of other independent na tions in what is known as the common property of nations or of man their full share, and more than their full share, in blood and treasure kind. In this I agree with the Committee on Foreign Relations. In in the wars by which these fisheries had been secured to the British fact, there is no dispute between us so far as the principle of the laws people, they, on a separation from the British Crown, were of right entitled to share in them with the British people. of nations is concerned. Our difference if:! as to its application, as to the test by which, under that law, it is to be determined whether a bay That, sir, was the American doctrine then. There was no pretense or body of sea water indenting the shores of a single nation is national, or suggestion that the fisheries on the high seas belonged to them in or a water belonging to the whole world. common with the whole of mankind. But, Mr. President, whilst these principles I have announced, so far It was well understood that the fishery, as J. Q. Adams stated i~ as they relate to the complete admission of a new nation, by the mere be, was an exclusive British possession, with some exceptions whicli I fact and as a necessary result of it.s independence. to all the common· have shown referred only to the French rights under the treaties of and public rights of all nations are not in controversy anywhere, are Utrecht and Paris. acknowledged by all as fundamental and invariable and indisputable, In this condition of affairs, with this understanding on the part of it so happens that our statesmen of the Continental Congress did not the United States, as to rights, or rather the want of rights, in the fish consider that the acquisition and acknowledgment of· the independ eries under the public law of nations, the negotiations for the treaty ence ofthe UnitedStatessecured to thepeopleofthese States fishery rights were conducted. · in thesewatersasthe mereresult of their independence. They deemed On November 4, 1782, just twenty-six days before the signing of the it necessary that there should be something else done or acknowledged in provisional treaty of 1782, which contained the fishery article, as it order to secure these rights. That which they thus deemed necessary was copied in the definitive treaty of 1783, John Adams, after having to be done or acknowledged was not to be done or acknowledged by discussed for awhile our fishery 1·ights, drew up his :first proposition all nations, which, on the theory that these waters were common to all for the :fishery article, which is set out at page 302 of the third volume nations, was essential, but only by two, France and England, the only of his works. That proposition is as follows: 4. Thatthesubject-sofHisBrit-annic Majesty and the people of the said Unit-ed two who, according to J. Q. Adams in his letter of January 22, 1816, States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on had fishery rights in these waters. .A.s to France this matter was set- all the banks of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and all other plaoos 6234 CONGRESSIONAL RECO~ENATE, JULY 13, where the inhabitants of both countries nsed any time heretofore to fish, and as to fishery rights on the Wgh seas and the same I'igbts on the also to cure and dry their fish on the shores of Nova. Scotia, Oa.pe Breton. the Isle of Sable. and on the shores of the unsettled bays, harbors, or creeks of Nova shores and small bays I refer again to Mr. Adams's di:i.ry, in whicb he Scotia a.nd the Magdalene ;Islands; and His Britannic Majesty and the saJd United states his reasons for asking the British commissioner to strike from the Stutes will extend eqnal privilege and hospitality to ea.ch other's fishermen as treaty a provision prohibiting the Americans from :fishing within 3 his own. (John Adams's Works, volume 3, page 302.) leagues-leagues, not miles-of all the British coasts except C.ape Bre Ur. President, this proposition shows fully the American claim. It ton, and as to that the prohibition was 15 leagues. None of these rea . shows, also, that in the opinion of the United States fishery Tights on sons raise the question of public rights under the law of nations, w bich, the high seas, riot alone those in narrow bays, 6 miles wide and under, if such a right was then considered as existing, would haTe been con were national, not public, rights, and were capable of being held, owned, clusive. They all-refer to mere matters of expediency, and among them .and possessed by one or more nations to the exclusion of all others, and to the disadvantages which would accrue to the British thems.elYes from were also ihe subjects of negotiations and compacts between nations to the exclusion of Americans; another being "that if forced off 3 leagnes secure exclusive rights therein. we would_smuggle eternally;" and that both British and .American It breathes the sam-e spirit and speaks thesamevoice as did the plan fisherman would smuggle, especially the American. (See Adams's W arks, adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776, and which I have before volume 3, page 338.) Another reason was that the Americans were al -set out, this spirit and voice being the right of the United States, either ready excluded indefinitely from fishing on the western coast of New by themselves or in conjunction with any other nation, to exclude all foundland in favor of the French by the true construction of the treaty the rest of mankind from this fishery as a whole, including that part of of Utecht, and that this proposed exclusion would operate to the ad it on the high seas-in the oce.:'l.n itself. vantage of France and not of Great Britain, urging as a reason for lib The proposition of Mr. Adams is, in short, to recognize the whole erality on the part of England that the Americans would spend their :fishery, as well that on the banks of Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Law money made in the fisheries in England a.nd the French would not. rence, and all other places where both parties had used to fish, includ Mr. Adams succeeded on these grounds in striking out the proposed ing drying and curing on the shores of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Sable exclusion, never once urging ou:r right under the law of nations. -In Island, and on the shores of the unsettled bays, harbors, or creeks of fact, ~fr. Adams would not and could not have urged such a proposi Nova Scotia and the Magdalene Islands, as the ancient and undoubted tion, for he was forbidden to do so by the very instructions from the right of both the people of the UnitedStatesandofGreatBritain, with Continental CongreES under which he was acting. These directed him guaranty that it sbouJd continue unmolested. They were to continue not to consent to any treaty of commerce with Great Britain without an to enjoy them unmolested as they had hithertoenjoyed them, and this explicit stipulation on her part, not to disturb or molest the inhabitants was without hindrance or molestation from other nations, for all other of the United States in taking fish on the banks of Newfoundland nations were in fact excluded, .except some inconsiderable privileges of J and other fisheries on the American seas anywhere, except within :the France. distance of 3 leagu-es from the shore, if a neareT distance could not be In this proposition there is no men-tion of or reference to fishing obtained by negotiation. Our demand was to fish within 3 leagues, rights on the high seas as public rights of all mankind, belonging to not 3 miles of the shore. Were the men of the Continental Congress all by the law of nations and needing no treaty stipulation to secure destitute of sagacity or courage, as were, in the opinion ofthe Senator them; nor any distinction taken between fishing rights on the high from Maine [Mr. FRYE], the American commissioners in 1818 '? So again seas and fishing rights on the shores and in the s1pall creeks and bays, when during the negotiations he was informed by the .British commis including the right of drying and curing fish on land. All these sionerthattheFrench Government proposed that there should be a parti were treated exactly alike and all claimed to sta.nd on exactly the same tionofthefisheriesbetweenEngland, France, and the UnitedStates, and footing and as parts of one whole. that the fishermen of each nation should be confined within the bound On 27th November, jllBt three days before signing the treaty, J'lfr. aries specified, Mr. Adatns did not object to the partition upon the Adams submitted another proposition, as follows: ground that these were public waters in which all nations had a right ART. m. Thnt the subjects of His Britannic Majesty and the people of the to fish, and England, France, and the United States could not there United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every fore partition them among themselves but on the ground of expedi kind on the Grand Bank and all other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in all other places where the inhabitants of both countries ency alone, stating among other things '' that it would be very difficult used at any time heretofore to fish; and the citizens of the United States shall to restrain our fishermen; they would be frequently transgressing and have liberty to cure and dry their fish on the shores of Cape Sable and of any of making disputes and troubles." (See 3 Adams's Works, page 332.) the unsettled bays, harbors, or creeks of Nova. Scotia, or any of the shores of the Ma~a.lene Islands. and of the Labrador coast; and they shall be permitted The treaty between France and England in 1783, made simulta in time"'of peace to hire pieces of lRnd for terms of years of the legal proprietors neously with the treaty with us, and the 11egotiations for which were in any of the dominions of His ~jesty whereon to erect necessary stages and carried on at the same time, and by frequent interviews between France buildings and to cure and dry ihell' fish, and the American commissioner, recognizes the same doctrine. This proposition. as to the right of taking fish is the same substan Article V of that treaty is in substance as follows: tinlly as the first. but as to curing and drying, the word "right" is ABT. V. The French King" in order to prevent quarrels which had hitherto abandoned and the word "liberty" used in lieu; and there is some arisen between the"l;wo nations," France and Englanll," consents to renounce the change also as to the territory on which drying and-curing was to be right of fishing which belon.,oos to rum," under Article XUI "of treaty of Utrecht, done, but still the pretension that the American right to fish was as from Cape Bona Vista. to Cape St. John," on thee t coastof Newfoundland "in 500 north latitude," and the British King "consents on his pa.rt that the good, as valid in public law in small bays and creeks as on the open fishing asigned" to the French, "beginning a.t Cape St. John, passing to the sea is maintained. There was no distinction taken between them in north and then descending by the western ooa t" of Newtoundland "shall ex any respect whatever. · tend * * * to Oa.pe Ray, situated in 4J0 50' latitude. The French shall enjoy the fishing which is assigned to them as they hsd a right to enjoy th.a.t assigned ~fr. President, in further illustration of this subject and as an addi to them by the treaty of Utrecht." ditional proof of the American claim and of the true meaning of the A declaration was appended to the treaty which required England to treaty of1783, I refer to Mr. Adams's diary of the 29th November, the take the most positive measures to prevent her fishermen interrupting day before the treaty was signed. It will there be seen that in answer the French :fishermen through competition, and to that end England to a. proposition of the British commissioner to strike out the word promised to pull down the erections for 11shing and to remove them. "ri 6236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ~JULY 13, before mentioned, also the right to cure and dry fish on the shores, and about rights or the seas in which they existed. It left those rights in that this right was the subject of exclusive national ownership, to be the United States fully and completely and unquestioned. They were acquired by possessing the adjacent land, and when so acquired subject treated, as they undoubtedly were, as our undeniable rights, without to disposition by barter, sale, exchange, or partition, at the will of the reference to the question whether-they were ours by the law of nations, nation or nations owning these lands, and for their sole use and pro as Lord Bathurst then and the Committee on Foreign Relations now prietorship, excluding all other nations; I have also proven that in affirm, or whether our title rested on the treaty of 1783, recognizing the opinion and judgment of the United States these w_;:~.ters-all onr right as coming from a partition of the exclusive right of Great of them, including the ocean covering the banks of Newfoundland Britain, as Mr. .Adams insisted. The convention treated solely of the so far as fishing rights were concerned, were not public waters, as con liberties on the coasts, bays, etc., which Great Britian insisted had been tended for by the Committee on Foreign Relations, in which all na revoked or abrogated by the war, and which the United States con tions had aright to participate unless excluded by their own consent; tended remained unaffected by the war. On that point the British con that in their opinion and judgment, at the date of the treat.y of 1783 tention was admitted, or else there would have been no treaty and need the fishery as a whole, including all its separate parts in the ocean and for a treaty. The manifest purpose, therefore, of making the treaty was in the small bays and everywhere else, was the exclusive possession of to secure our rights in British waters. The mere authentic diplomatic the British people, with the slight exception granted by Great Britain recognition of the claim was all that under the view of Ur. . .Adams to France. would have been required. No treaty under that view was required, It has also been -shown that the United States claimed a share in the or even appropriate. fishery in all itB parts at the date of the treaty of 1783 as a part of their I see nothing in the circumstances of our country at that time which rights, basing their claim expressly on the contribution they had made rendered it probable that our statesmen who negotiated and ratified this as a part of the British nation in blood and treasure in acquiring these convention should have been influenced by fear of Great Britain, as al rights from other nations, as the exclnsiv~ possession and property of leged by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYEl. Four years before we the British, and expressly repudiating the suggestion that as to that had ended a warwith that power in which American Yalor and Amer part in the sea and ocean they were entitled, under the law of nations, ican skill in arms had won undying laurels. .At the very date of the as independent states. ratification of the treaty Andrew Ja-ckson, who had punished the Brit It has been proven that these views were expressly set forth by the ish on the plains of Chalmette as they had never been punished before, United States in the year 1816, when negotiating for a recognition,. of was a m3tjor-general in the United States Army ready again to lead his these rights in the fishery, and that such was the state of their claim countrymen to victory in a war with the same nation. Winfield Scott, at the very date at which the convention of 1818 was entered into. the victor over the same enemy on bloody fields, was still an .A.meri· Now, sir, it remains only oo show that there is nothing in the con can general, and Zachary ·Taylor-honest, brave old Zachary Tay· vention of 1818 to change or modify these views. The task will be an lor-was also an officer of the United States A.rmy. In military genius easy one, and when it is accomplished it will appear that, however dis our leaders were the equals and even the superiors of the British. In tasteful the result may be oo us, however contrary to our present and the service of the United States, in civil life, were some of the most recent contentions, construing the treaty of 1783 and convention of distingui.!!hed names of our history-Henry Clay was Speaker of the 1818 by what was the manifest intention of both parties and in the House of Representatives and a firm friend and supporter of the Ad light of the claims and opin~ons of both and of the plain language used, ministration; Calhoun, Secretary of War, and the younger AdamS the tp.at "bays" as used in that convention by us in the renunciation of for head of the Qabinet. The President had won distinction as a gallant mer liberties, means the same thing exactly as ''bays'' in the treaty of soldier in the War of the Revolution and as a statesman of the highest 1783, by which the renounced rights were in the first instance recog order attained the highest place in ihe nation. There stilllived of the nized or acquired. .And this appearing, it is shown that the present Revolutionary fathers Jefferson and John Adams. .At no time in our treaty now under consideration grants very important and valuable history was our country better equipped, for war or peace, in the service rights in the fishery never before belonging to us, and never before, nor of the bravest and wisest. So that this charge of a deliberate surren even now, conceded by Great Britain oo any other nation. der of om rights, through .want of sagacity and courage, involves na Mr. President, before proceeding oo an examination of the text of tional shame and disgrace. Sir, the charge is without foundation. the convention of 1818 it is proper to call to mind at this point the It dishonors the great statesmen of that day-it dishonors the great and exact state of the negotiations and the exaet differences between brave American people, who, in spite of divisions at home, in spite of Great Britain and the United States as developed by diplomatic Hartford conventions sowing discontent and distrust, had rallied around correspondence between them in relation to the fisheries. the national standard, and winning imperishable renown on bloody At the treaty of Ghent in 1814, which ended the war of 1812, it fields, by their endurance, their valor, their constancy, had achieved an was found there was an irreconcilable difference between the two honorable peace. Governments as to the alleged abrogation of the treaty of 1783 by the But, sir, this method of denunciation andabnseis wholly out of place late war. in considering the treaty before us. We can not inject into it rights It was contended by Great Britain that the treaty as to the fishery not in it, by denunciation of its authors, nor cure the surrender of rights was abrogated. On the other hand it was asserted by the rights, if surrender were made, by falsely attlibuting to it a meaning United States that the stipulations were of that permanent character it does not possess. If our fathers were cowards in respect of the con respecting permanent national rights that they survived a war be- vention of 1818, it is no reason why we should be false. The conven . tween the parties. Lord Bathurst, for the British Government, in tion exists as a part of the supreme law of the land, and it constitutes sisted that so much of the third article of the treaty of 1783 as recog our title and, a-ccording to the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TEL nized the right of the United States to fish on the banks of New LER] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR], our sole title foundland and on the Gulf of St. Lawrence-open seas-was the oo these fisheries. What it gives us we have; what it surrendered we mere recognition of a right which the United States had by the law of have not. nations, and therefore survived the war. This is the :first instance I Mr. HOAR. Right there let me ask the Senator, does he say that I have noted in which Great Britain made such a concession with refer· said the treaty of 1818 constitutes our sole title? ence to this fishery. He further insisted that the liberties to take and Mr. GEORGE. That is what I understood the Senator to say in cure fish on coasts and bays, etc., were grants, and were therefore his interruption of the Senator from Delaware [M:r. GRAY]. abrogated by the war. Mr. Adams, as has been shown, controverted 1\fr. HOAR. I absolutely and peremptorily disclaim that view of it. these views, and insisted that our fishery right was clearly a per Mr. GEORGE. So if it be mean and cowardly, if it deliberately manrnt right, and not abrogated by the war on the grounds before surrendered fishery rights, as the Senator from Maine insists, it is the stated. There was no question in dispute between them as to the greater reason for the negotiation of a new treaty which, like the one meaning of "bays "-as used in the treaty of 1783-Mr. .Adams's before us, surrenders no rights, but secures many and valuable privi claim being equally extensive, whether the one construction or the leges we never before had. other was placed on that word. But, sir, my duty now is to ascertain what this convention means, The sole point in dispute was that the United States affirmed and for whatever may be its true meaning, we are bound by it-bound by Great.Britain denied that the whole of the fishery article of 1783 was national good faith, by national honor to abide by it in all its length in force. The United States sought a clear recognition of this claim and breadth, until it shall be abrogated-lawfully a,nd constitution and Great Britian resisted and refused it. Lord Bathurst expressly de ally abrogated. We can not escape from it by setting up either the claring that Great Britian would never admit that the liberties oo take plea of cowardice or of folly. I find no proposition in the report of the and cure fish in the bays, etc., specified in the treaty of 1783 were rights committee to abrogate it. On the contrary, I find they insist, as I in of the United States. So it turned out that in October, 1818, the con sist, that it shall be observed in good faith by both countries. vention was signed. .As both parties, though for entirely different Mr. President, I come now to consider more especially the meaning reasons and on very different grounds, as has been explained, agreed of the text of the convention of 1818, to anive at which my previous exactly as to the rights eo nomine recognized as belonging to the observations have been in the main directed. United States to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and ''other places I do not propose to praise the convention, nor do I feel at liberty to in the sea," the convention was made, as the preamble a-sserts, to denounce it, as the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE] did, as the result settle the differences between the two Governments as to the "lib of a want of "sagacity" and "courage' 1 on the part of our commis erty" to take and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and sioners, and "as a deliberate surrender of our fishery rights. 11 How creeks of Ris British Majesty's dominions. It said nothing, therefore, ever this may be, it is not denied that it exists to-day as a valid treaty; .. 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6237 a valid compact of the United States; apart of the supreme law of the nature and character of the liberty, but only as to the extent con.sid land. I may be pardoned, I hope, in saying that it was negofiated by ered territorially over which the liberty was to exist thereafter. In two of the ablest of American sbtesmen, Gallatin and Rush, under some respects this extent was diminished, and in others enlarged, as the Pre~idency of James Monroe, whilst John Q. Adams was Secre compared with the treaty of 1783. it was as to taking fish diminished tary of State, and Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Wirt were members of the in extent by the limitation that the liberty was not to extend to within Cabinet. It was also ratified on a yea-and-nay vote, thirty-eight Sen 3 marine miles of cert-ain coasts, bays, and harbors of His Majesty's ators voting for it and not one against it. dominions, being all but the southern and western coast of Newfound On the question, "Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratifi land, the shores of Magdalen Islands, and the coasts, bays, harbors, and cation of this convention," it was determined in the affirmative-yeas, creeks of Labrador. The diminution as to the curing and drying was 38. in the exclusion of the United States from the coast of Nova Scotia and Those who voted are- the Magdalen Islands. The enlargement in fishing was in the liberty Barbour, Virginia ; Burrill, Rhode Island; Crittenden, Kentucky; Dagget t, to take :fish on the southern and western coasts of Newfoundland from Connecticut; Dickerson, New Jersey; Eaton, Tennessee; Edwards, Illin ois ; Eppes, Virg inia; Forsyth, Georgia; Fromentine, Louisiana; Gaillard, South Ramea Islands to Quirpon Islands, our rights under the treaty of Carolina; Goldsborough, Maryland; Hanson, Maryland; Hunter, Rhode Isla nd; 1783 being dependent as to Newfoundland on the actual exercise of Johnson, Louisiana; H.ufus, King, New York; Lacock, Pennsylvania.; Leake, similar rights by British fishermen, we being excluded where they did Mississippi; Mucon, North Carolina; Mellen. MAssachusetts; Morrow, Ohio; Noble, Indiana; Otis, H. G., 1\'Iassachusetts; Palmer, Vermont; Roberts. Penn not actually fish; and enlarged also in the indefinite extension north sylvania ; Ruggles, Ohio; Sanford, New York; Smith, South Carolina; Stokes , ward of fishing rights through the Straits of Belle Isle, not to be cxeP North Carolina.; Storer, New Hampshire; Tait, Georgia; Ta.lbo~ , Kentucky ; cised, however, in contravention of the exclusive rights of the H udson Thomas, Illinois; Tichenor, Vermont; Van Dyke, Delaware; 'Villia.ms, Missis sippi; 'Vill\>ms, Tennessee; and Wilson, New Jersey. Bay Company. So it was But, Mr. President, we secured other important rights by this con vention which were not secured under the trea.ty of 1783. Under Resolved (two-thi rds of the Senators present concul'ring therein), That the Senute that do advise and consent to the ratification of the convention made and concluded treaty, though securing the liberty to fish in all the inshore waters, in at London on the 20th day of October,1818. between the United States of America cluding slllil take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts1 bays, harbors, and creeks of His must be noted also that the liberty of fishing as conceded in the treaty British Majesty's dominions in America it was made, as the preamble ex of 1783, and as also conceded in the convention of1818 on the coasts, pressly states. These "differences," as exhibited by the correspondence bays, etc., of Labrador is in the same language, and that the renuncia between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst and Lord Castlereaglf, before al tion in the convention of 1818 by the United States of the right to luded to, did not relate to the extent of this liberty so claimed by the take fish on the coasts, harbors, and bays, other than those in which United States, but as to whether it existed in any degree or to any ex the concession is made, is also in the same language. It follows, there tent whatever. There had been no controversy about'' bays,'' whether tore. beyond doubt, that, as in the two concessions, " bays' ' cer~inly greater or less than 6 miles wide. The difference was as to whether the means large as well as small bays, the same word means the same thing liberty claimed as to any " bay," was well founded. Both parties, at in the renunciation. And thus it is shown, beyond honest contro that time, well understood the status of the fishery among nations, both versy, that under the renunciation in the convention of 1818 we have understood that this fishery for nearly a century, in all its parts, on lost the liberty of fishing in the large bays over 6 miles wide, unless the sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as on the great bays and the English language is of that flexible and dishonest character that, small inlets, had been recognized and treated by both, and by France when used by us in treaties, it includes everything possible in grants and Spain as the subject of the individual and exclusive ownership of in our favor, and shrinks to the smallest possible limits in all renuri: particular nations. And especially was it understood that the United ciations we may make. No honest nation, no honest man can stand States set up their claim to this liberty upon the ground that the fish on a position like that. ery, including all its parts, in waters of whatever nature, of whatever 1.fr. President, I know that further argument on this point is un dimension, and also including, as necessary incidents, the right of dry necessary, for it is established, if anything can be established by hu ing and curing fish on the shore, was before the independence of the man reason, that in the convention of 1818, as in the treaty of 1783, colonies the exclusive possession of the British people, with some the word " bays" means waters geographically situated within the slight exceptions, as stated by Mr. Adams, and that on the separation British dominions of North America of any and all dimensions, and . they were entitled to a share in them with Great Britain-not witli that, as in the treaty, the liberty to take fish was conceded or acknowl other nations-and that they did in fact secure such share by the treaty edged as to all these bays, so in the convention this same liberty was re of 1783. With these differences as thus explained, the parties pro nounced by us as t~ a1l, the concession and the renunciation being ceeded to make a new agreement-the convention of 1818. This con exactly the same in extent as to the subject-matter of the concession vention did not recognize the claim of either party. It did not even or renunciation. The Bay of Fundy may be rightfully considered as propose to compromise the difference. excluded, because, in fact, it is not a British bay, one of its headlands It proceeded in plain words to declare that the United States '' shall being on our shores. . have'' the liberty of fishing and drying and curing in certain places Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, will the Senator :lllow me to ask him . "shall have" in the future, not as in the treaty of1783, when speaking of a question? "rights" acknowledged in that treaty, "shall continue to enjoy un The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. Does the Senator from Mississippi molested" these rights. 'On the face of the convention it was a grant vield to the Senator from Massachusetts? in futuro of liberties. When considered, however, as I think is right, • Mr. GEORGE. I believe I would rather not be interrupted. I want with reference to the former treaties and the former acts and conduct of to get through. The Senator will see my views as they are developed 'lhe parties in reference to the matter, it was a partial recognition of the and if he wishes to discuss any of these questions with me hereafter, disputed claim of the United States to the extent named; and also, by very well. a subsequent clause, a renunciation by the United States of any claim Mr. HOAR. I merely wanted to ask a question of the Senator. beyond what is recognized. The convention, however, did contain a The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senator from Mississippi de· new grant with certain restrictions as to the liberty of American fish clines to be interrupted. ing vessels to enter for certain specified purposes British waters. Mr. GEORGE. Ithas also been shown that by a universal consensus The difference between the treaty of 1783 and the convention of 1818 of opinion and practice between France, England, and the United States, as to the liberty of taking and drying fish is not in any respect as to the the nations chiefly if not solely interested in the fishery, this great prop- 6238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13, _ erty was held and treated1i·om the beginnin~ up to the year 181A as the committee and their political colleagues on this floor I have no such · proper subject, under the law of nations, of exclu ive rights of indi hope. Very soon after the treaty was sent to us by the President for vidual nations, and this in all the waters in which the fishery existed, onr constitutional advice, it wa considered in secret by a caucus of the without regard to dimensions, including as well all bays, whether more Republican members of this body. It was determined. that it should or less than G miles wide, as also the great Gulf of St. Lawrence and be rejected. They have the power to reject it. The rejection of it is the neighboring ocean itself. It has ~lso been shown by the letter of to be an issue in the Presidential ca.mpaign. Through and by this J. Q: Adams I ha>e quoted that at least this opinion was enter rejection it is hoped that enough voters will be seduced into the sup tained by the United States up to and including negotiations for the port of the Hepublican ticket to re\"erse the action of the American convention of 1818. This is ufficient, amply sufficient,_ to crush for people in 1884 and to return to coveted power those who had been ever the suggestion that the plain meaning of the words of the con ejected in that year. So that this fallacy of the committee having Tention of 1 1 , recognizing all the bays in the British poss ~ssio ns as been made au issue in the C..'tmpaign, 1;hey will not, they can not, they the proper places in which exclusive rights of one m .tion to take tish dare not, be convinced. , existed, shall be restricted to ba.ys under 6 miles wide. Now, J\Ir. President, while I believe tbatthosewhostillremain uncon EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS RECOGXIZED IN CONVENTION OF 18!.8. vinced willr~jectanyevidencc, however conclusive, even though it come But, sir, -trong and conclusive as this is, we have in tbe very con from one risen from the dead, yet there remains one other testimony vention it.s t- lf the recognition of this in the _plainest and strongest which I believe it my duty to introduce. It is the voice of one who terms. F1·om this there is no escape by any argument or e'lasion wbat though de..'l.d "still lives" in that resurrection which comes from his e>er. This recognition is found in that provision of the conYention teachings daily pondered by and daily leading the world. lie was which concedes to the United States the liberty of ·taking fish on the an American, and had American prejudices for American interests. coasts, bays, etc., of Southern Labrador through the Straits of Belle On this exact point now in dispute he spoke no uncert..'\in language. Isle indefinitely to the north, but "without prejudice to the exclu ive He said in the circular issued by him in July, 1852, as Secretary of rigbts"-(1 quote the language of the convention)-' ' without pr~jn State, speaking to this very point in issue: dice to the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company." A bay, as is.u ua.lly understood, is nn arm or 1·ecess of the sea entering from ·ow, here exclusi'\'e rights" are not only recognized as being the lbc ocean between capes or headlands, and the term is applied equally to small and large bodies of water thus situated. rights of a nation, bnt the subject of grant to a corporation ofits O\\"ll creation. Anu what are the exclusive rights so recognized in the •cry If "bay" bas thi3 meaning, asitcerta,inly has, as usually understood, convention itself? They are defined in the charter gran ted in the year what pre ten e is left for the contention of the committee? It has been 1670 which gives to this company (I quote its 1anguag~) "exdu;i,·e shown, conclusively shown, that there is nothing in the context of the right "-" yes, exclusive right--to take fuh.' ·where? 1n stn:tU convention, nothing in the law of nations so far as it relates to these bays and creeks 6 miles wide? No; but in all those ''seas, straits, flsheries, nothing in the practice and opinions of the United States and bays.'' Yes, ''bays, 'rivers, lakes, creeks, a.nd sound , in whatever Great llrita.in-parties to the convention-which demands a qualifica. latitude they may lie, within the entrance of the straits called "Hud tion of this meauing. On the contrary, the practice and u age of these son Stmits." two nations in reference to the snbject-matterofthe convention were up Now, sir, mark the forcible language in which this grant of exclu to its date in exact accOI"d with what it.s meaning would be if" bays" sive rights is made. First, the right is to be "exclusive" of all na bad this usual and ordinary meaning as stated by Mr. Webster. No tions and of all men. It is granted not only on rivers, lakes, creek!!, 1·eason remains for twisting or changing this meaning. but ~lso in sounds, straits, an~ bays, and even in sea tbemseh·e'. Now, the convention of 1818 contains an explicit and cle.:u renunci Then it is gra.nted in all those great waters, in whatever latitude they ation by the United States of fisher.v rights in all bays of the British may be, ifonlytbey1iewithinthe "entrance"-yes, theentrance-''o( provinces, with certain specific exceptions. It contains more than this. Hudson Straits." The straits at their entrance are 80 miles wi~e, It contains a renunciation of these rights to a line lirawn 3 miles from their narrowest width anywhere is 60 mil , and the average is 100 these bays. Tktt, sir, we can claim the right to fish in a bay when miles. The Hudson Bay covers many thou and square miles. Dut we have 1·enounc;!d the right to fish within even3miles of it, is a propo leaving this out we have hero a clear gra.nt of an exclusive right to fish sition '\\nich, in the fair and reasonable opinion and judgment of man in Hudson Straits as they lie within or farther inward tlK!.n the en kind, it will be impossible to maintain. trance. Wb~t other great waters, bays, and sounds were included in Mr. President, I have now said all I desire to sa.y on the true meaning the grant of exclusive right'3 to the Hudson Bay Comp~ny it i3 unnec and construction of the convention of 1818. If I have not misread essary to n.scertain. Certain it is that the grant is of waters, seas, the trntba of history; if I ban~ not misinterpreted the acts, the decla bays inlets, straits, etc., withoutreference totheirwidth. Thisgrant rations and opinions of American statesmen, I am authorized to con was 'made originally aml continued on the principle then recognized clude that at the date of this convention, 1818, in the opinion and both in England and America that sea-fi heries in Ametica were re judgment of tho ·e statesmen, there was no rule of the law of nations garded as the :rightful subject of individual national exclusive owner which n.s to this fishery confined exclusivP- national fishery rights to ship in waters on the northeast of this continent, including bays and bays and inlets 6 miles Wide and under; and hence there is no just seas without reference to their dimensions. Acting on this corJClu ground for giving the word "bays" as used in that convention an un sion' the Ulllted States in the convention of 1818 solemnly recognized, natural and unusual meaning. in the language I have quoted, this exclusive right of the Hndson Bay It will not do to say in opposition to the ratification of this treaty, as Company. And yet, in order to maintain the contention of the Com was said by the Senator from :Maine [Mr. FRYE], that the convention of mittee on Foreign Relations, we are asked to commit ourselves to the 1818 surrenders our 1ights. That, sir, is a greater reason, if it betrne, folly of rejecting the plain meaning of language used in the convention for the acceptance of the treaty before ns, which secures to us every of 1818 on the untenable ground that this meauing is so utterly incon important, every material rigl.Jt allowed in that convention, even if con sistent with the dcctrine and practice of nations, especialJy of the strued as the Committee on Foreign Relations construe it, and it sur United Sta.tes, in respect to exclusive rights in. large bays; that it is renders nothing of value. But construing the convention of 1818 as impossible to believe that we gave our assent to it in that sense, whilst it should be, this treaty gives us many and great advantages not pos in the same convention there is an express and unequivocal recogni sessed under the convention; and this is also true, however the con tion of this condemned doctrine and practice. vention of 1818 may be construed. 1\lr. President, certainly what I have stated is a conclusive refuta lt is a fair and just treaty; the best we have ever been able to se tion of the false and un-American doctrine in reference to fishing rights cure after many years of irritating and harrassing negotiations. Its on the northeastern coast of North America. announced by the Com negotiation re!lects credit on Americ.;m diplomacy. and is another con mittee on Foreign Relations. I might well decline further argument vincing proof that American rjghts, American honor, .A.meric..1n inter on this point in view of this unbroken consensus of opinion based on the ests, at home and abroad, are safe in the hands of the pre ent Admin practice and n ageofnation_, includingourownconntry, and sustained istration. This troth neith~r party prejnrlice nor the argument of the by the ablest and most patriotic of American statesmen from the be Committee on Foreign Relations will be able to ob~cnre. ginning down to the date of the convention of 18181 and solemnly rec ognized and affirmed in that convention itself. But, sir; there are COIDfEI!.CL\L A.llllANGEMENT OF 1830. some errors and fallacies which mankind surrende1· only after ev~ry 1\-Ir. President, in what I said yesterday there was no allnsion to possible and every imaginary ground fortheirsupporthave been swept the claims set up by the Committee on I•'oreign Relations ru; to com away. The1·e are some follies which, assuming the false shape of bene mercial rights to our fishing vessels unde1• what is called the arrange factions to those who cherish them, become so intertwined.with the ment of 1830. The committee admit that no American ves el had feelings, the prejudices, and passions of mankind that they are en tcr a right to resort to British North American ports for any commercial ta.ined with generous hospitality even after detection. This idea of purposo or other purp03es, but only to take fish on certain coa t ; and the Committee on Foreign Relations which I have been considering is that fishing vessels only had also a right tore ort to all British North one of them. Of course, Mr. P1·esident, I have no Lope of convincing American ports for the special purposes na.metl in the convention of them; but despite the great authority of that committee, I do ilope 1 18. that the America.n people will give that just weight to thcir own his There can be no doubt whatever on this sn~ject from the language tory, to the acts and declarations of their mo t eminent statesmen, wllich of the treaty itself, so far as regards fishing~ - els; and it i only in will enable them to see this coutroversy in ita just light. As to that relation to fishing vessels that we h:l.ve any concern now. That con · - 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. vention, in that clause of it which concedes the liberty of taking sion, acts of retaliation, and the last one, it will also be noted~ was in fish on or within 3 marine miles of certain coasts, bays, etc., named no respect contingent but was absolute, excluding from American ports in it, contains this proviso: all British vessels from the British colonial ports named in it without That American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for specifying that such exclusion should be dependent on a similar ex· the purposes of shelter, repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood or ob elusion of vessels of the United States. taining water, and for no other purposes whatever, etc. On ~lay 6, 1822, another act was passed; this was an act of relaxa· Certainly there can be no doubt as to the meaning of this; and so far tion. It provided that on the President being satisfied that the ports as I can nndeTstand the report of the committee, it does not claim more in the British West Indies had been opened to the vessels of the United on this point than I do. We both agree that as to fishing vessels there States, he should issue his proclamation admitting British vessels com· was under the convention of 1818 no right t{) enter ports and harbors ing from these colonie3. This act was to be continued in force till the of the British provinces (except on the southern coast of Newfoundland end of the next session of Congress and no longer. and southern coast of Labrador, wherein the right to cure and dry fish It will be noted, however, that this relaxation did not apply to ves was granted) but for the four purposes named. This restriction of the sels coming from the British North American provinces. As to them purposes of entry is not left to implication, 'but rests on an express stip the exclusion of the act of May 1, 1820, continued in full force. (See ulation-'' for no other purpose whatever." 3 Statutes at Large, page 681.) Mr. President, there is no need here to explain why this was so, for On March 1, 1823, another act was passed. This act suspended the the language is so plain there is no room for doubt or dispute. Amer actB of 1818 and the supplementary act of May 15, 1820, so far as their ican fishing vessels have the right to enter British ports or harbor-s for provisions limit or interdict navigation and commerce between the the four named purposes, but for no other whatever. United States and certain named British ports. These ports were in Thus the matt:~r stood nnder the convention of 1818, and thus the the West Indies and in the British North American provinces. St. matter stood, as admitted by the committee, till what is called the ar John's and St. Andrew's in New Brunswick, Halifax in Nova Scotia, rangement of 1830 was made. It is claimed by the committee that Quebec in Canada, St. John's in Newfoundland were tho3e named in this arrangement changed all this as to American fishing vessels. The the-North American provinces. claim is utterly unfounded. The right of British vessels, however, was confined to importing in COIDJ:ERCIAL TREATIES WITH GREAT BRITATii. the United States articles of the growth, prodooe, or manufacture of Mr. President, there was no treaty of commerce or Illlovigation be the places from which the vesselS came, and to exporting to the same tween the United States and Great Britain till the year 1794. By the places articles of the ~rowth, produce, and manufacture of the United third article of that treaty it was provided that there should be free States. and reciprocal rightB of intercourse between the United States and the The act was to continue in force so long, and only so long, as the British possessions in America by land and by inland navigation, with enumerated British ports should remain open to vessels of the United right to navigate the inland waters of each and to carry on trade and States conformably to an act of Parliament of June 24, 1822. It was commerce in that way with each other. But it was especially stipu further provided that if any other British port in America should be lated that this provision did not extend to the admission of United thereafter opened to American ships, then ships of that port should be States vessels into the seaports, harborsJ bays, and creeks of the Brit admitted into our ports. (See 3 Statutes at Large, page 741.) ish dominions, nor into the rivers between their mouths and the h_igh Mr. President, in relation to commercial intercourse between the est ports of entry from the sea, except small vessels betwe~n Montreal British provinces in North America and the United States matters and Quebec, nor to the admission of British vessels from the sea into stood in this way at the date of the arrangement, so called, of 1830. the rivers of the United States beyond the highest port of entry for That from the five named British colonial ports, Quebec, Halifax, St. other foreign vessels. The free navigation of the Mississippi by both Andrew's and St. John's in New Brunswick, and St. John's in New· parties was also provided for. foundland British Tessels.were admitted into all the ports of the United By the twelth article certain reciprocal rights of trade between the States when importing products of the places from which each might United States and the British W~"t Indies were provided for, termina come, and reciprocally these five poria were open to our vessels. In ble, however, in two years after the war in which Great Britain Wa$ then this it will be noticed that the rights of the British vessels coming from engaged. By article 13 certain privileges of trade between the United these portB admitted tllem to all our ports, whilst American vessels States and the East Indies were granted and regulated. By article 28 were admitted only to these five port3. the treaty as to all its commercial parts was made temporary, extending The statutes and regulations under them for commerce and traffic only to twelve years. were not understood in any way to relate to the :fisheries; as to them In 1815 another treaty of navigation and commerce was concluded. it is admitted on all hands that up to the arrangement of 1820 they By this treaty a reciprocal commerce between the United States and stood alone upon the convention of 1818. the British possessions in Europe was agreed to; and it was also stipu Mr. President, up to this time there had been no dis-pute or com· lated that the trade between the United States and the British North plaint about the convention of 1818 so far as it related to fishery rights. American and West Indian colonies should be unaffected by the treaty. It had not then been discovered that this convention was the result of This treaty was limited to four years, but afterwards, by the conven a want of sagacity and courage on the part of the American commis· tion of 1818, was prolonged for ten years, and then in 1827 was con sioners, or that it was a deliberate sm·r~nder of our fishery rights, as tinued indefinitely. stated by the Senator from Maine; or jf it had been discovered we Thus under treaty stipulations stood intercourse, commercial, and had not published our shame and made it the plea for a forced con· navigation rights between the United States an~ Great Britain in the strnction of that convention. So fa.I" as I have learned, both par year 1830, w ben the arrangement of that year was entered into, and so ties were satisfied with the bargain which had been made. Under it far as the right of comme1·ce from the sea, is concerned, the entry of our vessels of all kinds were excluded from British ports for commer· American vesseLs into the seaports, bays, and harbors of the British cial purposes, and our :fishing vessels were excluded except for the four North American possessions, there was none whatever. purposes named in the convention, shelter, repairs, wood, and water. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIOJ),o AS TO TRADE WITK GREAT BRITAIN. But there was dissatisfaction with the commercial arrangements be· I notice now the legislation of the United States on this subject~ be tween the British possession~ in America and the United States. Es ing action from which we could have receded at any time. It appears pecially was the trade with t he West Indies very desirable to us. It there had been exclusion of American vessels, commercial vessels, from may be mentioned here that one of the great industries of the United British ports when there was no exclusion from our ports of British States at that time was the making of mm, and one of the great indus· vessels coming from portB from which we were excluded. tries of the West Indies, and also of many other portions of this wicked Therefore, on Aprill8, 1818, the United States undertook to correct world, given over then to the gratification of their appetites and pas· this inequalitybyprovidingthat the ports of the United States should sions, was drinking rum. This useful and tempting article was mann· be and remain closed against every vessel owned in whole or in part by factured from molasses. Molasses was a product of the West Indies. .British subjects coming or arriving from any British port which by the The West Indians had molasses to sell. We wanted it, that it might ordinary laws of navigation and trade are closed against vessels of the be converted into the more valuable and more saleable article, rum, United States. Stringent regulations were made to prevent an eva which we were anxious to make, both for domestic use, I must admit, sion of this law by vessels which, coming into our ports from British and also for exportation. · portB not clbsed against us, but which in departing from our ports This connection between rum, and molasses as the raw material for might go to a closed British port. (See Statutes at Large, volume 3, rum, and that provision-peculiar in itself-of our act of 1830, which page 432.) This act was passed, it will be noted, before the conven- granted commercial rights in our ports to the British Provinces without ~~Wa ' requiring reciprocal rights for our people in theirs, onr grant as to this On the 15th of May, 1820, a supplement to the last named act was being mere boot given for reciprocal and mutual commercial rights be passed. This act excluded from the ports of the United States, British tween the United States and the West Indies, will be seen and fully vessels coming frpm Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, New appreciated when I state the history connect-ed with the act of 1830. Foundland, Cape Breton, and their dependencies, also from, the Ba· It appears, sir, from authen tic records, that on the very day of the hama, Bermuda, and Caicos islands, or any other possession of Great passage of the act of 1830 by the House of Representatives, that a bill Britain in the West Indies or continent of America south of the south was also passed to reduce the tariff on imported mola...<:ses. Itha.dnot ern bqundaryof the United States, and not included in the prohibition then been discovered that the way to reduce the price of any commodity of the act of 1818. These two acts it will be noted were acts of exclu· was to increase the tax on it. That wonderful discovery in political , '· _~. 6240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13, economy was, in the dispensation of Providence, reserved as the achieve Import molasses from thence to be manufactured into spirits for domestic con sumption and for trade with the Indians they could not prosecute the fisheries ment of a later generation, who having partaken of that forbidden without ruinous losses. fruit in the garden of Republican liberty, the transfer by law of the labors of some-of many-into the pockets of others-a few-found out - I quote from Senate Executive Document No. 22, 'Ihirty-second Con that all the laws of mathematics, all the teachings of arithmetic were gress, second session, page 311. It is further stated that New England wrong, contrived by the wicked inventor to favor British ip.terests, and never submitted to the law, and therefore the threatened ruin to the that the addition of one thing to another made the sum smaller, and the cod-fishery was averted. That is the way in which this connection be subtraction of one from another was real increase and enlargement; tween the fisheries and rum was viewed during the colonial era. and hence, that the more that is taken from the tax-payer the more In 1789, at the first session of the first Congress under the Consti he bas left. This discovery being now made, I submit it to my honor tution; this matter came up again. It was proposed by Mr. Madison able friends on the other side of the Chamber whether, when we come and others to tax imported molasses 8 cents per ~allon. Among other to remodel the tariff, it would not be well, in order to protect the great arguments to support this tax it was urged that molasses was converted trusts and monopolies, to prohibit entirely the introduction of a.U into rum, a deleterious substance, injurious to the health and to the works on mathematics and even tax highly their making at home. In morals of the people. This tax was resisted in able speeches by .Messrs. this way only can we effectually prevent British aggressions and save Thacher, Goodhue, and Fisher Ames, all of Massachusetts. Espe our people from that enlightenment which will detect the iniquities cially was the resistance of .M:r. Ames able and effective. He urged that of protection. We have made a start in that direction in passing the we exchange for molasses those fish that it is impossible to dispose international "'copyright bill. So, then, being ignorant of this great of anywhere else, and the molasses we converted into rum; that it is discovery, in order to encourage the making of rum by cheapening the scarcely possible to maintain our fisheries with advantage if the com price of imported molasses, the tariff tax was reduced. merce for summer fish is injured, which he asserted would happen if Bnt if I stop here it will be supposed that the main purpose of this a high duty was imposed on molasses, and that it would carry de reduction was in order that the poor common working people of this struction throughout all the New England States and eventually af country could get cheap molasses for food, and thus I would be suspected fect the whole Union. He relied greatly on the West Indian market, of trying to support the old economic idea still cherished by the party saying: to which I belong, t1tat articles of necessity and comfort fur the poor Our best fish will find their way to the best markets, while the sla,·es in the West , ought to be taxed lightly. I must add, this view of that measure is Indies would consume the refuse. not entirely correct; for the bill further provided that there should The proposed tax of 8 cents a gallon was d~feaied, and only 2} cents be a drawback, or a return of the reduced duties collected on imported per gallon imposed. molasses whenever the rum into which it had been converted was ex It will be seen, Mr. President, that some progress, or rathe1· some ported. This act became a law the same day with the celebrated act change, was made in the animus of the molasses and rum trade in the of 1830. (See 4 Statutes at Large, page 419.) century intervening the British act of 1733 and the American act of On this particular point it will be useful to refer to sorue statistics. 1830. At the former period we wanted molasses in exchange for our From these it will be seen that both the importation of molasses and fish, in order, haying converted it into rum, that we might carry on a the exportation of rum were at that time in no healthy condition. In profitable trade with the Indians, then abounding all over the continent. fact, both were fast approaching the point where certain death was im In the centurY following the trade had done its ''good and perfect work,'' minent. In 1828 the importation of molasses was 13,285,998 gallons. so that but few of these untutored sons of nature remained to whom we In 1830, the date of the act, it had fallen to 8,340,783 gallons, a falling could exchange this exhilarating beverage. They h:ld mostly departed off of about 33 per cent. In 1831, the very first year after the act, the to the happy hunting grounds of the Great Spirit-hastened on their importation was more than doubled, being16,915,959 gallons, and with journey thither by the spirits distilled by Americans, under the patronage slight fluctuations it reached in 1835 to 18,656,224 gallons. We turn and encouragement of the American Congress, from West Indian molas now to the. exportation of rum. In 1828 the exports amounted to 506,- ses, raised by the labor of poor African slaves, to cheer whose hard toil 052 gallons; in 1830,. keeping pace with the decreased ~ports of molas we charitably contributed, for a propel· quid pro quo, our refuse fish for ses, the exports were only 153,160 gallons, a falling off of more than 66 which there was no other market under th~ sun. In 1830, having lost per cent. The effect of the act on the exports o( rum was not so rapid as in this way most .of our Indian customers: we soughtcustomers in for on the importation of molasses. The exports continued to decrease dur eign nations, and hence the provision in the act of that year allo ing ing the next three years. Why this was so I am unable to explain further a drawback on exported rum. than that there might have been, probably was, au increased domestic Now, Mr. President, if the Committee on Foreign Relations had re consumption, for it is certain that under the influence of cheap rum there membered this portion of our history, they would have saved them must have been a great increase in the consumption of intoxicants. So selves from the great error into which they have fallen in supposing on this point again we find that history repeats itself. In 1830 by Con that the arrangement of 1830, as they are pleased to call it, had any gressional action rnm 'vas cheapened at the expense of the necessaries of reference whatever to reciprocal trade between the United States and life in order to protect the fisheries, and so now in 1888, more than the British colonies to the North and East of us. They would also , half a century afterwards, we find the Republican party in national have seen that the boot we gave in that arrangement, to wit, admission convention assembled, solemnly declaring that we must have cheap to our ports of vessels from those colonies without ex,acting like admis whisky rather than that one jot or tittle of the burdens imposed by sion to ours, was but the regular outcome and fruit of a policy a hun the present iniquitous tariff shall be removed from blankets, common dred years old-of getting a trade with the West Indies by which we clothing, salt, agricultural and mechanical implements, and the like could get easily and cheaply molasses as the raw material for rum in articles of common and necessary use among the farmers and laborers exchange for refuse fish, to be eaten by the poor Africans of those is of the country. But after awhile this increased demand was met, the lands. The committee erred innotgiving due weighttothiscombina appetites of the people for intoxicants, though stimulated by Congres tion of philanthropy and pelf, of pseudo Christian grace and real com sionaf action, were at last satiated, and our foreign trade adjusting mercial greed, which in all ages has been potential, and in our own ir itselfto the condition of satiety at home, began to respond to the bene- resistible. ficial force of this act. . Now let us see what the act of 1830 was. It provided that whenever In 1834 the readjustment came, and with it a large increase in the the President of the United States shall receive satisfactory evidence exports of rum, being nearly three times the amolUlt exported in the that Great Britain will open the ports in its colonial possessions, in previous year. In the next year, 1835, the full effect of the reduction the West Indies, on the continent of South America, in the Bahama and drawback was seen, the exports of rum being 507;970 gallons, and Islands, the Caicos, and the Berrq.uda or Somer Islands to the vessels more than in the nrosperous year for rum, 1828. of the United States, on terms, as to importations and exportations Mr. President, this curious and interesting portion of our history, of from and t<> said possessions and the United States, of exact equality which the Committee on Foreign Relations seem to be as oblivious as with British vessels, and at same time leaving the commercial inter they are of the true American doctrine as to the jurisdiction of our cou.rse of the United States with· an other parts of the British domin-• country over its bays, sounds, and the adjacent seas, would be incom . ions on a footing not less favorable to the United States than it then plete if I stop here. This idea, so prominent in the legislation of 1830, was, the President should by proclamation admit British vessels com of the intimate and essential connection between free or cheap mo ing from said colonial possessions into the ports of the U,pited States lasses as the raw material of rum and the prosperity of. our fisheries did on the same terms of reciprocal equality; and certain restricting acts not originate in that year. It is older than the Government itself, and of commerce were suspended or repealed. has been fostered and encouraged from the beginning by thoEe who N o,w this is the first section of the act-. If the act had stopped there, claimed to be the especial friends of the fisheries. it would have been on its face fair nnd equal. In that case it would ' In 1733, one hundred years less three before the act of 1830, the have given a reciprocity in the ports in those British colonies only in British Government imposed duties on rum, molasses, and sugar im which reciprocity was granted to us. But it would not have secured ported into the American colonies from all the West Indies except their us that commerce so essential to our happiness-molasses as the raw own. These products had been exchanged for our fish. Before the com material for rum. For, as has been stated by the act of Uay 6, 1822, mencement of this trade with those islands molasses was thrown away, we had offered reciprocity to England between our ports and her West and it was first saved and put into casks to be brought to New England Indian ports, and that this proposition had for eight years been re 1;o be distilled into rum. The people of the northerB. colonies insisted jected. that unless they could continue to sell fish to the West Indies and- But the act did not stop here. We had found tbat an even swap • 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6241 could not be had, and we therefore must offer more. So the act bad report to the President, Mr. Van Buren, of the various seizures of our a second section, a very important section in throwing light on the rna tter fishing vessels. He makes no claim of commercial rights. On the con under discussion. This second section provides that whenever the ports trary, he expressly states. (see Executive Document, before named, of the United States are opened according to the provision of the first sec page 95) that our only privilege of entering in the British ports was for tion-that is, whenever om-vessels shall be admitted to equal and recip shelter, repairs, wood, and water, "and no other."- rocal trade in theWest Indies, South America, the Bahamas, Caicos, and Lieutenant Paine, who had been sent to examine into these matters, Bermudas-then vessels from the British provinces north and east of in his letter and report to Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, expressly the United States, or, in other words, from the Dominion of Canada and states that our fishing vessels have no commercialrights. (Executive Newfoundland, shall be admitted into an entry in the ports of the Document No.100, before cited.) • United States. And in 1841 Mr. Forsyth, in his dispatch of that date to Mr. Steven And the President on receiving such evidence did issue his procla son, after all the seizures I have just referred to had been made, sets mation accordingly, exa made by him that these granting them a license to enter for such other purpose? Sir, it is too seizures were in violation of the arrangement of 1830; the complaint plain for argument, that we can not introduce the unlawful and pro was only that they were for trivial, unimportant, and fortuitous infrac hibited by annexing to it of our motion something else which is not tions of the convention of 1818 and the provincial laws. . unlawful and not prqhibited. We can not introduce a pest-ship full On August 14, 1839, Mr. Vail, Acting Secretary of State, made a of disease into a friendly port merely because such ship may have XIX-391 6242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA'l'E. JULY 13, in her commercial ·character the right of entry, not even if such Mr. Pres~dent, in the fishing business, as in neady all others, the tend ship be loaded with the very articles of medicine necessary to arrest ency of modern economic and industrial arrangements has been to or extirpate the ilisease. crush out all small enterprises and men of small mesns and small capi "'liE PROPOSED TllEATY EXAli!INED. tal. So that we are now, at the end-of this century of so-called proO' Mr. President, th'il discussion now brings me to a. comparison of the ress met, face t{) face with this, to me, appalling state of affuirs, th~t old and the new-an examin~tion of American rights as they will be sma.Il, independent workers, who formerly owned their own ships and · if this treaty be ratified as contrasted with our rights as they now conducted personally their own affairs, are being driven-in fact, almost exist under the convention of 1818. entirely driven- from business by the greater economy and efficiency of Under the convention of 1818, now in force, our treaty rights; in larger enterprises, larger establishments, wherein the owners and man addition to taking :fish on the high seas (whether coming from the agers are not workers and the laborers are merely wage-recei"ers. The treaty of1783 or the law of nations is immaterial), are- almost infinite subdivision of labor, on account of its greater productive First, to take :fish, as follows: efficiency when so subdivided, has produced and is producing, as a neces a. On the southern coast of Newfoundland, from Cape Ray to the Ramea sary consequence thereof, a division of mankind into two classes, one Islands. and that a small one-large capitalists, wage-payers, and the other b. On the we tern coast of the same, from Cape Ray to Quirpon Island, on the the many-wage-receivers. This subdivision h::J.S also had a tendency northern extremity of Newfoundland. c. On the shores of Magdalen Island. to narrow and compress the energies and the faculties oflaborers, by con d. On the ooast.s, bays, harbors, and creeks of the co:lst of Labrador, from Mt. fining the mind to the performance of a single kind of work, which, Joli indefinitely northward. after some practice, produces skillfully, and well, by the mere trained These are the positive conccssions1 and no more. It will be noted that operation of the hand, without conscious mental effort. One of there there is no concession to take fish on the. coasts of Nova Scotia, New sultsofthissubdivisionisthatlaborers confined for years to the perform Brunswick, or Cape Breton, and on the remainder of the co::J.St of New ance of a single manual operation become incapable of that variety of foundlclrnd not mentioned above, including all its eastern and p:ut of thought so necessary to conduct skillfully a succe fnl bu ine.ss. its southern coast. This is one of the great obstacles which me~ once entering one of The liberty of curing and drying fish is granted on the southern coast these large establishments and devoting their attentiQ.11 for years to one of Newfoundland from Cape Ray to the Ram ea. Islands and on the coasts simple operation of manual labor, are mrely able to overcome success of Labrador. fully, and which pre"\'ents them from eme1·ging from the class of wage- Then comes the renunciation of the United States, which is of the earners. · liberty theretofore claimed or enjoyed of taking, drying, or curing fish As enterprises, as establishments become larger and larger, necessa ''on or within 3 marine miles of any of the co!lSts, bays, creeks, and rily this division makes the manhging class relatively smaller and the harbors of all other of His Majesty's dominions,'' which, as I have shown laboring class relatively larger. This, Ur. President, is not a good conclusively, means 3 miles from the coasts and 3 miles from the en thing for the wage-earners, and not being good for them, it is not a. good trance of the bays, etc., onr cll¥ro, however, being to 3 miles from the thing for the country, not a. good thing tor the human race. Row this shores in all bays more than 6 miles wide. - tendency may be counteracted and reversed I may not be able to de nder the treaty now before us as to fishing rights we have the right termine; but seeing it, feeling deeply its pernicious and baleful work to take :fish as before, under the convention of 1818: ings, I declare it to be the duty of the Government when two comses a. On the southern and western coasts of Newfoundland. are open .in any proposed matter, one to increase the tendency, the b. On the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of Labrador, besides our rig·hts in the open seas. other havrng a contrary effect, to choose the latter. In the beginninu, c. On the shores of the ~Magdalene Islands. when inshore fisheries were allowed to us, and a. frequent resort to the So far the convention and treaty are the same. Under the true con shore, the fishing vessels were small. It needed but small capital to struction of the convenLion of 1818 we have no right of entering into own one and but few men to manage it successfully; hence in those any of the bays, harbor.3, or creeks, except for shelter, repair, wood, days the owners of these small vessels were frequently part of the crew and water, being expressly excluded from entry for any "other pur which sailed them and took fish. It was not beyond the hopes and po e whatever." aspirations of the poorest sailor and fisherman working in one of these Under the treaty we may enter for the same purposes, and in addi vessels that in a. few years he might be the sole or a part owner of the tion under the second clause of Article XI we may enter "established vessel on which he worked. ports of entry'' to purchase supplies for the homeward voyage, and our But, sir, this is all now changed-the vessels are large, the equip fishing vessels are to have on all occasions in such ports the liberty to menta in seines and other supplies more expensive; so that they who purchase casual or needfulurovisions or supplies. run and manage the vessel and take the fish are rarely, if ever, inter This is a very important gain, -as I shall show hereafter. ested in the vessel itself. Under the convention of 1818, when our vessels entered into any of Now, Mr. President, if we give, as this treaty do~ the opportunity the British ports for shelter, repairs, wood, or water, they were sub of smaller vessels being employed in the fisheries, we will have done ject to port cbarges, to be made to report, enter and clear, to compul much to arrest the evil tendency I have noted. If we secure a resort sory pilotage, to harbor dues, and light dues. The exercise of these alone to the shores on easy terms, not only for wood, water, repairs rights, or some of them, had been the causes of great expense, trouble, and shelter, but for supplies of all kinds, together with transport of' and annoyance to our :fishing vessels. the catch, we encourage the use of the smaller vessels, we encourage That these charges were common is seen throughout our diplomatic independent, smaller workerg in the owning of the vessels on which correspondence, and thecomplaintsmade by our fishermen. (See Senate they sail. I think this is one of the most benefi.cent effects of the treaty, Executive Document No. lOO, Thirty-second Congress, first session, on even as it now stands, and these benefits would be increased if we pages 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 81, and Nos. 11 and 47 in list of vessels fur hereafter secure the reciprocity proposed by Article XV of the treaty. nished by minority report on this treaty, commencing on page 52.) I send to the desk a copy of a letter on this subject written by Mr. Under the treaty on entry of our vessels fCJr the four purposes named Dimick, secretary of the Boston Fish Bureau, to Mr. Switzler, chief of they are required only to conform to harbor reguln.tions common to the Bureau of Statistics, which he has sent to me. them and to the :fishing vessels of Canada and Newfoundland. They The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JONES, of Arkansas,in the chair). need not report or clear when entry is for shelter or repairs, nor when The Secretary will read the letter. entering outside of established ports of entry for wood or water; and The Secretary read as follows: OFFICE OF JlOSTON FISH B{;REAU, No. 3 LoNG WHARF, they are not liable for compulsory pilotage, nor when in for shelter, · Boston, June 30, 1888. repairs, wood, and water are they liable for harbor dues, tonnage dues, DEAR Sm: It is almost impossible for me to answe1' the questions you have buoy dues, light dues, or other similar dues. This is a great gain for asked. The bureau wa organized in 1875, and has kept statistics of vessels and our yessels. Under the convention of 1818 an American vessel having men engaged in the northeast fisheries only since 1880. An accurate record of the comparative size of fishing vessels would be compiled, I think, only from entered a. bay or harbor for any of the four purposes therein mentioned, the records of the custom-houses at the fishing ports. It is impossible to sepa namely, shelter, repairs, wood, and water, could do nothing and pro rate vessels that fish on our shore and those that fish on the Canadian coast for cure nothing but these four things. Under the treaty by Article XI, a long period of years. Some years nearly the whole mackerel fleet goes to the Gulf of St. Lawrence (generally spoken of as the" North Bay"), and some any vessel entering for any casualty whatever may unload, relo~ years very few. transship, or sell all fish on board when necessary or incidental tore In a general way I can say that the average size of fishing vessels tlea.ving out pairs, and may replenish outfits, provisions, and supplies damaged or the small craft which fish only close to our shore) is probably twice that of fifty years ago. lost by disaster; and in case of death or sickness shall have all needful The average crew has largely increased, but not quite· in propoytion to in facilities, including shipping of a crew. crease in the size of vesseL These are important gains under the treaty, and essential even in There is a. very much smaller proportion of fishermen owners than formerly. This is owing mainly to the fact that the majority of the fishermen (outside of many cases to a successful trip of a vessel. Under the same article the small craft which furnish fresh fish for the daily market, which fi!.lh near our fishing vess.els may, on their homeward voyage, have licenses free the shore) are foreigners. of charge for the purchase of supplies in established ports of entry; and I am told that fifty years ago, on Cape Cod, three-fourths of the fi hermen were owners in the fishing vessels a.nd that there are not one-four-th now. our vessels also on all occasions are to have licenses to purchase casual Gloucester, our largest fishing port, has practically no fishermen owners. and needful supplies and provisions. A few captains are owners or part owners of their vessels, but the number i.::1 These !icenses to purchase supplies in established ports of entry are very small. . The comparative cost of fitting a yessel is a very difficult matter to arrive at. of the utmost importance, and of themselves ought t o require of us a It varies from year to year with the varying price of supplies in the market. ratification of the treaty. In the y ears 1885, 1886, and 1887, wages of cod fishermen were considerably re- • 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE~ 6243 duced, and owing i.o this and cheapness of some supplies, the cost of catchin"' The committee say- codfish. w~~:s less than for ma.ny ye~rs. This year it will be a. little more as pric~ of s lt 1s higher, and wages on the whole a trifle higher. is a. si_n!?~lar pro~sion (and probably unique) to be found in a treaty between Very truly yours, two CIVilized nat1o1111, the general tenor of whose laws and the general social nat F. F. Dll\IICK, Secretary. ure of whose institutions are very nearly homogeneous. 1\Ir. W. F. SWITZLER, . Wheth~r the committee intends by this objection to complain of the Chief of Bw·eau of Statistia. mtroductwn of such a provision in any treaty between civilized nations 1t1r. GEORGE. In addition to that, I obtained from the Treasury or only between Great Britain and the United States, as these are th~ Department some statistics showing the increase in the size of the fish only two- ing vess~ls. In 1775 the average tonnage of fishing vessels wa.s 37 tons. :r'h~ general tenor of whose laws and the general social nature of whose in In 1830 1t wa.s 41 tons. In 1854 it wa.s 67 tons. In 1865 it was 76 stltuhons are very hearly homogeneous- tons. In 1871 it wa.s 81 tons. In 1885 it was 100 tons. ! am ~n.able to say. If they are to be understood as saying that such So we see there has been a continued and steady advance in the size ~ pro.viSl_?n between the United States and any highly civilized nation of the ves els, and at the same time a continued and steady decrease in 18 obJectionab~e, then I answer: That such was not the opinion of the the ownership of vessels by the fishermen. · f~thers; such 18 not the American doctrine, if the men of the Re-volu OBJll:<:rriON A.S TO NOY-PR""VE.ITION OF BRITISH RIGHTS IY OUR PORTS. tiOn ar~ ~be trusted to expound American doctrines. The treaty of 1t!;f. President, it is complained in the report of the Committee on 1778 w1th France was the first treaty ever made by the United States. Foreign Relations that the treaty does not put the fishing vessels of As was shown y~sterday, by its ninth article it regulated fishing rights between the Umted States and France, and in doing so it was not C~nada and Newfoundland in American ports on the same footmg dee~e~ b! the fathers unique, peculiar, or objectionable, to make a w1t? Amer?-ca~ fis~n~ vessels in their ports. This certainly is a very cnnous obJectiOn, if It 1Je well founded. The treaty in that view se pro-viSIOn m r~ference to a p~n.alty for a violation of treaty rights, and cures the rights named in it to our -vessels, and leaves us to give or that p~nalo/, 1t so happens,. 1s exactly the same penalty as the highest grant to the Canadian vessels just such rights as we please in our ports. prescnbed rn the treaty before us, namely, a confiscation of the vessel. This is exactly what has been done in all our treaties on this subject. . If, howeve~, the committee mean to objec-t only to such a provision In the treaty of 1783 not a word was said about the rights of British rna trea~y.wit~ England-and not to the justice. and rightfulness of provincial fishing vessels in the ports of the United States, and so in the J?rOV18lon 1ts_elf, I leave it to their wisdom, or their ingenuity, which the convention of 1818. ·Both those international compacts were made ever It may :equrre, to explain to the A.merjcan people, why a treaty to secure and protect American rights. 'l'he British in neither claimed should be reJected when made with Great Britain · because it contains a provision admittedly just and honorable in with all <.other nor aske~ for si~ilar rights for ~heir vessels in our ports. This left us, tr~aties nations. ~ · Pr.esident, ~n. the best possible of all conditions. We had treaty nghts rn the Bntish ports and they had none in ours. Ifthey exercise And, b-~ . President, '!hilst on this subject, I will say that the four a?y 1-ights here, it is by our grace and permission. We may grantsuch teenth ~rticle, on penalties and pr.ocedure against vessels violating the nghts on such terms as we please, change or modify them, or with treaty, 18 of great value. It restncts the penalty of forfeiture to un dr w them altogether. Whatever our conduct may be in reference to lawful fishing or preparing to fish unlawfully in the prohibited waters. For all.other offenses the penalty is not to exceed a. fine of $3 per ton. Canadian v~eJ.:1, we still h::vc o?-r _righi;s named in this treaty, rights secured by It Without granting Similar nrthts to the Canadians. That It provides also for speedy and convenient trial of the vessel seized, might be an objection from the C:madia; standpoint, but certainly is allows a derense to b~ made, without security for costs, unless the no reason w by Americans should rej cct the treaty. The twelfth article vessel be bai1ed-reqmres that reasonable bail shall be allowed and permits appeals only to the owners ofourvessels-refusino-them the of the treaty does, however, secure (what the treaty of 1783 and con 0 t~ vention of 1818 did not} the same rights to Canadian vessels that are ot~er sid~; and requires all judgments of forfeiture to be reviewed by secured to us. an 1m penal officer-the go-vernor-general in council. These are all very valuable rights secured to our citizens by the This was a demand of the British provin~es that we could not de cently resist. But that is not the objeetion which the Committee on treaty. . Foreign Relations make. Their objection is, that this article did not I ask.the Senator ~om Delaware [Mr. GRAY], who has examined go further and by negative words restrict the rights of Canadian vessels the subJect, to explain our statutes about trials of seizures. Mr. GRAY.. '!he Senator from :M~ssissippi asks me to say something in our p~r~ to the treaty rights secured to our vessels in the ports of the Domrmon and of Newfoundland. Let us look at this matter a lit a~out the proviSIOns of our statutes rn regard to seizures for violations of the customs laws and customs regulation which I alluded to the tle. The treao/ rights of the vessels ~f both countries are exactly the same under this new treaty. These nghts each Government is by the ?ther day when the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] was speak treaty bound to the other to observe. A refusal to do this would be a mg. I suppose I can best answer his question by giving him a sum violati?n of treaty obligations, which would release the other party and mary ~bat I had made of ?ur statutes in that regard. SectiOn 909 of the ReVISed Statutes of the United States, which I even ~ve g?od cause for war. When these rights are respected the read at length the other day, provides that in case of seizure for viola !rea~y lS sat~fied. As. to other a~d additional rights, each Government, rn vrrtue of 1ts sovereignty and rndepenrlence, may grant or withhold tion of customs laws or duties the burden of proof c;hall be put upon the man who opposes the seizure. I read that the other day. ~hem at its own will, and if at any time it shall grant any such rights 1t may recall them at pleasure. The objection of the colllmittee, there Mr. HOAR. Only when probable cause has first been shown for the fore, is that thE:' United States do not in this treaty bind themselves to prosecution. 1\Ir. GRAY. I will read section 909. I read it at length, I believe, tak~ away rights which they may have voluntarily granted and tie therr hands from granting any such rights in the future. The commit the other day. Section 909 provides: In ~ee i_nsist that the _Dnited States shall enter into an obligation restrict- su:it;S ?r informations br_ought, where any seizure is made pursuant to anv ~ct proVIdmg fo! or ~egulatrng the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, Ing Its own sovereign powers. ~ 1f the p~operty 18 c~Imed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon They complain that the United States by this treaty are left free to act such ~la.rmant: Prov~ded, That probable cause is shown for such prosecution for their ow:t;~- ~terests ~all matters outside of the treaty, so that if it to be Judged of by the court. ' shall be, .as 1t 1s, to the. mterest of o~r people to sell fishing supplies Section 923 of the Revised Statutes, which I will not take the time to Canadian vessels, or 1f any other r1ght granted to the Canadian >es to read bn~ will giv~ the purport of, obliges the claimant of a vessel sels would be more to our benefit than to theirs, we shall be bound by or goods seiZed to grve bond to prosecute the suit and responQ. to the treaty not to grant it, however much we might desire for our own costs. adv:mtage to do so. Section 970 of ·the Revised Statutes in such cases denies costs to the THE Nl::YBEUI. "G OF THE VESSELS. successful opponent of seizure, and relieves the seizino- officer from liability for such seizure, if the court thinks there w~s reasonable Like this is the objection that we may grant licenses to the Canadian cause for the seizure. vessels without their being numbered. On this subject we are left by Section 975 bas similar provisions in another case. the treaty _free to ~e'iluire such nnm~e~ing or not as we may see proper. Section 971 mulcts the unsuccessful opponent of seizure in double All there 1s of th1s lS that the Domm10n was not willing to be bound costs,_so that if a :person interv:enes as the owner of the vessel or goods, to grant these licenses without the numbering. We wanted the li denymg the legality of the seizure,· and does not succeed1 this section censes a.s a tr~ty right and they stipulated to give them, but on the imposes upon him double costs. makino- it in all cases at his own risk terms nameil rn the treaty, we, as to these, being left to do just as when he defends a suit. · o • we please, for the twelfth article only Eeenres to Canadian vessels the S~ction 979 awards to the successful opponent of seizure posse~sion same rights our vessels have by the treaty; and therefore if an Ameri of his property, but only after.he has paid his costs. ca.n •essel can ~ot without a license to buy trade in a Canadian port . Section 3~3 enables officers making the seizure to plead the general WitlJout also bemg numbered, so the Canadian \essels can not have a 1ssue and g1ve the act of Congress as special matter in evidence. license to buy in our ports except on the same eqnal terms if we re That, I presume, covers the point alludecl to by the Senator. quire it. THE BRITISH SIDE. THE PEXALTIES FIXED IlY THE TREATY. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, tthasbeensaid in this debate and will _fr. President~ another objection is that the treaty by its fourteenth probably again be said, that the contention of those who favor the rati:fi :l.l'hcle fixes penalties for a violation of the treaty. . ~tion ~f the treaty is on the British side; that it surrenders American This- nghts; lS contrary to American-ideas and American principles. One an- 6244 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13, swertothisisthatitismyplain duty, thatitistheplaindutyofthe Sen~ secrecy, and confidential consultations have beeh abandoned without ate, in determining whether we will accept or reject this treaty, to ascer- reason relating to the public welfare, but solely to embarrass and bring tain fairly and truly our rights as they now exist and compare them with into disrepute the Administration, and surrendering the welfare of the our rights as they would be if this treaty were accepted or ratified. A.s American people to secure an advantage in a partisan contest, to win an American Senator charged by the Constitution of our country with victory when victory is not due, I interpret my duty to be to discuss giving advice to the President as to the conclusion of trea,ties, it is my the whole subject freely and fmrly, and to notice every fact and argu duty to give this advice honestly, frankly, and on full consideration ot ment I deem important. Since the appeal is made to the American every fact, every principle involved, so that he, the sole representative people, I construe my duty to be to so act that their judgment should of the American people in our intercourse with foreign nations, may not be invoked on half truths, on a partial and mutilated statement of do what an honest and conscientious regard for the welfare and honor the case.· of the United States may demand. That this an vice inight be given Mr. President, if in my investigation of this subject I have reached freely and fully, without embarrassment or injury to the conntx:y, conclusions adverse to some of the rights sometimes asserted in our our deliberations on treaties have hitherto, in accordance with the behalf, it is a consolation to know that by the treaty under consideration sound judgment and wise and patriotic foresight of our fathers been these very rights so alleged to exist, all of them that are valuable, are confidential. In this confidentialfamily meeting of the representatives secured, and in addition many more. It is also a consolation to know of the States there was full and free conference and debate, the world that whatever I may say can be of no harm to my country, no injury being excluded from our deliberations. All party considerations were to any single human being in all this world, save only to myself. In banished; all desire to attain any other end than the public good was what I haye said and shall say, I have spoken and will speak no one's suppressed; each Senator was expected, in the discharge of the high opinion but my own. I pretend to speak and have authority to duty impo~ed by the Constitution t<> declare to his fellow-Senators speak for no person in office or out of office; not knowing and not caring fully and freely the facts and the arguments which he deemed proper for who may approve or who may condemn, save only that great generous their consideration. In the discharge of this duty in this confidential and magnanimous people whose commission I hold, and to whom I am family session there was no danger of injury to our country by the dis- 1·esponsible for all I do or omit to do as a Senator on this floor. My closure of views which were in opposition to some of the claims we had position in public life is too humble, my influence too limited to give put f01·th. These confidential deliberations are like the confidential any weight to what I may say, beyond what may be rightly due to communications between our Government and its foreign ministers, the same matter, if written and published anonymously. What I have matters to be considered only by us. How often, sir, when such com- said is based on public authentic records. If I have mistaken them munications are afterwards published, does the presence of marks of or misinterpreted them the correction is easy, if correction be deemed omission show to us and show to the world that the matter omitted necessary by the learned opponents of the treaty. If convicted of error is of that nature that publication of it would not be proper. ln the I shall be glad to be corrected; for, sir, !have no feeling, no wi h, no diplomatic correspondence of one of our most eminent statesmen,· Mr. interest, no bias nor prejudice, other than to do my duty to the Senate EYerett, in relation to the very subject we now delibera.te upon, are and to my country. But, sir, it should not be forgotten that the main such marks, showing omissions in the published copy. question before us is not as to the absolute verity of the arguments I THJj: sUPPRESSION oF EVIDENCE. have advanced, but whether; being urged in opposition to our rights The attention of the Senate was called to this several weeks ago by as they have been asserted, they do not constitute a sincere ~oubt, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GnA Y]. Afterwards the Senator from which ought to be removed by negotiation, and which constitutes a fair Alabama,, whose services on the Committee on Foreign Relations as the ground of compromise of conflicting claims. Can any Senator with con senior member of the minority, on this and other matters concerning fidence say that there is no doubt. And if there be sincere and just our foreign intercourse deserves and will receive the gratitude of the ground for doubt, shall we assume the attitude of infallibility denied country-afterwards, I say, the Senator from Alabama offered a reso- to all other children of the human race, and say we will' not consider lution calling on the President for these omitted portions of M:r. Ev- even adverse claims, will not treat or negotiate so that there may be, as erett's letter. That resolution, strangely enough, in view of the former there will be if this treaty is ratified, a fair and honorable adjustment action of the majority of the Senate removing confidence and secrecy of these long-standing and irritating disputes. from all deliberations on this subject, was referred to the Committee MR. WEBSTER's vmws. on Foreig~ Relations for their opi_nion and advice.. For many days, Mr. Webster, in a circular printed in a Boston paper on .July 19, 1852, e:en weeks? o I 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6245 itself, to within 3 miles of the shore, then it follows that no conces whole fishery in bays and inlets and on the open seas was before our sion was made and no oversight committed, and that we actually independence the exclusive possession of the British people, of whom we now have as our undoubted possession what Mr. Webster said by an were a part, and afterwards the joint possession of Great Britian and undoubted oversight we had conceded away to England. Then t.he the United States, was on the British side. undoubted oversight which Mr. Webster said made too large a con· I deny that George Washington and his Secretary of State, Thomas cession to England, was as his words plainly mean, a failure to have the Jefferson, in 1793, when forcing France to return a British vessal cap convention made according to a view which we bad usually enter tured in Delaware Bay on the ground that the capture was in Ameri ;. tained-that is, as the United States had usually considered that our can waters, were on the British side. rights in these vast inlets and recesses were as stated by him-it was I deny that Jefferson in claiming that the rightful jurisdiction of the an oversight resulting in too large a concession to England that we United States over the high seas extended beyond the 3-miles limit to did not cause the convention to be made according to our theory and the Gulf Stream, was on the British side. understanding. . I deny that the gteat American jurist, Chancellor Kent, in claiming Mr. Webster jn the same circula1· asserts, as I stated on yesterday, jurisdiction for the United States over large bodies of sea-water on our that a bay, as usually understood, is an arm or recess of the sea enter eastern coast many miles from the shore, inclosed by lines drawn ing from the ocean between capes or beadlands,.and that the term is from distant points of the shore, jutting out into the sea, hundreds of equally applied to small•and large bodies of water. He knew that miles apart, and in claiming a like jurisdiction over all that part of the this term was used in the convention in that clause in which we Gulf of Mexico included betw~en the shores, and a line drawn from renounced our fishing rights, renouncing them in bays, harbors, creeks, the southern Cape of Florida to the mouth of the Mississippi, was on alike. So be felt impelled to make the remark I have commented the British side. on about the concession being too large. · I deny that the whole American people, in claiming and exercising Yet it is said that notwithstanding all this Mr. Webster's opinion exclusive jurisdiction over Delaware Bay, 13 miles wide; over Long is the other way. This contention is based on a remark near the close Island Sound, 10 miles wide; over the Chesapeake~ 12 miles wide, are of the circular, in which he stated his non-agreement to the view on the British side. thataconstruction of the convention of1818 which be had just quoted All these claims, sir, are American claims, made by eminent and was conformable to the intention of the contracting parties. patriotic Americans, and sustained by the American people, to protect The construction which he bad just quoted, and to which be stated and subserve American rights and American interests. If all these his non-agreement, was the construction placed on the convention by were false to American rights, then I am also false. I may well bear the law officers of England, in which the extreme headland theory wa8 the unjust reproach of being on the British side when in such illustri asserted, as explained by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] ous company. when be addressed the Senate on thissubject-aconstrnction and theory AMERICAN RIGHTS AND DUTIES. which would have excluded us not only from what are properly bays, :Mr. President, I have stated and have endeavored to support what but from concave indents of the coast where the different and opposing I conceive to be the true view in this controversy. I have stood and headlands were :t hundred miles apart. I mean to stand on those principles of the law of nations, so fa~ as But, Mr. President, taking the whole of the circular together, are this continent is concerned, which gives our country her rightful mas we prepared to say that there is no doubt about the meaning of the tery over American seas. I do not intend to barter this great birth convention of 1818, and that the English construction of it is so clearly right of Americans for an alleged temporary advantage, a mere miser in opposition to its true meaning that it deserves no consideration what able mess of pottage. The inheritance; the mission of the American ever. We should deal fairly with ourselves and with the worldin the people is to occupy for their possession forever the North American construction of treaties and the obligation they impose upon us. If continent from the polar seas to the isthmus which connects us with I·' we discover that by an oversight, or otherwise, we have made tot) large a the southern hemisphere, including aU ialands and seas which lie next concession, as Mr. Webster said we did, this does not authorize us to it. The Monroe doctrine was bnt a half truth, a great advance, and to construe the treaty as if no oversight had been committed and no sufficient for the time in which it was announced. That doctrine for concession made. In such a case we are bound to resort to friendly bids future European colonization in the western hemisphere. It will negotiation to correct the oversight-to reduce the concession. This in the no very distant future assume its rightful and logical develop the President bas done, so that in the treaty before us there is no con ment in the exclD!:ion, or if need be expulsion, from the North Ameri cession of any substantial value, even on the theory of international can continent and the West Indies of all European territorial and ju law contended for by the Committee on Foreign Relations. risdictional rights. THE BRITISH SIDE-ANSWER, That, sir, is destiny, certain, inexorable. Nothing ~n prevent it ex But, sir, the charge of taking the British side in this controversy, if cept the fi:t.ilnre of the American people to rise to the height of their worth making, is worth repelling, and especially so since the answer great mission, their surrender of doctrines announced by our fathers, is complete and overwhelming. The main point in dispute turns upon their concession of permanent and enduring rights to mere temporary the question whether the word "bays " used in the convention of expediency. The colonization and settlement of the North American 1818 means all "bays" in the British dominions, as Mr. Webster said continent by Europeans was in the first instance a necessity. It was it did, or only " bays" 6 miles wide and under. essential to redeem these broad and favored lands from savage worth In what I have stated in opposition to the view that'' bays 11 capable lessness and reduce them to the service of civilization and -progress. of exclusive national dominion are those only 6 miles wide and under, Especially, sir, was this colonization by the British people a benefit to I have but stated the truth of history. If that truth be on the British the human race, for in the wilderness they planted not only civiliza side, I am not responsible for it. The President is :pot responsible for tion but also the seeds of free institutions: where, unaffected and un it. They who made the history are responsible. hampered by the kingly and monarchical traditions of the Old World, I deny that history is on the British side, and I propose to prevent, they will reach their full development. But as in Mr. Monroe's time ' _so far as I may be able, history from being rewritten so as to be on that further British as well as further European colonization was a political . side, surrendering forever great American interests. I deny that the anachronism, so in the not distant future European possessions before great and patriotic men of 1776, who first declared and then won our attained will be out of date. This is certain. We may hasten or retard independence, and who, as I have shown, in that momentous hour it, but it can not be prevented. We may so act as to cause the ag when appealin~ to Heaven for the rectitude of their purposes and com gregation of the people. of North America under one flag to be delayed, mitting themselves and their country to the guidance and support of a to be accompanied \vitb friction, even war and bloodshed. We may so generous Providence, and seeking alliances to aid them in their struggle act that when this aggregation shall come it will be but a mere forcible for liberty and independence, affirmed in the most solemn manner conjunction of ad verse and hostile peoples, instead of a real union, not their right and the right of France under the law of nations to con only in political but in commercial and social relations. quer and then occupy as their sole possession and property, exclusive That the attraction of these peoples to our flag should be by kind of all other nations, this great fishery in all its parts, on bays large ness, by friendly acts, the natural result of kindred hopes and kindred and small and on the ocean itself, in that act, intended and designed aspirations and common interests, is manifestly wiser and better; bet to destroy utterly British power in Americ-a, were on the British side. ter fo1· them and-better for us. The Canadians are already tutored in I deny that John Adams, testy; passionate, vehement in speech and self-government. The voluntary transfer of their allegiance to the in action, with an all-consuming love of his country, and well-informed American flag would result in no friction, no conflicts. So, sir, it is as to all that concerned her interests and the advancement and welfare our clear duty, our manife.<>t interests, that in our intercourse with of her people-that this man, in his nef,!;otiations for the treaty of 1783, them, whilst maintaining fully American rights, we should not irri in demanding our admission to this fishing on the ground that it was tate, annoy, or oppress. Such a course will but the more strongly at our rightful share in an acquisition and possession of the British peo tach them to the great power beyond the sea<:;, to which they wm be ple, secured by war, in which we contributed our blood and treasure certain to look for protection and safety. In pursuing this course we more than our due proportion, was in that act on the British side. I but do the work of the British Crown. deny that his no less illustrious son in 1816, when, in resisting British :Mr. President, we may have, it is not unlikely we will have, our own pretensions, baseclmainly ou the position now assumed by the Com troubles, which may force us to secure an extension of our borders, or ii mittee on Foreign Helations and denied by me, namely, that fishing in not our borders the extension of our influence to the south. We have the open sea in the neighborhood of Ne-wfoundland is the common now conditions in our political, social, and industria~ life which never right of all nations. he affirmed as the basis of our rights that the before conf10nted a free people, conditions which might possibly be \ . 6246. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13 1 met with safety for a long time at least in an empire, wherein all the and Southern women, who, whilst yielding a cheerful obedience to the people are subjects, not citizens, and by the iron hand of unsympa- Constitution and laws of the Union, mean for themselves and for their thizing power, exerted through an imperin1 and unrelenting militarism posterity to surrender not one jot or tittle of their inheritance as free n.re reduced to a common level, a common eqnality in political slavery men and free-women, or of ~eir just and rightful equality in American and social degradation. In such a government the hopes, the aspirations citizenship. of the great body of the people reach not beyond the securing of personal IF wAR -coME. safety and that comfort and ease c::oming from the absence of hunger. Mr. President, I ha\e stated frankly my views on the question be- Whether they can be met in safety in a democratic 1·epublic, wherein fore the Senate. "Shall the Senate advise and consent to the r: I ifica the energies of men are so stimulated by liberty as to cause a ceaseless, tion of this treaty?" Its pre-ordained rejection I deplore. Wh:~ t will ever-enduring contest and rivalry for that superiority, that coveted in- in the end result if, rejecting this wise and just treaty, we are turned equality in wealth, social relations, and individual power and influence, over to retaliation, to non-intercourse, to that acerbity nf spirit, that which a.re denied in abstract political rights, :md especially when this inflammation of passions sure to come when two great nations enter into rivalry is intensified by the commingling of heterogeneous and mutu- reprisals and contests for superiority in the injuries they can inflict, I ally repellant, diverse peoples, time alone can determine. I can not, know not. If war come, as seems to be desired by some, then, how~ no man can, foresee the full extent and effect of the dangers which even ever it may come, on what grounds waged on either side, I shall now seem to menace us by the incorporation into the body of American (and the people of l\Itssissippi will) know only thab our country is in citizenship of a race, patient, docile, inoffensive, peaceful though it be, danger. Mississippians will not stop to inquire whether by wiser coun wh9 yet are without ancestral aptitudes for free institutions, without sels, by more moderation, war might have been averted. They will the inherited instincts for self-government, which existing in the Anglo- rally to the SUJ>port of their country as Jtfississippians have never failed 1 Saxon race bas enabled it to cause progress and advancement in free Iin the past to do ~hen called to meet a foreign foe. They will hold institutions to be a steady, onward march for more than a millennium. no conventions to criticise or condemn measures taken by theNational If it shall turn out to be true, as that distinguished and philosophic Go\ernment for defense, nor will they seek to mark with precision a statesman, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS], asserted in 1882, I narrow line for the exercise of the military powers of the Constitution. when advocating the exclusion of the Chinese from this country, that There will not be in all the broad land of the South one single as homoge~eityin a people is a neces...c;ary condition of suc:cess in free in~i- j se_mblage,. o~e sin~le convention, whi.ch, like t~e Hartford Convention tutions,.as shown by all the long reaches of human hiBtory from AriB- • of 1814, Sitting With closed doors, will hold high and solemn debate totle to Webster; if it shall come to pass that Mr. Lincoln shall be I about the conduct of the war. They will hold no convention concern proven to be right indeclaringthatthephysicaldifferencesbetween the ing which it may rightly be said, as was said by John Quincy Adams, two races are such as to forever prevent them from living together in in December, 1.B28, concerning the said convention of 1814- one community on terms of perfect equality, then it will also result that As he who has hitherto enjoyed unrivaled the honors- there will be in the future, when, no man can tell, that arrangements Of being the putative' father of the convention- will be made bv the free consent of both races bv which that clDse con- is now disposed t~ bestow on others the shame of its paternity. ~Iay not tho tactwhich breeds antagonisms and disorder will be obviated. Whether <>;~tensible and the re~l chaTact~r of otbe! incidents attending it be alike di~er- . sified, so that the mam and ulhmate obJect of that a_semb~, though beammg that will be by one means or_another, I do not know. I do know, how- in splendor from its acts was yet in dim eclipse to tho vU!ion of ita most dis- ever, that one ot the wisest statesmen who ever lived in this country, tinguished members. Robert J . Walker, more than forty years ago, pondering th~n on the Sir, Senators from New England may raise the absurd and senseless great problem of African slavery in the UnHed States, or, if you please, clamor that we who favor the ratification of this treaty are taking the on that great crime against human rights, foresaw that it could not be British side; yet if by their folly and perverseness war shall come eternal. And considering what was best for the white people of the ·Mississippi will take that Eide which she took in the last war with Union, best for the unfortunate people held in bondage, be looked with Great Britain. Mississippi was then a Territory. Her population was hope to the regions south of us as furnishing a solution of the trouble. spare, most of her fair land being the home of the savage Indian. In As to whether in the providence of God this solution shall ever be December, 1Sl4, when the British fleet bad captuted or sunk our gun demanded by the best interests of both races I express here and now no boats on Lake Borgne, when they were pushing their ad'\'ance on New opinion. But I will say that in my poor judgment it is the duty of Orleans through Bayou St. John, and Chef Mentuer, when panic seized American statesmen to commit this country to no policy, to no doctrines the inhabitants of that fair city, fearing that they would be the vic of public law which will prevent the American peopleofboth races, of tims of the diabolical watchwordsofthe invader, "Booty and Beauty" all races, from seeking such outlets as their necessities and their inter- for the conqueror, Andrew Jackson, undismayed, and relying on the ests may demand for the teeming millions of inhabitants which shall bravery and skin of his army and the patriotism of his countrymen, in the great future occupy our land. Beforesuchadanger, before such made, among others, two calls for assistance which that great chief a-necessity, if they shall come, as they may come, all Elll'opean jurisdic- tain knew would be responded to. One of these was for the gallant tions, all supposed European rights on this continent must give way. and brave Tennesseeans, under the command of General Coffee, then The fafety of the Republic must be -the supreme law. at Natchez. How these gallant sons of that gallant State of which M:r. President, I am not predicting events; I am not endeavoring Jacksonwasacitizen,andwhoinallourwarshavesorespondedtothe with my wealr and feeble powers to penetrate into the domain of the calls of their conntry as to have won for their mother the proud title unknown and the unknowable. I do not pretend to forecast the future. of the Volunteer State, responded to this call, history has recorded on but in the face of possible and natural dangers felt by the wisest, recog- her brightest page. I will not repeat it now. nizedbythegreatSenatorfrom Vermont, and also byM:r. Lincoln, Iwilsh That other call which Jackson made was un the gallant Colonel to invoke the Senate, notfor a mere temporary advantage, even if it were Hinds and bis squadron of Uississippi Cavalry-the brave soldier not illusory, not for a mere mess of pottage, not for the poor privilege in whose honor bas been named that imperial county of Mississippi of a delusive banquet at the phantom feast set before us by the Com- in which her capital is located. He and his squadron responded, too. mittee on Foreign Relations, to discard American doctrines, reverse Theyhastenedtotherescueofthe beleaugereJcityin thatmannerand American policies, which being recognized and maintained by us would spirit that, through forests, thickets, and swamps, crossing rivers, at least furnish some hope of escape from future troubles and dangers. bayous, quagmires, and morasses, in four days from the receipt of the If, sir, there be any who seek an escape from these possible dan- summons from Jackson, marchingadistanceof230 miles, they were at gers, who would have homogeneity by the amalgamation of races, the thesideofthatgreatcommander. This march, incelerityofmovement, substitution of hybridism for the pure blood oJ either or both races, in the hardships and endurance of the men, is unparalleled in history. they will be disappointed. If, sir, there be any who, believing the Only one other case approached it in -celerity, and that was the pre overthrow of the South in the bte civil war to be a conquest and sub- cipitate flight of General Gates and his few attendants from the battle jngation of the Southern people, shall hope by a policy of repressio~, of Camden in 1781, in which, panic adding wings to their feet, they of unfriendly action by the Federal Government, to drive from then accomplished, in escaping from a pursuing enemy, the distanee of 8Q_ homes and the homes of their fathers the white ra-ce of any one of the miles before the end of the day on which the battle was fought. Southern States, so that it may become homogeneous in being wholly As soon as Hinds and his squadron arrived in New Orleans, without African, I tell them this will never happen. It will never com~ to rest to recruit men or horses, they became not only the eyes of the pass that the white people of the South will ever be driven from their commanding general but a strong arm of our forces, making daily sor ancestral homes, or that remaining there they: will be other than ties, charging the enemy's outposts, and retreating with full informa they and the race to which they belong have ever been in all parts of tion of his position. That squadron ·of Miss:issiJ>pians so conducted the world and in all times, the supreme power in the States they in- themselves in all tlre operations about New Orleans, including the great habit, wo1·king out and responsible for the destinies of these States. battle of the 8th of January, 1815, as to extort from General Jackson, If there be any of the sons of the Southern States so recreant, so after one of the hottest engagements, this compliment: "Your un forgetful of their history and traditions, full as they are of great ex- daunted courage this day has excited the admiration of the whole amples of self-sacrifice for the common good, so seduced by hopes of army." personal advancement, so awed by power, as to falter in the discharge IT~ar shall come, :Mississjp;pi will emulate the example of these, her of the high duties imposed by perils and dangers, as to so seek shelter for sons. To surpass it is beyond the powe;rs of man. himself from the storm which beats on all others, be will by that act of APPENDIX. sep::ml.tion for his individual and personal ends exclude himself from 'l'REATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, 1818• the confidence and companionship of that great mass of Southern men ARTICLE 1. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SE:NATE. 6247 the United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on cer :Mr. HAWLEY. A single remark, :Mr. President. That is sub· tain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic l\Ia.jesty's dominions in America it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants stantially a paragraph of the bill which has passed the Senate. of the said1 United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland; from the said :MESSAGE FROM: THE HOUSE. Ca~e Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores ot the Magdalen Islands, afid also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount J oli, on the southern A message.from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence north Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills; in wardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company: And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and A bill (H. R. 1216) for the investigation of the mining debris ques cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors and creeks of the southern tion in the State of California; part of the coast of Newfoundland, hereabove described, and of the coast of A bill (H. R. 5156) for the relief of Andrew R. G. Smith; and Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawfuJ for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so A bill (H. R. 7186) to authorize the Leavenworth and Rio Grande settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, pl·o Railway Company to construct and operate a railway through the In priet-ors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce dian Territory, and for other purposes. forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, The message also announced that the House had concurred iu the creeks, or harbors of His Britannic.Majesty's dominions in America not included amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 474) for the relief of Gen within the above-mentioned limit8: P1·mrided, however, That the American fish eral G. Cluseret. ermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shel ter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining Jru:MA S. FREE . water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such re Mr. BLAIR submitted the following report: strictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying,, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing tho privileges hereby re The committee of conference on the disagreeing-'ti'Otes of the two Houses on tho served to them. amendment of the House to the bill (S. 431) gra.nting a pension to Emma S. Free, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do Mr. HOAR. I do not wish to detain the Senator from Oregon [:Mr. recommend to their respective Houses as follows: DoLPH], who I understand desires to take the floor at this time, es That tht! Senate recede from its disagreement to the House amendment to pecially after having myself occupied so long the attention of the Senate said bill, and agree to the same. H. W. BLAIR, on this subject. CH.A.S. J. FAULKNER, The Senator from Mississippi who has just addressed the Senate, and .Managers on the part of th~ Senate_ who declined to be interrupted by an interrog~tory during his address, EDWARD LANE, JAS. P. WALKER, stated that a certain doctrine or argument of his founded upon the dis E. N. MORRILL, tinction between the words " right" and "liberty" in the treaty of Managers on the part of the H ou.se. 1783 established his position, and he was polite enough to say "beyond Mr. f'AnnoCK agrees to this report, but is absent at time of signing. honest controversy.'' H. W. BLAIR. I shall take the earliest convenient opportunity to do what I ought The report Wl:ij) concurred in. not to interrupt my friend from Oregon to do now-to show that the REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. argument which the Senator from Mississippi has brought forward was :Mr. P ASOO, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, abundantly refuted and overthrown and expressly denied by John to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9512) for the erection of a public Quincy Adams, the Secreta.ry of State under whom the treaty of 1818 building at Brownsville, Tex., reported it without amendment, and was negotiated, ~nd by Richard Rush, who wrote, himself, the lan submitted a report thereon. guage in the treaty of 1818 upon which the Senator from Mississippi com Mr. PALUER, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was re mented. I will place upon the record of the Senate, after the Senator ferred the bill (S. 2197) empowering and directing the Commissioner from Oregon gets through, the narrative of that whole transaction in of N ~yjgation to register and enroll as American vessels certain sailing Mr. Rush's book, ''Rush's Occasional Productions," and the narra vessels of foreign construction, repaired in the port of Cleveland, Ohio, tive ofit by John Quincy Adams and his remarks upon Jonathan Rus and named the JosephineandM.C. Upper,respectively,reported it with sell. out amendment, and submitted a report thereon. The argument which the Senator from Mississippi has made was made AMENDXENTS TO BILLS. by J onatban Russell in an attack on John Quincy Adams a few years Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, submitted an amendment intended to be after the treaty of 1818. It is all there. Mr. Adams answered it with a communication to the public which absolutely pulverized reasoning proposed by him to the sundry civil appropriation bill; which was re and reasoner alike. I remember an honored relative of my own who ferred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and ordered was a member of the House of Representatives telling me that one day to be printed. John Quincy Adams was in the chair in that body, and John Randolph 1\fr. HAWLEY and .1\Ir. EVARTS submitted amendments itltended was addressing the House and sought to describe the condition of some. to be proposed by them, respectively, to the sundry ciyjl appropriation bill; which were referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and body who bad been thoroughly overthrown and demolished, and with ordered to be printed. that peculiar gesture of his, pointing to the chair, John Randolph said, M:r. PALMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by "Mr. Chairman, he Jonathan Russelled him." him to tl).e bill (S. 1156) to encourage the holding of a national' indus DISTRICT MILITIA. trial exposition of the arts, mechanics, and products of the colored Mr. H.AWLEY. The Senator from Oregon kindly yields to me. I race throughout the United States of America, to be held in the years desire to report from the Committee on :Military Affairs a joint resolu 1888 and 1889; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. tion which I should be glad to have acted upon immediately, because !.Ir. STEWART submftted an amendment intended to be proposed it will hardly be of use if it should be postponed any time. by him to the bill {S. 2042) to establish a United States land court and The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report of the Senator from Con to provide for the settlement of private land claims in certain States and " necticut from the Committee on Military Affairs will be received as in Territories; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land legislative session, iftbere be no objection. Claims, and ordered to be printed. Mr. H.AWLEY. I report back the joint resolution (H. Res. 161) to :mthorize the Secretary of War to issue arms and equipments to the HOUS]! BILLS REFERRED. militia of the District of Columbia. The bill (H. R. 1695) to provide for taking the eleventh and sUbse The PRESIDENT pro ternpm·e. The Senator from Connecticut asks quent censuses was read twice by its title, and referred to the Select that the pending business may be informally laid aside and that the Committee on the.Census. joint resolution be considered as in legislative session. · The bill (H. R. 1216) for the investigation of the mining debris ques .Mr. HAWLEY. I will state the case in a moment. tion in the State of California was read twice by its title, and referred 1\Ir. DOLPH. I will yield with the understanding that if it leads to the Committee on 1\Iines and Mining. to debate I may interpose an objection. The bill (H. R. 5156) for the relief of Andrew R. G. Smith was read The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The Senator will bave. a right to twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. demand the regular order. The bill (H.-.R. 7186) to authorize the Leavenworth and Rio Grande Mr. HAWLEY. I will state the case very briefly. The Committee Railway Company to construct and operate a railway through the In on 1\Iilitary Affairareported favorably a bill to organize the militia of dian Territory, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title, and the District of Columbia. It has ~assed the Senate, and been favor referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. ably considered in the House, but itmaybe impossible to reach it per The bill (H. R. 8662) to accept and ratify an agreement made with haps during this session. In the mean time the House has passed this the Shoshone and B:;mnaek Indians for the surrender and relinquishment joint resolution, which will enable some arms, tents, and camp equi- to the United States of a portion of the Fort Hall reservation, in the • page to be issued to thatmilitia!orthefallencampment, so that it does Territory of Idaho, for the purpose of a town site, and for the grant of not make so much difference whether the regular bill passes now or a right of way through said reservation to the Utah and Northern Rail next December. way Company, and for other purposes,-was read twice by its title, and By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. proceeded to consider the joint resolution. THE FISHERIES TREATY. The resolution was read at length. The P;RESIDENT pro tempo;e. The Senate will again resolve itself . 6248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13, into open executive session and resume the consideration of the fisheries third article of that treaty. Tbeu came the time when the American treaty. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. DOLPH] is entitled to the floor. people, goaded to desperation by the outrages of Great Britain in en Mr. DOLPH. Mr. President, the Senate, under the Constitution, is slaving American seamen, in capturing American vessels, and unable part of the treaty-making power. In the exercise of its functions in to secure by diplomacy, by embargoes, by non-importation laws, non this regard it is independent and should be as free from Executive in intercourse laws, liberty for their commerce to exist, determined no fluence as the Executive in the performance of his purely constitu longer tamely to submit to British aggressions and declared that the tional duties is free from legislative control. The question of the ratifi time had c~me for resistance by all the means which God had placed cation or rejection of the treaty now before the Senate should be de within their reach. The war of 1812 was fought. Commissioners on termined solely upon iti merits. If it is a fair and proper treaty, by the part of the two Governments met and negotiated a treaty of peace. which the rights of the United States are secured and only reasonable The British commissioners set up the contention that the rights of the concessions made upon matters of honest controversy between the two United States in the fisheries on the coasts, bays, and creeks of British governments, the Senate should advise and consent to its ratification, North America and the right of dryin~ and curing fish on the coasts if not, it should reject it. , of NoTa Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labra.dor depended upon the I do not place my opposition to this treaty upon the ground of irregu existence of the treaty of 1783, and fell when the treaty was abrogated larity in its negotiation. No one has claimed, either in the committee by war. or in the Senate, to my knowledge, that it is not properly before the The American commissioners maintained that these fishery rights Sen::tte for consideration upon its merits, and if ratified will not be as were rights existing previous to the treaty of 1783, bad been secured valid as if there were no question concerning the official character of to the United States upon a division of the British Empire, were per the persons who negotiated it on the part of the United States. The manent in their nature, and could no more be lost by the abrogation of reso!ntion offered hy the Senator from Alabama in committee did not all treaties with Great Britain caused by war than our independence, present that questiou alcme. It was calculated to raise questions not the recognition of which was secured by the same treaty. The Amer material in the present status of the treaty, and upon which there is can commissioners being without instructions, it was agreed to omit room fo1· difference of opinion, and to divert attention from the merits from the treaty all provisions concerning the rights of American citi of the treaty. In the committee the motion to lay the res~lution on zens to fish in British waters, and the claim of Great Britain of the the table was made by myself, not because I did not suppose that the right of British subjects to navigate the Mississippi. The effect of this treaty if ratified would be valid and bindinp;, but because I was not omission was to leave the United States in possession of all the rights willing to say that it had been duly negotiated, and thus approve of acknowledged or secured to the colonies by the treaty of 1783, which the manner of the appointment of the American plenipotentiaries with were of such a permanent nature as not to be affected by subsequent out the advice and consent of the Senate. unfr!endly relations between the two countries. After peace had beeu It is not my intention to dwell upon the historical facts connected concluded conflicts naturally arose between our Ii ·hermen and the with the question of our fishery rights upon the coasts of Britis1P North B1·itish authorities, and our fishery rights under the treaty of 17H3 be .America; which bas largely occupied the attention of our Government came the subject of a diplomatic correspondence, in which Mr. Adams, for the last seventy years and is still the subject of controversy with on our part, and Earl Bathurst, on the part of Great Britain, ably Great Britain, and yet as an introduction to what I propose to say con maintained the views of their respective Governments. Finally, in cerning the treaty now under consideration -a reference to the £.'1.cts upon 1818, Mr. Rush, our mini ter to England, assisted by :Mr. Gallatin, which our rights in British waters on these coasts depend and out of negotiated a treaty, the first article of which was as follows: · which the controversies concerning them have arisen seems desirable. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United Prior to the Revolution the inhabitants of the colonies enjoyed in Stutes for the inhabitauts thereof. to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and cre:!ks of His Britan::~ic Majesty's dominions in America, it common with all British subjects the right to take and dry fish on the is agreed between the. high contra cting pa rties tha t the inhabitants of the said coasts of the British provinces inNorth .America. 'rhe glorious struggle United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the I lberty to take fish of every kiud on t.hat part of the southe rn coast which gave birth to a new nation and planted on the shores of theN ew of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the World a government by the people changed their relations to Great w estern and northern coast of Newfoundln.nd from the said Cape Ray to the Britain. Whatever rights they gained by that struggle were acquired Quirpon Islands, on the s!Jorcs of the Mugdalen Isla nds, and also on the coasts, not by the favor of Great Britain but by force of arms. The struggling bays, harbors, and creeks, from :!\fount Joly, on the southern coast of L a brador, to and tbrough the Straits of Belle Js ~e , and thence northwa rclly indeLinitely colonies achieved independence and secured the 1·ights guarantied to along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any or the exclush·e rights of them by the treaty of 1783 by eight years of war waged against them by the Hudson Bay CompRny: And that the American fis hermen shall also have liberty forevet· to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and the powerful Government of Great Britain, conducted in violation of the creeks, of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, above described , and usages of war and of the laws ofhumanity. When victory had crowned of the coast of Labrador; but so soon us the same , or any portion thereof, shall our arms and peace was about to be declared, our commissioners con be settled, it sh all not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fi h nt such p ortion so settled without previous agreement for such ptnpose with the inhab· tended for thefisheryrightswhich had been enjoyed by the inhabitants itants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby of the colonies before the war. The British negotiators•endeavored to renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants induce them to give up the claim. They refused; Grea(Britain yielded, thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts , bays, e~·ee ks, or harbors of His Britannic 1\fajesty's dominions in Amer .I and by the third article of the treaty of September 23, 1783, ""hich rec ica not included within the above-mentioned limits: Pr01Jided, h owever That ognized the independence of the United States, it was agreed- the American fishermen shall be admitt-ed to enter such bays or harbors for the that the people of the United States sllall continue to enjoy unmolested the purpose of shelter and repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all other banks of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the such restrictions s may be necessa-ry t-o preYent their taking , dryiug. or cur sen. where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish, ing fi sh therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby n.nd also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take resen·ed to them. fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen Great Britain by this treaty succeeded in securing a compromise by shall use (but not to dry or cure the sn.me on that island), and also on the coasts, bny~ , and creeks of all othe1· of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, which our in-shore fishery rights and our rights upon the shores of Brit and that the American fishermen shall hay liberty to dry and cure fi sh in any ish American possessions to dry aud cure fish were greatly restricted. of tbe unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, 1\Iagd nlen Islands, W c renounced forever those rights upon the coasts, bays, creeks, and and Ln.brador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled ; but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for t.he said fisher harbors of the British possessions in North America where it was not men to dry or cure fish at such settlement, without a previous agreement for stipulated they should continue. The renunciation clause was insisted that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. upon by our commissioners to show that they bad not abandoned the The right here mentioned to take fish on the banks of Newfound grounds upon which their claims surrendered by the treaty rested, and land, iu the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at se.:'l beyond the territorial to prevent any implication that the rights not renounced were the sub jurisdiction of the British possessionswaswithouli question an inherent ject of a new grant. I think we are agreed upon both sides of this right, of the inhabitants of the United States as an independent nation, Chamber that by this treaty we surrendered to Great Britain valuable and derived no additional strength from the stipulation of the treaty. rights. The history of this controversy previous to this period is ma Whether, as has been contended, the liberty recognized by the treaty terial to the question now under consideration only as showing the of the inhabitants of the United States to take fish on the coasts of New origin and foundation of our present claims to fishery rights within the fmmdland and on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Bri jurisdiction of the British colonial provinces. No one, so far as I am tannic Majesty's dominions in America, and the libe~ty of American aware, except the Senator from Alabama: is prepared to advise or vote fishermeu to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and for the abrogation of the treaty of 1818. creeks in Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, Labrador, etc., were identical Whatever prior rights of the United States were surrendered by that with the possession of 1a.nd and the .demarkation of boundary, and tre.:1-ty, after seventy years of acquiesence it would llardly be consistent whether the treaty in that respect is analogous to a deed of partition or with the honor and dignity of a great nation to repudiate that treaty not, it is certain that these liberties were easements in land servitudes and contend for the rights then surrendered. The fishermen of the in the British territory permanent in their nature, and were no more United States are content to abide by that treaty. I understand that affected by subsequent wars between the two nations than was the title it is the measure of our fishery righ• in the waters within the juris- • to the territory allotted to the United States in the partition of empire 4iction of the Canadian provinces and Newfoundland, and that the only by the treaty. ground for controversy between the two ~overnments concerning these From the ratification of the treaty of 1783 until the wa1· of 1812 there rights is the question of the construction of thn.t treaty. does not appeal' to have been any controversy concerning the fishery What are the rights oftbe United States in British waters recognized rights recognized and secured to the inhabitants of the colonies by th~ by the treaty of 1818? Calling attention again to the fact that the 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 6249 rie;bt of the inhab1tant.8 of the United States to fish in all parts of tJte character should not be submitted to a commission and determined in sea outside of British waters, including the banks of Newfoundland the same manner. The consideration of these claims would involve and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, is a right not dependent upon either the the question of the territorial limit of our fishing rights, the reasona treaty of 1783 or the treaty of 1818, although recognized by the former, bleness and legality of the restrictions made by the provincial statutes nor upon our rights as subjects of Great Britain prior to the Revolution, upon the exercise o,f the liberties of American fishermen in British wa but is a natural right possessed in common by the citizens of every ters secured by the treaty of 1818, as well as the merits of the claims on independent nation. These rights may be stated as follows: the facts of each case. To the extent that the laws under which the 1. The right of the inhabitants of the United States to fish in the seizlires were made relate to commercial pri vifeges, as distinguished from territorial waters of British North America, on the southern coast of the fishing rights of our vessels under the treaty, seizures of Ame_rican Newfoundland, from Cape Hay to the Ramea Islands; on the western vessels for infractions of them, in my judgment, do not constitute the and northern coasts of Newfoundland, from Cape Ray to Quirpon foundation of a legal claim for reparation against Great Britain. I sup !!'!lands; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and on the coasts, bay~, pose it was competent for Great Britain, and the provinces also, to the harbors, and creeks of Labrador, from Mount Joly eastward through extent of their legislative power, to repeal at any time the order in the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely. council by which American ships were admitted to commercial privi 2. The right to dry and cure fish on any of the unsettled bays, har leges in the ports of the British possessions of North America. . bors, and.$!reeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland and The United States bad the same power at any time to discontinue on the coast of Labrador just described, but when the shores become the arrangement made in 1830 for reciprocal commercial privileges and subject to private ownership the right is to be exercised subject to to deny British vessels admission to our ports. And to the extent that agreement with the shore owners for the use of the shore for such pur the British provinces at any time have denied to our fishing vessels or poses. vessels of any class commercial privileges, the dignity and boriorof the· 3. The rights of American fishermen for shelter, for the purpose of United States demanded that the vessels of such provinces should have 1·epairing daruages, and of obtaining wood and water to enter the bays been denied commercial privileges in our ports. and harbors on the coasts of British American ,possessions other than Under the reciprocity treaty of 1854, in addition to the liberty of tak those enumerated above, within the waters of which the inhabitants ing and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American of the United States have a rigbb t-o fish. possessions,. secured to the inhabitants of the United States under the These rights are permanent rights-easements in British territory treaty of 1818, it was agreed that the inhabitants of the United States which can not be destroyed or impaired by legislation either by Great should have the liberty to take fish of every kind except shell-fish on Britain or her provinces, and can not be lost except by voluntary sur the seacoasts and shores and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of Can render by the United States or by conquest by a foreign power. The ada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the right reserved to our fishing vessels in the treaty of 1818 to enter into several adjacent islands, without being restricted to any distance from the bays and harbors of the British coasts in North America, upon which the shore; also to land on such coasts, etc., for the purpose of drying we by the treaty renounced the rigbb to fish, was purely a fishing right nets and curing fish, but not so as to interfere with the rights of pri as distinguished from commercial rights, and is incidental to the rights vate property or with British fishermen in the prior use of any part of of fishing. said coasts. And like privileges. were granted to British subjects upon The questions of controversy which have arisen under the fisheries the coasts, bays, harbors, etc., of the United States north of the thirty article of the treaty are- _ sixth degree of north latitude. As by this treaty fish and products of 1. As for the line of delimitation of the common waters within fish and most agricultural and mineral products of each country were which the inhabitants of the United States have a right to fish from admitted into the other free of duty, there was a cessation of the ag the British waters within which the United States renounced the right gressive acts of the provincial authorities against our fishing vessels, but to take fish; and upon the abrogation ot this treaty in 1866 they were renewed, together 2. As to what are reasonable and necessary restrictions to prevent with the complaints of our fishermen. The Dominion of Canada by an American fishermen from abusing the privileges reserved to them in act of Parliament passed May 22, 1868, and amended in 1870, revised, the waters in which they may not take or cure fish. the laws of the provincial governments, and the governor-general of . The clai~s of the two Governments concerning the line of delimita Canada made an order that thenceforth ''all foreign fishermen shall be tion may be stated thus: prevented from fishing in the waters of Canada.'' Great Britain declares it should be measured 3 miles to the seaward Against these palpable violations of our treaty rights our Seeretary from a line drawn from headland to headland of all bays and gulfs. of 8tate vigorously protested. Then followed the treaty of 1871 for The United States insists that it should follow the coast and be meas the settlement of the Alabama claims, and by which for a period of ured across the mouths of bays only when the distance from headland ten years and for two years after notice by either of the contracting to headland is 3 miles or less. The diplomatic correspondence con parties the article of the reciprocity treaty of 1854 granting to our fish cerning this controversy, in my judgment, is not important to a deci15- ermen the right to t..11ke fish on the coasts of the British North American ion of the question under consideration. It will, it is believed, show possessions and granting to British subjects the right to fish on the that the United States bas always insisted upon its claim in this re eastern seacoast and shores of the United States north of 39° of north gard, and that Great Britain bas not, except in a few instances, under latitude was renewed, and it was provided that for the term of years taken to enforce the headland theory. In fact, I can not find that the mentioned- headland claim was set up until many years after the date of the treaty, Fish oil and fish of all kinds except fish of the inland lakes and rivers falling into them and except fish preserved in oil, being the produce of the fisheries of or was even attempted to be enforced except in the case of the Wash the United State8 or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward's Island, ington and the Argus. The regulations and restrictions of American shall be admitted into each country respectively free of duly. fishing vessels in British 'waters under laws enacted by provincial leg It was agreed that the claim asserted by Great Britain, but not ad islatures have been the fruitful source of contention. mitted by the United States, that the privileges accorded to the citizens In 1819 the British Parliament passed a statute concerning the fish of the United States were g~ater in value than those accorded by the cries to carry out the stipulations of the treaty of 1818. Its provisions United States to British subjects should be submitted to commissioners, appear to have been a reasonable exercise of the right reserved by Great who should determine what compensation ought to be paid by the Britain to make restrictions concerning the exercise of the privilege United States to Great Britain, if any. 'l'his commission met nt Hali secured to our fishermen in British waters by the treaty. From 1819 fax in 1877. The commission disagreed, but the umpire, Mr. Del to 1854 the provinciallegislatures passed various laws relating to Amer fosse, the Belgian minister at Washington, decided that the United ican fishermen in many respects, as it has always been contended by. States should pay to Great Britain the sum of $5,500,0QO. This ar our Government, in violation of the treaty and abridging the rights of rangement cost us over $10,000,000-$5,500,000 in cash and from five our fishermen. Seizures and confiscations of fishing vesselS were made to six millions in remitted duties on fish and fish oil. The United by the provincial authorities for alleged violations of these laws. A States Government, after paymE:nt of the money before the treaty ex recent writer on the subject thus states the grounds of seizure: pired, became so thoroughly convinced that the arrangement was not 1. Fishing within the proscribed limits. beneficial to us that it offered to terminate it, but the British Govern 2. An.choring or hovering in-shore during calm weather without any ment would not consent. ostensible cause, having on board ample supplies of wood and water. We terminated the treaty at the earliest possible moment and found 3. Lying at anchor and remaining inside of bays to clean and pick that we had not only paid over $10,000,000 for the privilege of catch fish. . ing $700,000 worth of fish, but by the admission of Canadian fish free 4. Purchasing and bartering bait and prepa.ring to fish. had built up the fishing interests of Canada and had nearly destroyed 5. Selling goods and buying supplies. our own. Canadian fish being no longer admitted into the United States 6. Landing and transshipping cargoes offish. free, the Canadian authorities commenced the old tactics to secure a The seizures made for alleged infractions of the provisions of these free market in the United States for their fish and fishery products. I laws, which were in violation of the treaty rights of our citizens, no shall not enumerate the outrages perpetrated upon our fishermen, the doubt constitute the foundation of just claims against Great Britain. seizures and confiscations of their vessels, the fines, insults, and indig Some claims on account of such seizures were submitted to and deter nities heaped upon them. The report of the minority of the commit mined by the commission provided for in the convention of 1854. tee contains a long list of them. The common righ~s of humanity were Tbexe appears to me to be no reason why .all other claims of a similar denied to our fishermen in distress. Upon one pretense and another I . - 1 6250 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. Ju~Y 13, OUI' fishing vessels were seized and :fined or confiscated, and in one in- people on account of the termination by the United States Government of the · fla · 1 4} h ul d d f: th t- treatyofWashington on the 1st of Jnly last, whereby fish imported trom Can- stance the A menc..'Ul g was mso en 11 Y a e own rom e mas ada into the United States, and which so long as that treaty remained in force head of an American vessel by a British officer. For my purpose the was admitted free, is now liable to the import duty provided by the general utterances of the present Secretary of State and of our minister to Great revenue laws, and the opinion appears to have gained groUild in Canada that Britain are sufficient. The character of these proc.eedings on the part the United States may be driven, by harassing and annoying their ~ber men, into the adoption of a new treaty by which Canadian fish shall be admitted of the Canadian Government will appear from the following quotatiollS, free. , which might be· multiplied indefinitely. ~1r. Phelps, our minister to It is not necessary to say that this scheme is likely to prove as mistaken in England, in ·a letter to Lord Roseberry, dated J one 2, 1886, concern- policy as it is indefensible in principle. In terminating the treaty of Washing- ton the United States were simply exercising a right expressly reserved to both ing the seizure of the David J. Adams, said: • parties by the treaties itself, and of the exercise of which by either party neither From all the circumstances attending this case, and other recent cases like it, can complain. They will not be coerced by wanton injw-y into the making of it seems to me very apparent that the seizure was not made for the purpose of a new one. Nor wonld a negotiation that had its origin in mutual irritation be enforcing any right or redressing any wrong. As I ha.ve before remarked, it is promising of success. The question now is, not what fresh treaty may or might not pretended that the vessel had been engaged in fishing, or was intending to be desirable, but what is the true and just construction, as between the two na fish in the prohibited waters, or that it had done or was intending to do any ti6ns, of t.he treaty that already exists. other injurious act. It was proceeding upon its regular and lawful business of The Government of the United States, approaching this question in the most fishing in the deep se..'l.. It had received no request, and of course could have friendly spirit, can not doubt that it will be met by Her Majesty's Government disregarded no request, to depart, and was, in fact, departing when seized; nor in the same spirit, and feels every confidence that the action of Her Majesty's had its master refused to answer any questions put by the authorities. It bad Government in the premises will be such as to maintain the cordial relations violated no existing law, and had incurred no penalty that any known statute between the two countries that ha>e so long happily prevailed. imptosed. t . 'bl t th t"'-tth· d th . . · 'I'he Senator from Alabama in his recent speech in the Senate upon 1 seems o me unposs1 e o escape e cone1 us 1 on ua 1s an o er sun1 1ar seizures w.ere made by the Canadian authorities for the deliberate purpo e of the fisheries treaty said: harassing and embarrassing the American fishing vessels in the pursuit of their I did not say in the Senate, as I say now, that e>ery trouble that h::.d arisen, lawful employment. And the injury, which would h ave been a serious one if or will ari e, under the treaty of 1 18, would disappear the moment Congre s committed under ami take, is very much aggravated by the motives whichap- shall repeal the duty on fish. In this opinion I am sure I must have the con pear to hM·e prompted it.. cun-ence of the Senator from Maine [l\1r. FRYEl. Wby did I not then speak out I am instructed by my Government earnestly to protest against these pro- on that question? H was because we were then dealing in the Senate with ceedings as wholly unwo.rranted by the treaty of 1818, and altogether lnconsist- Great Britain, and not with differences of opinion on domestic questions, and ent with the friendly relations hitherto existing between the United States and I thought it hardly fair to add even my feeble influence to stimulate the hope Her MAjesty's Government; to request that the David J . Adams, ll.l}d the other of Great Britain for a. free market for fi h. I want that duty repealed for many .American fishing vessels now under seizure in Canadian porb!, be immediately reasons, the chief one being that it will lower the price and increase the supply released, and that proper orders may be issued to prevent similar proceedings of food to the great body of our industrial classes. in the futu~:e. And I am also instructed to inform you that the UnHed States will bold Her Majesty's Government responsible for all losses which may be The denial of commercial privileges to our fishing vessels in the ports sustained by American citizens in the dispo session of their property g-rowing of British-American posses ions is not because the purchase of provis- fe~~il~~~!! ~:fe~·:r~~i~~~~~~t~~~~~C:. of their vessels lawfully within the ions, supplies, and outfits in such ports would not be beneficial to the merchants and traders of those provinces, but for the purpose of hen- 1\fr. Bayard, in a communic..1.tion to Sir Lionel West, the British min- efiting a more important industrial industry of the Dominion, by plucinti ister, dated l\Iay 20, 1886, said: our fishermen in the pro ecution of the open-sea fisheries at a di ad- And I should fail in my duty if I did not endeavor to impress you with my vantage with Canadian :fishermen and building up Canadian :fishing sense of the ab~olute and instant necessity that now exists for a restriction of the seizure of .American vessels charged with violations of the treaty of 181M to interests, and for the further purpose, :lS it is supposed, of being able the conditions announced by Sir Edward Thornton to this Government in June, to barter such commercial privileges for the admission into the United 1870. States of Canadian fish free of duty. Again, May 29, 1886: That under the mutual arrangement between the United States and Sur:h proceedings I conceive to be flagrantly violative of the reciprocal com- Great Britain of 1830 our ships were entitled to full commercial priv- mercial privileges to which citizens of the United States are lawfully entitled il · th t f B •t• h N th A · th b d bt under the statutes of Great Britain and the well-defined and publicly proclaimed eges In e por s 0 n lS or menca ere can e no ou • authority of both countries, besides being, in respect of the existing conven- Under the proclamation of President Jackson, issued the 5th of October, tlons between the two coUiltries, an assumption of jurisdiction entirely unwar- 1830, in pursuance of the previous act of Congress of May 29,1830- ranted and which is wholly denied by the United States. British vessels and their cargoes are admitted to entry in the ports of the On June 7, 1886: United otates from the islands, province, and colonies of Great Britain on or I earnestly protest against this unwarranted wit,hholding of lA.wful commer- near the American continent, and north or east of the United States. cial privileges from an American vessel and her owners, and for the loss and And in the order in council made at the court of St. James N O\ember llamage consequent thereon the Government of Great Britnin will be held !iable. 5, 1830, it is declared On July 10, 1886: Against this treatment I make instant and formal protest as an unwarranted That the ships of and belonging to the United States of America may import interpret-ation and application of the treaty by the officers of the Dominion of f1·om the United States aforesaid into the British possessions abroad ~oou , the Canada. and the province of No,·a. Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of com- produce of those States, and m:ty export goods from the British posses ions mercial and maritime intercourse existing between the two countries and as a abroad, to be carried to any foreign country whatever. violation of hospitality, and for any loss or injury resulting therefrom the Gov- Bot if this were not so, as the rights of Canadian ye.c;sels in our ports ernmentofHer Britannic 1\Iajest,y will be held liable. are dependent wholly ~pan our legislation, which it is entirely compe- On July 30, 1886: tent for us to modify or repeal at any time, our duty to our :fishermen These are flagrant vio1ations of treaty riahts of their citizens for which the aud our own self-respect demand that either our ships of every class United States expect prompt r emedial action by Her Majesty's Government, shall be admitted to full commercial privileges in the .POrts of the Cana and I have to ask that such instl·uctions be issued forthwith to the provincial officials of Newfoundland and of the 1\lagdalen Islands as will cause the tre:1ty dian provinces or that the commercial rights withheld from any of our rights of the citizens of the United States to be respected. ships by the laws of such provinces sha.ll be withheld from the Yessels Notwithstanding these strong patriotic utterances of Mr. B ayard and of such provinces in the ports of the United States. To follow the ex Mr. Phelps, a treaty is presented to the Senate for ratification which, ample of the Senator from M~a.ine and quote from the most remarkable in my judgment, surrenders the American position concerning. bays discourse on record, if in this regard we shall say to our Cn.nadian and 4arbors and the clear rights of our fislfermen in British waters un- friends: · der the treaty of 1818 ; surrenders our claim for commercial reciproc- For with whatjudgment ye judg-e, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ity, and contains a stipulation that if our fishing vessels a.re gra.nted ye mete, it shall be measured to you again- even partial commercial privileges in Canadian ports we must purchase We can not go far wrong. them with free :fish and :fish-oil; and no provision is made for deter- There is nothing new nor extraordinary in such ~ course. It has been mining the rights of our fishermen and securing for them reparation .the practice of Con~?;ress since the organization of the Government. Sev from Great Britain 1or the seizure and confiscation of their vessels and eral acts of the character mentioned have been passed concerning our for other outrages which Mr. Bayard less than two years ago said were commercial intercourse with Great Britain. flagrant violations of the treaty rights of our citizens. Instead of, as By an ad entitled "Anactconcemingnavigation," approved A.pril18, l\1r. Phelps, in accordance with his illStructions, informed Lord Rose- 181 , the ports of the United States were closed after the 30th of ep- bery would be done, holding- ] tember, 1818, against vessels owned by British subjects arriving from Her l\1njesty's Government responsible for all losses * sustained by any port or place in a colony or tenitory of His British l\lajesty wllich ' American citizens in the disposition of their propertygrowingoutofsearcband by the ordinary ln.ws was closed a crainst vessels owned by citizens of seiz-ure, detention and sale of their vessels lawfully withm the territorial waters 0 of British North America.- the United States. Vessels and cargoes entering the ports of the United the Administration now propose by this treaty to surrender a large States in violation of the act were declared to be torfeited to tqe United part, at least the grounds, of our claims as to territory and our con- States, and the owners, consignees, or agents of British vessels taking tention as to commer:cial rights and to submit to regulations jn clear on board productions of the United States in the ports ther~f, except derogation of the rights of our fishing vessels in British bays and haT- sea stores, were required to give bond not to land them in any "British bors under the treaty of 181 . The purpose for which these outrages colony or territory from which by the ordinary laws vessels of the United are committed can not be misunderstood. Mr. Phelps, our minister States were excluded. to England, in his letter to Lord Rosebery, before referred to, concern- ByanactofCongressentitled "Anactsupplementarytoan acteniitled ing the seizure of the David J. Adams, said: 'An act concerning navigation,'" approved May 15, 1820, it was pro- The real source of the difficulty that has m·isen is well understood. n is to vided that after the 30th day of September of the sn.me year the pC>rts bs fo'llld in Lhe irritation that has taken place among aport.ionofthe Canadian of the United St:l.tes should. be and remain closed against vessels owned ..: . - 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 6251 wholly or in part by a subject or subjects of His Britannic Majesty, is hereby decla.ted illegal, and all vessels and goods so coming or being within the waters, ports, or places of the United States cou~rary to such proclamation coming or arriving by sea. from any port or place in the province of Lower shall be forfeited to U1e United Stat-es; and such forfeiture shall be enforced and Canada, in the province of New Brunswick, in the province of Nova. proceeded upon in the same manner and with the same effect as in the case of Scotia, islands of Newfoundland, St. John's, or Cape Breton, or the de "vessels or goods whose importation or coming to or being in the waters or ports of tlle lJnit~d States contrary to law may now be enforced and proceeded upon. pendencies o? any of them, and from .certain other ports named. Bonds E,·ery person who shall violate any of the pro"\'isions of this :act, or such pr:oc- were required to be given by the owners, consignees, or agents of British lamation of the Pr<'sident made in pursuance h ereof, shall be d eemed gmlty of a misdemeanor, and, ou conviction thereof. shall be punished by a fine not vessels laden with articles the growth of the United States for exporta exceeding sea. results from the equality of rights and the reciprocal independence of na- bay, gulf, or by whatever na.me designated. Our fishermen were wailing for tions." • the w ord, not of exclusion, but of admission to these large bays and golf.s. This fundamental principle being conceded, the converse is evident. Prop erty in and dominion over the sea can only exi t as to those portions capable or An intelligent and able reviewer of this treaty sums up the provisions o. pe1·manent po session i that is, of a. possession from the land, which posses of the first ten articles as follows: sion can only be main tamed by artillery. At 1 mile beyond tbe reach of coast guns there is no po se sion any more than in mid-ocean. Ha.utefeuille elab Articles I to X create an exclusive fishery for the British not consistent with o rates this doctrine as follows: the trea.ty of 1783 nor that of 1818. Our rights in the entire fishery in 1783 were "1\Iaritime dominion stops at the place where continuous possession ends, tho e of o. tenant in common, including the use of the shores for the purposes of where the people who own the shore can no longer exercise power, at the place dryinga.ndcuringour fish, and procuring wood and water, and for repairs. The from which they can not exclude strangers; finally, at the place where the pres mod.ilications in 1818 were a. renunciation of our right to take fi h within 3 ence of foreigners, being no longer dangerous, they have no interest to exclude miles of the No;·a. Scotia. shore, and the accession of the right to dry and cure them. Now the point where the causes which render the sea. susceptible of pri fish on certain south shores of' Newfoundland. vate posses ion cease is the same for all. It is the limit of the power represented The lines and limits in this new plan shut us out from vastly more of ocean by instruments of war. All the space through which projentiles thrown from than did the treaty of 1818. Every .AmeTican statesman, Secretary of State, and the shore pa , being- protected and defended by them, is territorial and subject President who has been brought in contact with this question between 1!ll8 and to the dominion of the power which controls the shore. The greatest range of Mr. Bayard in the autumn of 1887, including Mr. Bayard him elf up to that a ball fired from a. cannon on land is tberefot;e the I imit of the tcnitoria.l sea.. The time, has resisted and refused to consent to the British contention known as the seacoast does not present one straight and regular line; it is, on the contrary, "headland doctrine." Every nmpire before whom the que tiori was heard has almost always broken by bays, capes, etc. If the maritime dominion must decided against the Briti h pretension. British ministers themselves have de be measureri from every one of the points of the shore, great inconvenience clined repeatedly to offer to enforee i~and it bas rested in abeyance ever since would result. H has therefore been agreed in practice to draw an imaginary tbe decisions in the Argus and the Washington cases denounced it as a.n unten line from one promontory to another and to take this line a.s the base of depart able construction. ure for the reach of the cannon. This mode, adopted by almost all natioiM, is .After such a sm·render of territorial rights one would naturally ex only applicable to small bay , and not to those of great extent, which are in pect to :find some compensatory provisions in the remaining articles of reality parls of the open sea, and of which it is impossible to deny the complete assimilation with the great ocean." the treaty, but when we examine the tenth article we find a further Martens thus states the rule with the limitation rejected, as we hav3 seen, by surrender of rights-the rights of American fishing vessels resorting to PhiJlimore: :British American bays and harbors for shelter and other purposes pro "What has been said of rivers and lakes is equally applicable to bays and 1818, unnece~sary r:rolfs; above all, to those which do not exceed the ordinary width of rivers or vided for in the treaty of to exemption from restric the double range of cann.on, At this day all writers agree that straits, gulfs, and tions by municipal laws. These rights or liberties, as has been said, the adjacent sea. belong to hlle owner of the coast. as farM thera.nge of a. cannon are not commercial rights, but are incidentn.l to the greater right recog placed upon the shore." · nized by the treaty of .fishing in ce1·tain British waters. It could not In the editor's note upon this section, contained in the latest edition, the pas sage c·ted above from Hautefenille is quoted with approval. Kliiber expresses have been contemplated by the framers of the treaty of 1818 that in himself in o pyeci e and practical manner: the exercise of these liberties American fishing >e~sels should be sub "To the territory of a State belong those maritime districts and region sus ject to commercial regulations. ceptible of an exclusive possession. In this number are the parts of the ocean which extend withh1. the continental territory of a nation, if they can be com By this article, if ratified, the United States will waive the right of manded by cannon f1·om the two banks, or if their entrance only can be closed their .fishermen to the unrestricted enjoyment of these liberties ex or defended against Yes els (gulfs, bays)." Ortolan is even more emphatic. He says: cept to the extent necessary to prevent the abuse of their exercise, "We should range upon the same line as ports and roads, gulfs and bsys, unu and agree that om fishing vessels in the exercise ofthe rights gu:rrantied all indentations known by other names, when the e indentations made in the by the treaty of 1818 shall be subject to municipal laws and sba.ll con lands of the same state do not. exceed in breadth the double mnge of cannon, or when the entrance can be governed by artillery, or when it is naturally d e form to the harbor regulations provided by the municipal laws of Can fended. by islands, banks, or rocks. In all these cases we can truly say that the ada, and when resorting to such bays or harbors for shelter or repairing gulfs or bays are in the power of the nation which is the mistress of the terri daruages and remaining more than twenty-four hours, exclusive of Sun tory surrounding them." Baron de Cussy examines the subject nt great length. Aftel.' referring to nu day and legal holidays, or communic.'lting with the shore, or when merous trea.tie and laws and to many text-writers, he says: re orting to such bays or harbors within the limit· of established ports "Sovereignty over the territorial waters of the sea reaches a.s far as the ra nge of entry for the purpose of purchasing wood or obtaining water, may of cannon tired from the shore. This sovereignty also extends to m a ritime be It be districts and regions, such as roads, bays, and straits, whose enh'nnce and exit requested to report, enter, and clear. will ob erved that by can be defended by cannon." * * "' "All bays and straits, however, can not this article the fishing vessels of the United States while denied com belong through their entire surface and e:xte nt to the territorial sea. of the state mercial privileges in Canadian ports are to be ubjectcd to commercin1 whose shore they wash. The sovereignty of the state over large bays and in strait. is limited to tho uistance which has been indicated in the preceding restrictions and regulations while the exerci e of treaty rights. :rule." The eleventh article of the treaty provides that United States fishing Tiefl'ter, discussing territorial dominion over the '*'.a, states the general rnle: vessels entering the ports of the eastern and northeastern coa ts of Can " Common usage has establi bed the range of cannon as the distance within ada ai!d of the coasts of Newfoundland under stress of weather or which it is not lawful to tre pass, a line of limit which has not onJy obtained the uffrages of Grotius, of Bynkershoek, of G::Uiani, of Kliiber, but has been other casualty! may unload, reload, tran hip, or sell, subject to the adopted by the laws of many 11ations." " • * "It the strip of sea which customs laws and regulations, all fish on board when such unloading, washes the coast is c.on idered as belonging to the contiguous s tate, if follows, transshipment, or sale is made necessary as incidental to repairs, and for C'l"e n a stronger reason, that waters conneeted with this portion of the sea ought to b e under the dominion of the neighboring state which is able to guard may replenish outfits, provisions, and supplier; damaged or lost by dis them, to defe nd the approach to them, and to hold them under its exclusive u.ster, and in case of death or sickness shall be allowed all needful facili cont roL Sueh me the ports and harbors which form a. means of access to the ties, including the shipping of crews, and that license shaH be granted territory. Some nations, as much by an extension of their rights as for other reasons, b vc arrogated to themselves a. kind of dominion, or all least exclusive to United States fishing ·es els to obtsin by purcha e (not by barter) nse, over certain portions of the high seas. Thus, in England, they include within in established ports of entry on the aforesaid con.sts of Canada or New the dominion of the state, under the name of King's Chambers, the bays situ founuland for the homeward voyage such pro-visions as are ordinarily ated between two promontories." In a. treaty between Great Britain and France of An gust 3,183!>, it is stipulated sold to trading vessels, and when such license has been obtained by that the subjects of either state shall enjoy an exclusive right of fishing within such vessels they shall be allowed such facilities for the purchase of n. d istance of 3 miles from low-water mark along the whole extent of its coru ts. casual and needful provisions and supplies as are ordinarily granted to The nint..b article provides that this distance sha.ll be measured, in the case of bays of which the opening shall not exceed 10 miles, from a straight line drawn rading vessels, that is to say, such supplies as are required while fit across from one cape to another. ting for the homeward voyage. 'V c submit that our proposition is demonstrated, and that the correctness of the Without discussing in this connection the right or duty of the United American claim is established. · The position assumed by the British-home and colonial governments is sustained byonlyone.English text-writer- Philllmore. States to demand fo1• American vessels of every class such privileges in All other modern jurists of authority agree both in the general principle and British American ports as are accorded to Canadian ves els in the ports in it application to the particular case. Such unanimity exists simply because of the United States it is sufficient to say concerning this article that the principle itself is not arbitrary, but is founded upon the es entiat nature and 1 nece sary elements of territorial property and dominion. It follows, therefore, the privileges stipuln.ted for the fishing vessels of the United States are that. taking the limit expressed in the treaty of 1818 as the true one, t.he exterior · such as are by t he eommon pmctice of all nations accorded to vessels se. line along the Cana.d"an coasts hould sweep within all bays and other in of other nations as acts of hospitality and humanity, and that to pur dents who e mouths o.re more than 6 miles wide, leaving portions of their waters without its boundary of exclu ion, and the.refore open and free for American chase or sell such privileges is incompatible with the honor and dignity . citizens and '\'easels to fish therein, and to anchor, prepare to fish, and do aU of a great nation. othe1· nets connected with their business. Any interference 'vith them while But the substantial proposition of the treaty is found in the fifteenth thu lawfully pursuing their avocation, is as much an international wTong as thongh they should be arrested in the verymidstofthe Atlantic or Pacific ::nticle. By the preceding articles the United States gains nothing Oceans. of consequence and surrenders mnch. By the fifteenth article the commercial privileges our fishermen want, and which it is claimed on nch wns the urrderstanding of om commissioners who negotiated the the part of the United States they are entitled to as a matter of good treaty of 1 18. Ur. Rush in a letter to·Mr. Marcy in 1854, explaining neighborhood and upon principles of reciprocity, are offered to us upon the meaning of the treaty, speaking of this very question, said: condition that we will give the colonial fishermen free market for tllerr Tl1es e are the deci ive words in our favor. - They mean no more than tha-t our fish and fish-oil. After all that has been sa.id by the present Secretary fishermen, while fi bing in the waters of the Bay of Fundy, should not go nearer of State and our minister to Great Britain concerning the rights of ol1r than· 3 mile to any of those small inner ba.ysl..~reeks, or harbors which are fishing vessels to coUlmercial privileges in Canadian ports., the Ad known to indent. the coasts of N o>a Scotia. and .New Brunswick. To suppose they were bound t-o keep 3 miles off from a line drawn from headland to the ministration has agn:.ed with Great Britain that if we obtain such headland on the extreme limits of that bay-a line which might measure 50 privilege hereafter we shaD purchase them with the remission of duties miles or more, according to tbe manner of drawing or imagining it-would be upon Canadian fish and fish-oil. The duties on Cana.djan and New a most unnatural supposition. Similar reasons apply to all other large bays and gulfi . In signing the t reaty foundlaml :fish for the year ending July 1, 1887, amount to $611,- we believed that we retained the right of fishing in the sea, whether called a 937.64. 1888. ~CONGRESSIONAL REOOE:D-SENATE. 6255 Had fresh fish been subject to the same duty as salt fish the duties the regulations to oe communicated to Her Majesty's Government prior • on the same for tne year would have amounted to $230,126. The to their taking effect, which is justly offensive to our fishermen, and duties remitted on salt fish and fish-oil, with the increased importation the suuenderof the right of our :fishermen to transship cargoes under the in the future, would approximate a million of dollars a year, while the provisions of Article XXIX of the treaty of 1871. But I will not fur admission of Canadian and Newfoundland fish and fish-oil free of duty ther discuss its provisions. would, as it did under the treaty of 1871, build up the Canadian fish It is a mistake to suppose that the pending treaty, if ratified, will ing interests at the expense of our own. Notwithstanding this Sena remo-ve the grounds of misunderst-anding between the two countries as tors on the other side- of this Chamber intimate that fish will be put to our fishing rights in Canadian waters. So far from settling points upon the free-list if this treaty is rejected. I will inform them that, in of difference between the two nations so as to prevent future misunder my judgment, that is not the way to secure free fish for the Canadian standings, it, in my judgment, multiplies questions for controversy. fishermen. The ratification of this treaty, surrendering to Great Britain The old question of what are necessary ancl reasonable regulations to our claim for commercial privileges for our fishing vessels unless pur prevent the abuse of their pririleges by our fishermen in British waters chased by free fish, would lay the foundation for placing fish on the will be still a subject of controversy, ancl by renouncing all claim of free-list. The Senator from Alabama in his recent speech declared right to fish in the great bays named in the treaty and in other bays himself in favor of the admission of Canadian fish free of duty. He where the width is 10 miles and under from headland to headlana, need not have made the announcement. The fact that he supports the area of the waters from which our fishermen are excluded, and this treaty was sufficient evidence as to his position upon that subject. within which the Canadian authorities will enforce legislation to annoy The admission of fish free is the natural sequence of the ratification of and drive them out, is greatly increased, and, as we heard from the this treaty. No doubt the only reason why a stipulation for the ad Senator from Maine, the danger of accidental invasion of British waters mission of Canadian fish into the United States duty free was not in and of infractions of Canadian laws is greatly augmented. The un serted in the treaty was that .stated by our negotiators in their reply usual tides, strong currents, and prevailing fogs-which for long periods to the proposition of the British plenipotentiaries, who proposed- will make it impossible for our fishermen to distinguish the headlands That with the view of removing all causes of difference in connection with of bays at the distance from shore required by the new delimitation, the fisheries it is proposed by Her Majesty's plenipotentiaries that the fishermen all add to the risk and danger of our fishermen in prosecuting their of both countries shall have all the privileges enjoyed during the existence ot calling in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and navigating those waters. the fishery articles of the treaty of 'Yashington, in consideration of a mutyo.l n.rrangement providing for greater freedom of commercial intercourse between The fifth article of the treaty adds a new subject for evasion and mis · the United States, Canada., and Newfoundia.nd. construction by the British authorities. It provides that nothing in the treaty shall be constrned to include within the common waters To which the United States commissioners replied: such interior portions of any bays, creeks, or harbors as can not be While continuing their proposals, h~reto submitted on the 30Lh ultimo, and reach€d from the sea without passing within the 3 marine miles men fully sharing the desire of Her Britannic Majesty's plenipotentiaries to remove all causes of difference in connection with the fisheries, the American plenipo tioned in Article I of the convention of October 20, 1818. tentiaries nre constrained after careful consideration to decline to ask from the "\Vhat does this article mean? When is the test to be made-at high President the authority requisite to consider the proposals conveyed to them or low water? What is the draught of the vessel by which the test is on tllc 3d instant as means to the desired end, because the greater freedom of commercial intercour:;e so proposed would necessitate a.n adjnstment of the to be m:1de, or is there a different rule for vessels of different draughts, present tariff of tbe United States by Congressjonal action, which adjustment so that one ves el will be excluded and another admitted; or will Gr~t the American plenipotentiaries consider to be manifestly impracticable of ac Britain claim that where the channel usually navigated by vessels en complishment through the medium of a treaty now existing. tering a bay is nearer than 3 miles from either shore, all vessels are D~es any one believe that the British plenipotentiaries in negotiating to be excluded? Not only does the treaty add to the questions for this treaty did not confidently expect that Congress would remove the controversy with Great Britain and her dependencies, but it leaves duties on fish and fish-oil, and that the fifteenth article of the treaty other important .and serious matters of difference between the t~o would become operative? Governments unadjusted for future negotiation, arbitration, or settle What becomes of the statement of Mr. Phelps to Lorcl Rosebery ment by other means. The question of the seal fisheries in the Behr that the scheme of Canada to drive the United States "into the adop ing Sea, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and the Nicaragua Canal, the tion of a new treaty by which Canadian fish shall be admitted free acquisitions and threatened acquisitions of territory by Great Britain ~: "''" * is likely to prove as mistaken in policy as it is indefensible in proximity to our shores are all left M causes for irritation, contro in principle?" Sir, I am much mistaken in the temper of the Amer versy, and pretext for war if either country, as some Senators suppose, ican people if they will submit to be ·driven into such a concession or desires it. yield to demands attempted to be enforced by such means. Great The Senator from Alabama, in his recent speech, said: Britain, to make a market for the productions of British India, forced l\Ir. Blaine, I\Ir. EVARTS, l\Ir. SHERMAN, and l'llr. Gresham were all members the opium traffic upon China at the point of the sword. To swell her of cabinets, and two of them were Secretaries of State while discussion, \Thich nlways implies negotiation, was being conducted on these same questions. The reveaues she monopolized the liquor traffic in British India aud added wrong3 went on; tile people suffered ; the diplomats quarreled, as lo\•ers clo, to the wretchedness of the impoverished inhabitants by spreading iu only to proYe the depths of an inner love that no surface storm can reach, but tempemnce among them. She assisted in the collection of the debts they still mildly discussed a treaty and hid away all thoughts of war from their peaceful contemplations. Their repose, which argued an indifference to the of her citizens in Egypt by tbe intervention of her ironclads. But un wrongs then exii;ting, is in strange contra t with their present wild and sudden less the American people have hopelessly lost the spirit which animated . fury, excited by those wrongs. them in L776 and 1812 she will never succeed by harassing and annoy I apprehend that the ''wild a.nd sudden fury'' referred to exists only ing our :fi.sbermen in driving the United St3tes into the admission of in the rhetoric of the Senator from Alabama. The position of the Re Canadian fish free. - publican Senators to-day is the position of the whole Senate and of The President, in his message transmitting the treaty to the Senate, both Houses of Congress and, ns was claimed by the Senator, of the Ad says that by this treaty •' the uninterrupted navigation of the Strait of ministration but a little over a year ago. But what are the facts con Canso is expressly and for the first time affirmed.'' This is a mistake. cerning the connection ot Republican administrations with the fish As a mutter of international law Great Britain never bad any right to eries question? interrupt tile free navigation of the Strait of Canso by the fishing or Wben Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, the reciprocity treaty of other vessels of the United States; but there is nothing in this treaty 1854 was in force, and continued in force until W66. During that time that can be construed as an abandonment on the part of Great Britain there was no controversy between the two Gi:>vernments upon the ques of any contention to the contrary. The language of the treaty is: tion. The aggressions against our fishermen ceased when Canadian AnT. IX. Nothing in this trenty shall interrupt or nffect the free navigation of fish were admitted free. Before the termination of the reciprocity treaty the Strait of Onuso by fishing vessels of the United States. the Bl"itish Government had directed that American fishing vessels That is, nothing in the treaty is to be construed as a renunciation by should not be interfered with unless they were found within 3 miles the United States of its claim to the free navigation of the strait. This of the shore, or within 3 miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a provision was evidently intended to prevent the delimitation in the bay or creek less than 10 geographical miles in width. By a letter treaty of Chedabucto Bay, which forms the southern entrance to the from the colonial department of the admiralty, dated April 30, 1870, Rtrait of Canso. from being construed into an abandonment by the and by instructions from the admiralty dated May 51 1870, British na United State!} of its right to navigate the strait. The rightoftheciti val officers were directed- .zens of the United States to the free navigation of the Strait of Canso Not to seize any [American fishing] vessel unless it is evident it can be clearly doe3 :not depend upon treaty stipulation. The straib connects the At proved that the offensive fishing bas been commltted and the vessel captured lantic Ocean with the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the navigation of both of within 3 miles of land. which are free to our fishermen and to all the world, and they have In short, the British Government, without aba1:1doning its claim to under the a<.;knowledged principles of international law the right of the headland theory, directed that it should not be enforced, but the free passage through it. · free market in the United States for Canadian fish having been lost by There are other things in this treaty and things omitted from it which the termination of the reciprocity treaty, the Canadian Dominion in shonlu cause its rejection by the Senate; among them the extraordi 1868 and in 1870, by legislation which clearly violated our treaty rights, nary provision of Article XIII, providing that the Secretary of the Treas renewed the controversy. The diplomatic contro'fersy concerning our ury shu 11 rna ke regulations for the conspicuous exhibition by any United fisheries rights was merged in the treaty of 1871, which mainly related States fishing vcsael upon each bow of its official number, and requiring to Alabama claims, but by the provisions of which all grounds of con- - • 6256 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 13, troversy were once more removed by the admission of .fish and the without any further legislation. If any one were to ask me what provision of a treaty I would frame to compose and settle any question·of fundamental law products of fish duty free into the United States for another period of between us and Great Britain in respect of the fisheries, I could not suggest it, twelve years. When that treaty was terminated the administration or if I were asked to propose an amendmentto the statutes of the United States. was Democratic, and is entitled to the credit, or must bear the blame, so as to put the control of this intricate subject more completely in the hands of as the case may be, of subsequent negotiations. our own Government, I could not frame the amendment to the statutes. · I would not know how to do it I believe that both the treaty stipula~ions and The cenator from .Alabama takes the position that the rejection of this the situation under the statutes are about as complete as we are ever able to treaty would close the door to negotiation, and adopts a line of argu make them. There may be other interests, and there are other interests lying between the people of the British possessions and the United States t.bat I would ment C.'llculated to alarm the country by intimating that the alterna liRe very much indeed to see promoted by further negotiation, but I can not tive to the ratification of the treaty is war with Great Britain. It will call to mind, there is no suggestion to my mind of, any improvement that we be interesting to contrast his recent utterances as to the necessity for could make under existing conditions of our rights in the fisheries of that a treaty with Great Britain and the danger of commercial retaliation northeastern coast. with some remarks made by him in the Senate on the 13th of April 1\ir. GEOR* GE. Would* it not* be well to "'base the right* to buy* ice, bait,• and all 18>36, during the discussion of a resolution which passed the Senate on that sort of thing, on the interpretation of the law ? that day by a vote of 35 yeas to 10 nays, and which is as follows: 1\fr. MoRGAN. Ice and bait are not mentioned in this treaty. Mr. GEORGE. I know they are not. Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate, the appointment of a. commission Mr.l\10RGAN. Ice and bait are therefore to be treated as articles of commerce. in which the Governments of the United States and Great Britain shall be rep If we have any right to get ice and bait there,it is under the commercial privi· resented, charged with the consideration and settlement of the fishing rights of lege extended t<» us by the statute of Great Britain. the two governments, on the coasts of the United States and British .North Mr. GEORGE. Which Great Britain has a right to interpret for herself. America, ought not to be provided for by Congress. Mr. MoRGAN. Interpret for herself until we come to our right to interpret, and The Senator said: then we say," If you interpret it in tba.t way we interpret our statute so and so." In listening to the remarks of the Senator from 1\iaine, and also in what in Mr. GEORGE. That. is retaliation. vestigation I have been able to give this subiect, I am unable to ascertain that Mr. MoRGAN. And it is all you can make of it. there is really any unsettled question between the United States and Great )fr. GEORGE. :U does not come to any agreement. Britain in regard to the fisheries of the northeastern coast. I have inquired of Mr. MoRGAN. It would hardly be expected, I think, that the diplomatic pow Senators who have had long experience in the diplomatic affairs of the country, ers of two great governments should enter into a. negotiation to determine the to ascertain, if I could, whether there was any open question of damages, a.uy distinction between ice and bait on one side and bacon and flour on the other claim of damages arising between the Governments respectively out of any sup as articles of commerce; neither of them is mentioned in the treaty, but I should posed breach of our fisheries treaties or our fisheries laws; and I can hear noth think it was unfortunate for the cidlization ofthis age, especially I should think ing of that kind. The Halifax Commission seems to have settled for good and it unfortunate for the cl1aracter of the publicists of this age, if they Rhould find all every controversy, sounding in damages at least, which has been promot-ed it necessary to interpret the meaning of ice and bait so as t.o exclude them within or urged by the citizens of the countries on either side. the commercial list, when everybody would admit that flom· and bacon are in Those considerotions out of view, the next question would be whether there cluded in the commercial list. is any want of certainty in our treaty relations with Great Britain upon this Whatever is legitimate traffic, whatever is not contraband, is lawful traffic in subject. I conceive that there is no want of certainty in our treaty relations, any port to which you have the lawful right of access; and if His ice and bait and there is scarcely room for a difference in interpretation of what our treaty it is just as much commerce as if itwasfloura.nd bacon. You can not. claim ice relations actually are. The two treaties which have settled t.he actual and what and bait under the treaty, you can not claim flour and bacon under the treaty, we might term the permanent rights of the people of the United States and of but beyond ,question a. merchant ship has the right to go there and buy flour t.he Dominion country in regard t<» the fisheries are the treaties of 1783 and 1818. and bacon and a. fisherman has the right to go there and buy flour and bacon if No other treaties we have made at all in respect to the fisheries have under also he is a commercial ship, for a. fisherman may have two characters, and taken to define the permanent, enduring rights either of the British people or every one of them I believe has two characters. One is a. business or voca tion of our people in respect of the fisheries. We have had two other treaties on of catching fish, and the other is of dealing in freights or in merchandise, traffic, this subject, the treaty of 1854 a.nd the treaty of 1871, but they were both tem barter, or exchange just as they wish. We do not send any ships out of our porary m their character and both made liable to be suspended by the action of ports, as I understand, exclusively for the purpose of fishing, but we arm every either government after they had run for ten years, and both have been abro one of them with a sea pass and give them the protection of an enrollment or a gated. So that the field is entirely clear in respect of the actual state of treaty registry, so that they are American ships in every sense of the word and com- ' relations between the United States and Great Britain, and those treaty rela mercial ships in every sense of the word. tions rest upon the treaties of 1783 and 1818. Now, Mr. President, I beg to call attention again to the treaty of 1818 and to * * * * * * insist that the proviso which is found in the latter part of Article I was never We took the subject up de novo, and in that treaty of 1818 we yielded certain intended for the purpose of disc1·iminating against American ships and denounc very important rights which I have just called to the attention of the Senate, and ing American fishermen or putting them under any bad character, casting any we had parceled out to us some other rights in perpetuity. I will call attention imputation or reproach upon them, but it was intended to provide for them to Article I of that treaty to show exactly what we yielded and what were privileges that at that time did not exist in the hands of ordinary commercial tained; we did not gain anything. ves ~ els-a. favored class of ships under the treaty, a class of ships favored be "Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United cause of the advantages which they brought to the people liviJJg upon that States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, northern coast. bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic 1\iajesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said The Senator from Alabama says: United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic The committee having decided without the aid of a. single vote of the minority J1,1ajesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast against a. resolution to discuss this treaty in open session, the minority had the of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the right to suppose that this attitude would be adhered to. west.ern and northern coast of Newfoundland." That appears to be a. grant in perpetuity. The Senator will remember that while the resolution offered by him "From the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Mag self relating to the manner of the appointment of the American pleni dalen Islands, and also on the coast.s, bays, harbors,·and creeks, from 1\iount potentiaries, and set forth in the minority report, was under consider Joli, on the southern coast of Labrador, t<» and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prej•!dice, how· ation, he strongly indicated a disposition to favor the discussion of the ever, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company." treaty in open session. I certainly regarded what he said, and I think All these rights were granted to us in perpetuity on that boundary, that defi every other membel," of the committee did, as indicating that if the con nition of the limit- "And that the American fishermen sha.ll also have liberty forever to dry and sideration of the treaty was not to be divested from the question of the cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part regularity of the appointment of the so-called plenipotentiaries who of the coast of N ewfoundla.nd, hereabove described, and of the coast of Labra assisted Secretary Bayard in its negotiations, he should vote ior open dor; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure.fishat such portion so settled sessions. The Senator was not alone in making such an intimation. without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, He will remember also that when the vote was first taken in the com or possessors of the ground." mittee upon the resolution for open sessions it was adopted, three mem That was what was granted to us, or rather it was what was left of our rights under the treaty of 1783. Now comes the part that we yielded: bers of the majority and three members of the minority, including the "And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore en Senator from Alabama, voting for it; and that it was afterwards recon joyed or claimed by the.inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within sidered on account of strenuous opposition of the Senator from Ver 3 marine miles of anv of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America. not included within the above-mentioned mont. limits: Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be admitted t<» Does not the Senator also know that it has been stated upon this enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages floor by Senators on that side of the Chamber that they had caucused therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to upon the question whether the treaty should be discussed in open ses prPvent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner sion, and that they were nearly equally divided upon the.question, and whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." does he not also know that their course upon the question is in accord That I consider the treaty foundation in regard to the fisheries between the United States and Great Britain. It seems to me a very clear one. I can ance with a caucus understanding, and that the same caucus consid scarcely understand how it is the subject of misconstruction or misunderstand ered the merits of the treaty? It comes with a poor grace under such ing at all. It will be observed that in this proviso the language employed and circumstances for Senators now to talk about caucus decrees and of the the evident purpose of it was to extend to our fishermen a peculiar privilege in the bays, harbors, inlets, and creeks into which they might resort, in favor of change of position of Senators upon this side of the Chamber upon the our fishermen. There is nothing in that article which I have just read to indi subject of open sessions. If thic; treaty is a fair treaty which can stand cate that the fishermen of the United States were considered in any sense a. upon its own merits, and will bear discussion, why is all this complaint piratical :people or a people who were intruding upon the rights of the people of the Bntish-.A.merica.n provinces; that their traffic was in any sense an un about the discussion of this treaty in open session? Why are Senators lawful traffic or injurious t<» the people with whom we traded. On the contrary, on that side of the Chamber desirous of postponing the consideration this very privilege and license of ente1·ing into t.heir bays was given to us for of the treaty until December? Why so much talk about war with the purpose of promoting the welfare of the people along the coast of the British Great Britain if the treaty is rejected? ·Why is the Republic. Is it possible that the objection to open session is that certain Sena days, with their great wealth and resources and increased population.?. torsfeelcompelled to stand bytheAdministration and sustain the treaty, so degenerated that it is a legitimate argument addressed to Unitea . knowing that it is an abandonment by the United States of the contro States Senators charged with the grave constitutional duty of advising versy concerning the :fisheries, and will not bear inspection? and consenting to a treaty with a foreign nation that if the treaty is Mr. President, if I were to vote against this treaty because it has not ratified, and, as they believe would be the case, the rights of the been negotiated by a Democratic President, or for any other political United States basely yiel~ed, it would be the occasion for war? reason; or if, believing as I do that it surrenders valuable rights secured I do not believe that the American people have so degenerated and by the treaty of 1818, that it purchases partial commercial privileges would be willing to purchase peace upon such terms. When it comes in Canadian ports for our :fishing vessels and estops us from withdraw to pass that the most important acts of this the highest legislative ing t.he full commercial privileges now enjoyed in the ports of the body in the country are controlled by fear of foreign war, or by threats United States by the fishing vessels of the Canadian provinces when, of Executive proceedings which will involve the country in financial as I think, we should either have for our fishing vessels full commer disaster and ruin, and the business interests of the country in ba.nk cial privileges without purchase, or give to Canadian fishing vessels in ruptcy,insteadofby thedeliberatejudgmentofSenators exercised under our ports only such commercial advantages as we ourselves enjoy in the sanction of their official oaths unbiased by fear and uninfluenced the Canadian provinces, I should vote for it for fear that the President by Executive dictation, our republican institutions will indeed be in will, if the treaty is rejected, use the power of reciprocity, or retalia danger, but the danger will be from within and not from without. tion, if you please, w]:p.ch Congress has placed in his hands to be used But, sir, I do not fear a war with Great Britain. I believe the sen in his discretion, in such a manner as)o unnecessarily interfere with timent of the two countries in favor of peace and of peaceful measures the commerce and busincl;s of the conn try and to produce bankruptcy for settling differences is so great as to prevent a resort to the arbitrament and ruin to our commercial and business interests, I should be un of war. Besides, sir, Great Britain will not resort to war with us, be worthy of the position I hold. And, eir, if I should vote for the sur cause it is not to her interest to do so. She has everything to lose and render of American riglits proposed by this treaty for another reason nothing to gain by such a war. England aspires to be the workshop of which has been urged upon the otl;ler side of this Chamber, namely, the world. Her markets are in every part of the civilized globe. Her that the rejection of the treaty may be made a pretext for war against commerce whitens every se.:'\. Her possessions are found on every con us by Great Britain, I should be no less recreant to the duty I owe to tinent. Her merchants, her manufacturers, her ship-owners, her bank my constituents and the country. ers and her capitalists, her artisans and laborers are all interested in Sir, our battles with Great Britain will be battles of diplomacy. She preserving peace with us. We do not want war. Even if fully pre will get by-diplomacy all that we are weak enough to yield, but the pared for war, it would be a national calamity. The defenseless condi lessons taught her by experience have not been forgotten, and she will tion of our coasts, the exposed cond.ition of thousands of millions. of de 1·eserve the contest of arms for nations of less strength and fewer re structible property in our great seacoast cities, and the unprotected con sources. From the close of the Revolution and the treaty of peace of dition of our coastwise commerce would, in the event of war, at first 1783 until the pegotiation of this treaty there has been one continual cause us great loss. While I am free to admit that with our exposed diplomatic battle between the United State~ and Great Britain. If she coast and unprotecied coastwise commerce we are not prepared for a war has yielded to our just claims it has been foot by foot. Treaties were with Great Britain, I am equally certain that she can not afford a war no sooner made than ambiguities were claimed to exist or breaches on with us, for whatever damages at the commencement she might be able our part alleged to justify her refusal to execute them and to lay the to inflict upon our exposed seaports, in the end we would come out of , foundation for a new treaty and the further exercise of her genius for the struggle able to make her pay the cost of the war and for the dam diplomacy. ages she had inflicted, while she would come out with the loss of :ber By the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain the independence of the Canadian provinces and of her extended and valuable commerce. ·- United States was recognized and a partition of empire agreed upon; The fortified naval stations at Halifax and Bermuda and Esquimalt but in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty she held on to her are a menace to our commerce and seaport cities; but, on the other fortified posts in our northwestern territory, using them as a base from hand, her most important colonial possession is divided from our terri which to stir up hostility among the sa.v!tge tribes against us, evidently tory by an imaginary line 3,000 miles in extent. No forts can protect with a view of seizing a favorable opportunity to renew the struggle. the Canadian frontiers, and her great ironclads can not protect her She not only persisted in this wrong, but pretended to a right to retain commerce in a hundred seas. At the call of even this pro-English Ad po~ession of the posts, alleging that the United States had broken the ministration, in case of war with Great Britain, armed men from e\ery treaty by permitting the States to place obstacles in the way of the State and Territory along the Canadian border would spring into the collection of English liebts. In short, it took another treaty-the field to make the conquest of the provinces, and a few months of hos treaty of 1..794-to secure the surrender of the northwestern posts by tilities would witness on every sea where a British merchant ves the British Government which was stipulated for in the treaty of 1783. sel was to be found an American privateer intent on securing in The settlement of our northern boundary, which by the treaty of 1783 demnity for the damages inflicted upon our commerce and unprotected was definite enough, required years of negotiations and treaty after coasts. treatv. Again, sir, while war is undesirable and would be a national calam After a controversy of nearly half a century we entered into a treaty ity, and considered in itself is a brutal, barbarous practice, there are with Great Britain for the settlement of· the Oregon boundary ques some things more to be dreaded than war. A nation can emerge from tion, a settlement in which, in my judgment, we were overmatched by a costly and sanguine war with its honor untarnished, with its self-re British diplomacy and surrendered rights which never should have spect unimpaired, its love of liberty intensified, and the foundations of been yielded and the consequence of which to us and the value ofwhich its prosperity strengthened, but when to avoid the supposed necessity to the British Government are just now beginning to appear. The of maintaining its rights it basely yields to unjust demands it loses its draught of the treaty was prepared by the British ministry and the own self-respect and the_respect of other nations. treaty was neither obscure nor ambiguous. It fixed our boundary at · 1\Ir. President, in 1776 thirteen feeble colonies, with three millions 40° north-latitude from the Rocky :Mountains to Puget Sound, and of people, without armies and without resources, declared their inde thence along" the middle channel which separates the continent from pendence of Great Britain and maintained the struggle with undaunted Vancouver's Island, and thenc~ through the straits of Juan de Fuca courage and unparalleled sacrifice until the mother country was will to the Pacific Ocean." The Canal de Haro. was the widest and deep ing to treat with them for a separation. The great prize of peace and est channel between Vancouver and the continent, the one evidently independence for the struggling colonies was within reach. The Brit called for by the treaty, and yet Great Britain set JlP a claim to the ish commissioners sought to induce the American negotiators to ~ive Sa.n Juan Islands and other islands south and east of this channel, up their :fishery rights on the British colonial coast':! of North America, and declared that under any circumstances she would maintain the but great as the inducement must have been, John Adams said, "I . sovereignty of them, and sought to ~tablish the Rosaro Straits, named will never put my hand to any article without satisfaction about the and placed upon the English admiralty charts after the treaty was made, :fisheries,'' and Great Britain yiel(l.ed. as the boundary line, and it took a quarter of a century of diplomacy Contrast the reply of John Adams just quoted with the terms of this and an arbitration to settle the boundary in Puget Sound in accord treaty. Is it possible th~t the American· people have so degenerated ance with the plain stipulations of the treaty. during more than a century of prosperity that a nation of 65,000,000 If it were true, which it is not~ that the rejection of this treaty by of people, with unbounded resources, with a full Treasury, occupying the Senate would be made the pretext by Great Britain for a declaration a commanding position among the nations of the earth, able to eom• of war against the United States, that fact should not receive a mo tnand respect and to enforce its rights everywhere, the cust:>dian of the ment's consideration by the Senate. liberties and rights won by the swords of our Revolutionary sires, is Can it be that a people who in their infancy threw off the British willing to purchase hospitality.from Great Britain or her colonies, to yoke, and by a brave struggle and heoric sacrifices achieved their in buy immunity for her citizens from the aggressions of the Canadian dependence, who in 1812 took up the gauge of battle against Great Government in violation of treaty rights, or from fear of British iron Britain and maintained their rights against British a~rgression, and in clads is ready, without an adjudication of. her rights, or rather in the other times and under other administrations never shrank from assert face of an adjudication in our favor, tamely and voluntarily to surrender ing and maintaining their rights upon land and sea wherever the em the liberties in British waters secured to us by the Revolution as we blem of our nationality was of right displayed, have in these later have claimed them for seventy years? XIX-392 • 6258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J ULY 13·: I do not believe it. The Senator from Alabama S3YS though his lli. TELLER. It refers to some particular property? statement is contradicted by his vote: ' J\1r. CALL. It does. I am not averse to opell discussioll of this treaty,becs.use I know thut the im The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection to the pres mense interest~ of th~ great popu!niions contiguous to Canada and along the ent consideration of the r solution, the question is on agreeing to the Great Lakes will considerately weigh every fact that bears on this controversy. same. The Republican side of this Chamber have shown by their votes that The resolution was agreed to. they are ready to let the people of this country, not only along the Mr. FAULKNER. I move that the Senate adjourn. Great Lakes but everywhere throughout our dolflain, hear the discnss The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 22 minutes p. m .) ~on as to the .merits of this treaty and pass judgment upon their action the Senate adjourned until Monday, July 16, 1888, at 12 o'clock m. m regard to It. They have too mueh confidence in the intelligence of the American j)eople to think for a moment that they can by assertion or sophistry be made to believe tha.t the alternative presented to the Senate by the Administration is the surrender proposed by this treaty HOUSE OF R'EPRESENT.ATIVES. or 'Yarwit~GreatBrit.a in, and too much confidence in their patriotism, FRIDAY, July 13, 1888. national pnde, and self-respect to think that if they could be made to so believe that even then they would be willing to make the surrender. Tho House met at 11 o'clock a.m. The J ournnl of t,he proceedin_gs of yesterday was read and approved. PROPOSED .ADJOURNM.EXT l'O MONDAY. During the delivery of 1\fr. DOLPII's speech as given above, STATISTICS OF !1\IPOP.TS, ETC. lli. PUGH said: Will the Senator give way for a minute to allow The SPEAKER laid before the House the joint resolution (S. R. me to submit a motion? 99) providing for the printing of the portion of the annual report of Mr. DOLPH: Certainly. - the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on Commerce and Navigation fo r J\fr. PUGH. I move that when the Senate adjourn to-day it adjourn the year end,ing June 30, 1887, entitled n .Annual report of the Chief to meet on Monday next at 12 o'clock. of the Bureau of Statistics in regard to imported merchandise entered The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEP.RY in the chair). The Sen for consumption in the United States, with amounts of duty and rates ator from Alabama moves that when the Senate oojoum to-day it be of duty collected; which was read a first and second time, andreferred to meet on Monday next. tQ the Committee on Pl"i.nting. "' 1\ir. CHACE. :Mr. President, I suppose it is a foregone conclusion LEAVE OF .A.BSEXOE. that that vote will be passed-- 1\Ir. COGSWELL, by unanimous consent., obtained leave of absence The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable, as the for one week, on account of personal reasons. Chair l'l.llderstands. By unanimous consent, the Senator may proceed. The Chair hears no objeotion. E~ROLLED BILLS SIGNED. Mr. PLATT. I should be very glad to think that the motion was lli. FISHER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills. reported tbat debatable. the committee had examined and found duly enrolled bills and joint Mr. FRYE. It is, by unanimous consent. resolution of the followint titles; when the Speaker signed the same: The PRESIDING OFF ICER By unanin1ons consent, the Chair A bill (S. 1129) granting to the Newport and King's Valley Rail thinks, it may be debated. ro3d Company the right of way through the Siletz Indian reservation· :Mr. CHACE. !suppose it is a foregone conclusion that in this thin A bill (S. 2536) granting to the Oregon Railway and Navigatio~ Senate that motion, as usual, will be adopted; but it seems to me that Company the right of way tbrongh the Nez Perco Indian resenation · it is :m.error, a mistake. There are a number of questions before the A bill (S. 2644) granting the right of way to the Fort Smith, Pari~ Senate which it will require considerable time to debate. I do not and Dardanelle Railway Company to construct and operate a railroad wish to offer any :ili.ctious opposition to the motion. I have no doubt telegraph, and telephone line from Fort Smith, Ark., through th~ if a quorum were here they would Tote that way, but I simply wru;tt Indian Territory, to or near Baxter Springs, in tbe StateofKansas, and 'W put on record my protest against it. It is well on in the summer authorizing said company to build a bridge across the Arkansas River and we are wasting time. at or near the city of Fort Smith, Ark.; The Senate may be well np in its business, as some Senator suggests ~bill (S. 2807) to grant to the Puyallup Valley Railway Company i~ his seat, but there is a great deal of tjllking tQ be done, and after a a. nght o.f way through the Puyallup Indian reservation, in Washing· time we shall have very important measures coming before us which ton Terntory, and for other purposes; · will demand action, and then there will not be time to finish many of Joint resolution (H. Res. 196) declaring the true intent and mean- them. I wish to put on record my protest against adjourning the Sen-. ing of the act approved May 23, 1888. . . ate in this way. I think the Senate ought to ~ it to-morrow and act on EVENING SESSION FOR BUS:rnESS OF THE CO::\!MITTEE 0~ CL.A.DIS. some of these questions. There are a number of questions which de- . mand attention and action, and the Senate ought to stay here and at Mr. LANIIA.J\I. Mr. Speaker, Fridays have for some time past been tend to them. yielded to public business, and I understand it is the desire of the gen ' The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair will put the question. tleman from Georgia. [:rtir. BLOUNT], chairman of the Committee on [Putting the question.] The ayes appear to have it. the Po ~ _') .ffic~ and Post-R<:>a.ds, to have the House proceed to-day with J\Ir. CHACE. I ask for the yeas and nays. th~ co~ideration of the conferen~e report on the Post-Office appropri Mr. DOLPH. I -wish the Senator from Alabam!l. would withdraw ation bill. I therefore ask unammous consent that to-morrow evening his motion and let me finish my remarks. He can then renew it. the House take a recess from 5 o'clock till 8 o'clock, the evening ses Mr. PUGH. I withdraw it. sion to be devoted to the consideration of bills reported from the Com The PRESIDING OFFICER. , The motion is withdrawn. mittee on Claims to which there may be no objection. Mr. DOLPIIresumed the floor and completed his speech as published The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous con above. sent that a recess be taken to-morrow evening at 5 o'clock until8 o'clock Mr. PUGII. I give notice that on Monday next at the close of the the evening session to be devoted exclusively to the consideration of morning busine.Es I shall ask the Senate to go into open executive ses bills reported from the Committee on Claims to which there shall be no sion for the purpose of making some remarks on the pending treaty. . objection. Is there objection to this request? The Chair hears none T~e PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate resumes it3 legislative and the order is made. ' sessiOn. • MINING DEBRIS IN CALIFORNIA. ADJOURA-:MENT TO 1\IO~--nAY . l\Ir. BIGGS. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of the • 111r. SA. WYER. I move that when the Senate adjourn to-day it ad- Whole on the state of the Union be discharged from the further con JOurn to meet on Monday next. · sideration of the bill (H. R. 1216) for the investigation of the minino The motion was agreed to. debris question in the State of California, and that the House now pr6~ RECOVERY OF GOVERKMENT PROPEP.TY. ceed to the consideration of the bill. Mr. CALL. I submit the 'following resolution, and ask for it.s pres- The bPI was read, as follows: ent consideration: · Be it enaeled, etc., That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed detail three officers from the En!rlneer Corps of the United States Army as • R esoh;f!d, T hnt the Secretary of the Treas1.rry be directed to furnish the Senate to a. commission for the purpose of making ::1. thorough examination and investiga such e'?dences as may be in the Treasury Department relating to property of tion of the mining debris question in the State of California, and for a complete !he Umted State s or to which the United States has a valid claim which is held examination and survey of the inJured river channel, its tributaries, and lands m ~dverse pos. • I '