224 



CONGRESS. (THE FISHERIES TBEATY.) 



and Canada by the claim that the Treaty of 1818 per- 

 mitted it, and upon the ground that it was necessary 

 to the proper protection of Canadian interests. We 

 deny that treaty agreements Justify these acts, and we 

 further maintain that, aside from any treaty restraints, 

 of disputed interpretation, the relative positions or 

 thc United States and Canada as near neighbors, the 

 growth of our joint commerce, the development and 

 prosperity of both countries, which amicable relations 

 surely guarantee, and, above all, the liberalitv always 

 extended by_ the United States to the people of Canada, 

 furnish motives for kindness and consideration higher 

 and better than treaty covenants. 



While keenly sensitive to all that was exasperating 

 in the condition, and by no means indisposed to sup- 

 port the just complaints of our injured citizensj I still 

 deemed it my duty for the preservation of the impor- 

 tant American interests, which were directly involved, 

 and in view of all the details of the situation, to at- 

 tempt by negotiation to remedy existing wrongs, and 

 to finally terminate by a fair and just treaty these 

 ever-recurring causes of difficulty. 



I fully believe that the treaty just rejected by the 

 Senate was well suited to the exigency, and that its 

 provisions were adequate for our security in the future 

 from vexatious incidents and for the promotion of 

 friendly neighborhood and intimacy, without sacrific- 

 ing in the least our national pride or dignity. 



I am quite conscious that neither my opinion of the 

 value of the rejected treaty nor the motives which 

 prompted its negotiation are of importance in the light 

 of the judgment of the Senate thereupon. But it is 

 of importance to note that this treaty has been rejected 

 without any apparent disposition on the part of the 

 Senate to alter or amend its provisions, and with the 

 evident intention, not wanting expression, that no 

 negotiation should at present be concluded touching 

 the matter at issue. 



The co-operation necessary for the adjustment of 

 the long-standing national differences with which we 

 have to deal, by methods of conference and agree- 

 ment, having thus been declined, 1 am by no means 

 disposed to abandon the interests and the rights of 

 our people in the premises or to neglect their griev- 

 ances, and I therefore turn to the contemplation of a 

 plan of retaliation as a mode, which still remains, of 

 treating the situation. 



I am not unmindful of the gravity of the responsi- 

 bility assumed in adopting this line of conduct, nor 

 do I fail in the least to appreciate its serious conse- 

 quences. It will be impossible to injure our Canadian 

 neighbors by retaliatory measures without inflicting 

 some damage upon our own citizens. This results 

 from our proximity, our community of interests, and 

 the inevitable commingling of the business enter- 

 prises which have been developed by mutual activity. 



Plainly stated, the policy of national retaliation 

 manifestly embraces the infliction of the greatest harm 

 upon those who have injured us, with the least possi- 

 ble damage to ourselves. There is also an evident 

 propriety, as well as an invitation to moral support, 

 found in visiting upon the offending party the same 

 measure or kind ot treatment of which we complain, 

 and, as far as possible, within the same lines. And. 

 above all things, the plan of retaliation if entered 

 upon should be thorough and vigorous. 



These considerations lead me at this time to invoke 

 the aid and counsel of the Congress and its support in 

 such a further grant of power as seems to me neces- 

 sary and desirable to render effective the policy I 

 have indicated. 



The Congress has already passed a law, which re- 

 ceived Executive assent on the 3d day of March, 1887, 

 providing that in case American fishing-vessels being 

 or visiting in the waters or at any of the ports of the 

 British dominions of North America, should be or 

 lately had been deprived of the rights to which they 

 were' entitled by treaty or law, or if they were denie'd 

 certain other privileges therein specified, or vexed and 

 harassed in the enjoyment of the same, the President 



might deny to vessels and their masters and crews of 

 the British dominions of North America any entrance 

 into the waters, ports, or harbors of the United States, 

 and also deny entry into any port or place of the 

 United States" of any product ot said dominions, or 

 other goods coming from said dominions to the United 

 States. 



While I shall not hesitate upon proper occasion to 

 enforce this act, it would seem to DO unnecessary to 

 suggest that if such enforcement is limited in such a 

 manner as shall result in the least possible injury to 

 our own people, the effect would probably be entire- 

 ly inadequate to the accomplishment of the purpose 

 desired. 



I deem it my duty, therefore, to call the attention 

 of the Congress to certain particulars in the action of 

 the authorities of the Dominion of Canada, in addi- 

 tion to the general allegations already made, which 

 appear to be in such marked contrast to the liberal 

 and friendly disposition of our country as in my 

 opinion to call for such legislation as will, upon 

 the principles already stated, properly supplement 

 the power to inaugurate retaliation already vested in 

 the Executive. 



Actuated by the generous and neighborly spirit 

 which has characterized our legislation, our tariff laws 

 have, since 1866, been so far waved in favor of Canada 

 as to allow free of duty the transit across the territory 

 of the United States of property arriving at our ports 

 and destined to Canada, or exported from Canada to 

 other foreign countries. 



When the Treaty of Washington was negotiated in 

 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, 

 having for its object very largely the modification of 

 the Treaty of 1818, the privileges above referred to 

 were made reciprocal ana given in return by Canada 

 to the United States, in the following language, con- 

 tained in the twenty- ninth article of said treaty : 



" It is agreed, that for the term of years mentioned in 

 Article XXXIII of this treaty, goo'ds, wares, or mer- 

 chandise arriving at the ports of New York, Boston, 

 and Portland, and any other ports in the United 

 States, which have been or may from time to time be 

 specially designated by the President of the United 

 States, and destined for Her Britannic Majesty's pos- 

 sessions in North America, may be entered at the 

 proper custom-house and conveved in transit, without 

 the payment of duties, through the territory of the 

 United States, under such rules, regulations, and con- 

 ditions for the protection of the revenue as the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States may from time to time 

 prescribe ; and under like rules, regulations, and con- 

 ditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may be con- 

 veyed in transit without the payment of duties from 

 such possessions through the territory of the United 

 States, for export from the said ports of the United 

 States. 



" It is further agreed that, for the like period, goods, 

 wares, or merchandise arriving at any of the ports of 

 Her Britannic Majesty's possessions in North Amer- 

 ica, and destined for the United States, may be en- 

 tered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in 

 transit, without the payment of duties, through the 

 said possessions under such rules and regulations and 

 conditions for the protection of the revenue as the 

 government of the said possessions may from time to 

 time prescribe ; and under like rules and regulations 

 and conditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may be 

 conveyed in transit, without payment of duties, from 

 the United States through the said possessions to 

 other places in the United States, or for export from 

 ports in the said possessions." 



In the year 1886 notice was received by the repre- 

 sentatives of our Government that pur fishermen 

 would no longer be allowed to ship their fish in bond 

 and free of duty through Canadian territory to this 

 country, and ever since that time such shipment has 

 been denied. 



The privilege of such shipment which had been ex- 

 tended to our fishermen was a most important one s 



