284 MISCELLANEOUS 



be less than 10 miles, and the treaty fixes that limit. It does precisely 

 what England, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and the Nether- 

 lands had done before the plenipotentiaries settled what, by the con- 

 sensus of the greatest commercial nations of the world, for 50 years 

 past had been agreed upon as the delimitation of bays, harbors and 

 creeks. I venture to say that that was a reasonable way to settle the 

 question a way to commend itself to any man who was disposed to 

 settle the disputed point by an impartial arbitration by third par- 

 ties in whose judgment he had confidence. If it had been possible for 

 the two nations themselves to have come together, it could not have 

 been contended by any reasonable man in either of them, that to adopt 

 ten miles as to the delimitation of those bays following all the com- 

 mercial and maritime nations of the civilized world as a solution, 

 was anything unworthy of the dignity, or derogatory to the rights, 

 of either of the contending parties. 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is aware, I suppose, that the Amer- 

 ican Government offered that twenty-two years ago, and have offered 

 it repeatedly since. 



Hon. Mr. ABBOTT. I have not seen it so stated. I have seen a great 

 many cases in which they contended for the six miles limit: I have 

 seen it in the letters of their greatest diplomatists, and the only 

 person of importance who seems to have countenanced the idea that 

 that was not a fair view of the treaty of 1818, was Mr. Webster, 

 though he only gave an uncertain sound on the subject. I do not pre- 

 tend to say that different opinions did not exist, but I do say that 

 no one will declare that it had been the policy of the United States 

 Government to concede the ten miles limit. 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. Yes, yes, as I am prepared to show ! 



Hon. Mr. ABBOTT. That cannot be said with propriety. The prin- 

 cipal for which the United States Government contended was that 

 the three-mile limit should follow the sinuosities of the bays and har- 

 bors. Whatever isolated expressions of opinion my hon. friend may 

 find in the utterances of some leading statesmen I cannot say, but 

 that was the general principle which governed the political relations 

 of the United States with England. It was the principle to which 

 they attached themselves and with which we had to deal. 



******* 



Hon. Mr. SCOTT. * * * I say that while the other causes I have 

 adverted to have undoubtedly had their weight, yet the chief cause 

 of opposition to this treaty has been the irritating manner in which 

 the treaty of 1818 has been put in force during the past two years. 

 There is the main reason why this treaty will be rejected, because the 

 treaty of 1818, which this proposes to modify, was wholly unsuited 

 even for consideration in the year 1888; that the circumstances of 

 1818 and the circumstances of 1888 are so widely different that they 

 do not even offer a fair basis for a new treaty. I approve of the 

 Government treaty as far as it goes, because it is liberalizing the 

 treaty of 1818. It is necessary for us to consider the circumstances, 

 and we have to consider that this matter has been discussed from an 

 entirely different standpoint from ours. We are simply one of the 

 parties to the treaty and we may just as well consider what view the 

 other side takes, and what are their opinions about it in order that 

 we may fairly gauge our position in reference to the subject. Now, 



