784 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



cases, it shall be lawful, and it shall be the duty of the President of the 

 United States, in his discretion, by proclamation to that effect, to deny vessels, 

 their masters and crews, of the British dominions of North America, any 

 entrance into the waters, ports, or places of, or within the United States (with 

 such exceptions in regard to vessels in distress, stress of weather, or needing 

 supplies as to the President shall seem proper), whether such vessels shall 

 have come directly from said dominions on such destined voyage of by way of 

 some port or place in such destined voyage elsewhere; and also, to deny entry 

 into any port or place of the United States of fresh fish or salt fish or any 

 other product of said dominions, or other goods coming from said dominion's 

 to the United States. The President may, in his discretion, apply such proclama- 

 tion to any part or to all of the foregoing-named subjects, and may revoke, 

 qualify, limit, and renew such proclamation from time to time as he may deem 

 necessary to the full and just execution of the purposes of this act. Every viola- 

 tion of any such proclamation, or any part thereof, is hereby declared illegal, 

 and all vessels and goods so coming or being within the waters, ports, or places 

 of the United States contrary to such proclamation shall be forfeited to the 

 United States; and such forfeiture shall be enforced and proceeded upon in 

 the same manner and with the same effect as in the case of vessels or goods 

 whose importation or coming to or being in the waters or ports of the United 

 States contrary to law may now be enforced and proceeded upon. Every 

 person who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, or such proclamation 

 of the President made in pursuance hereof, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 

 meanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 

 one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, 

 or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. 

 Approved, March 3, 1887. 



This law relates to past offenses as well as to those that may here- 

 after occur. As to past offenses, Congress abdicated its authority 

 to declare that they constituted just grounds for retaliation, and left 

 that matter solely to the discretion of the President or else Congress 

 intended that the President should have these powers to meet 

 471 a case of emergency, and should also employ his constitutional 

 power of making treaties (which Congress could not control) 

 as a part of " his discretion " in providing a way through which the 

 evils complained of should be remedied. 



The undersigned can not impute to Congress that its purpose, in 

 devolving upon the President those broad discretionary powers and 

 conditional duties, was to forbid, or to embarrass, the free exercise 

 by him of his constitutional power to make treaties, with the advice 

 and consent of the Senate, or that these extraordinary powers were 

 given him to enable Congress to escape its just responsibility for 

 measures that were necessary for the protection of the honor of the 

 country or the interests of the people. 



If the President had resorted to retaliatory measures against Cana- 

 dian commerce, under this act of March 3, 1887, without having 

 attempted any negotiation with Great Britain, the open way that 

 was indicated by Mr. Seward's protocol in 1865, to which we have 

 referred, and the favorable impression it made on the British 

 Government, would have been pointed out by an indignant people 

 as an abandoned opportunity for an amicable agreement with Great 

 Britain, and he would have been amenable to just censure. 



But, aside from this, his duty to humanity, as well as to his 

 country, forbade him from exposing the interests and prosperity 

 of 65,000.000 of people to danger, by hasty or extreme measures of 

 retaliation, while it was possible to reach a just settlement of our 

 disputes with Great Britain over matters that concern only a few 

 thousand people, who would be more benefitted by such an agree- 

 ment than they could be by retaliatory laws. 



