OUR FISHERIES.

BY HON. WILLIAM P. FRYE, U. S. SENATOR FROM MAINE.

To a reasonable understanding of the matters in controversy between the United States and the Dominion of Canada touching the fisheries, a historical statement is important, though it must necessarily be brief and somewhat incomplete on account of the limits of this article.

The waters in contention were acquired from France largely by the bravery and skill of our fishermen, were enjoyed by us as a colony of Great Britain, and our rights in them secured to us as a republic by the treaty of 1783 in the following article:

ARTICLE III.

"It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the RIGHT

"(1) To take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and all the other banks of Newfoundland;

"(2) And also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;

“(3) And at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have LIBERTY

"(1) To take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island);

"(2) And also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America."

England's assumption is apparent, even in this article, wherein she concedes to us fishing grounds all the way from 30 to 200 miles from the coast line of her possessions, over which she had no more jurisdiction than she had over the waters of the mid-ocean.

Her unscrupulous purpose to aggrandize her power regard

less of the rights of others forced us into the War of 1812, and impelled her, after the war was over, to the declaration that we had thereby forfeited all the rights in the fisheries we ever had as her colony, or had acquired under the terms of the treaty of 1783. Our Commissioners resisted this demand, and the result was that the treaty of peace of 1814 was entirely silent as to the fishery rights.

Then came the treaty of 1818, negotiated at a time exceedingly unfortunate for us. We were staggering under the burdens of the late war, while England was arrogant under the inspiration of her victory at Waterloo, the entry of the allies into Paris, and the abdication of Napoleon. We deliberately surrendered at least one half of our fishery rights, and dealt a blow to that industry from which it has never recovered.

By the terms of the treaty England laid the foundation for ceaseless demands, and invited her colonies to the enactment of penal laws, and the commission of outrages in their name, which would disgrace any civilization. Article 1 of the treaty provided:

"And the United States hereby renounce, forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits;" with a proviso that our fishermen might enter those bays, etc., for shelter and to repair damages therein, to purchase wood or to obtain water, but "for no other purpose whatever."

In other words, we made a partition of our property rights in these British waters, reserving, however, to our fishing-vessels especial privileges in the bays, harbors, etc., assigned in this division to England's colony-privileges peculiar to such vessels, and enjoyed by no others carrying the American flag.

Shortly after the conclusion of this treaty, England for the first time set up what was known as the headland theory; that is, that the excluded waters should be measured by a line drawn from headland to headland across the bays, harbors, etc. and that the three-mile shore-line should be measured outside.

of that. Our government resisted the claim, and Great Britain instructed her colonial officers not to enforce it. For several years there was little if any trouble, but in progress of time England and her colonies came to look with covetous eyes upon our increasing market, and finally determined to possess it. They seized vessel after vessel, condemned them in colonial courts on the testimony of colonial witnesses, refused them shelter, drove them to sea in storms, seized and searched on the high seas, broke up voyages, until in fact the perils of the sea on the banks were not greater than the dangers of the law within the shore-line. Our government interfered again and again. Mr. Van Buren sent the Grampus into those waters in 1839; Mr. Pierce ordered a fleet there; the Kearsarge and the Mississippi cruised there: and in the presence of our armed vessels our fishermen were undisturbed, but immediately on their withdrawal the outrages were renewed. The records are full of evidences of illegal seizures; of seizures and condemnations on complaints of the most trivial and inconsequential character; of every conceivable outrage and wrong; of every violation of the rights of hospitality and friendly intercourse.

In the pursuit of these unjustifiable methods England and her colony had but one purpose-to force open our markets; and in 1854 their efforts were crowned with success, in the rati fication of a reciprocity treaty, under the terms of which they opened their fisheries to us, and we our markets to them. This treaty was of immense benefit to them and unfortunate for us, as is clearly indicated by the fact that at the very earliest moment, when under its terms we had the right, it was terminated by a vote of nearly two to one in the House of Representatives, and of nearly five to one in the United States

Senate.

Then the Canadian Government resorted to a system of licensing, charging for the first year for a license fifty cents a ton, the second one dollar, and the third two dollars. Our fishermen, unable to bear such a burden, refused to avail themselves of these licenses, and the experiment proved a failure. Whereupon Canada again resorted to the old and hitherto successful tactics of outrage, seizure, and condemnation, until

the patience of our government was exhausted, and Congress indicated by its reception of "The memorial of the fishermen of the United States" that retaliatory legislation was imminent, when, unfortunately for our interests, the treaty of Washington, in 1871, was negotiated and ratified.

Under the terms of that treaty we secured the right to fish within the shore-line of Canada, and other privileges unnecessary to mention, paying for these almost worthless rights $5,500,000, and giving to Canada our markets for her fish. During the life of this treaty we remitted in duties nearly $6,000,000-the last year of its existence, in 1885, nearly $700,000, or, to be exact, $689,602.25.

At the earliest possible moment, under the terms of the treaty, a resolution passed both Houses of Congress, with entire unanimity, requesting the President of the United States to give the required notice for the termination of the fishery articles. The President gave the notice, and July 1, 1885, they were abrogated, and we were remitted, so far as the fisheries were concerned, to the treaty of 1818.

Unfortunately for us, our Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, was profoundly ignorant of all the questions touching these fishery rights, and Sir Lionel West, the British minister, undoubtedly persuaded him that conflicts between the United States and the Canadian fishermen were liable to take place at any moment, and might even provoke a war with Great Britain. So he made haste, without authority of law, to enter into an agreement with the British minister for a modus vivendi, which should endure until the meeting of Congress in December, under the terms of which we were to be permitted to fish within the waters of the Dominion and they within ours, and the President of the United States was, in his annual message, to advise Congress to authorize the appointment of a commission to settle and determine our rights in these waters.

This modus vivendi was agreed upon without any consultation whatever with men who were familiar with the questions it treated, and interested in promoting the fishery industry of the United States. George Steele, President of the American Fishery Union, April 28, 1885, wrote to our Secretary of State

that "the officers of the Fishery Union desire to present the interests of their pursuits in this emergency to the attention of yourself personally or to the President." But the Secretary of State, May 2, 1885, informed him that such an interview was entirely unnecessary.

In compliance with the terms of this arrangement, the President in his annual message to Congress in December, 1885, recommended the Commission, and the Senate on the 13th of April, 1886, after careful consideration and exhaustive discussion, declared that in its judgment no such commission ought to be appointed, and on July 24th, of the same year ordered the Committee on Foreign Relations to investigate the fishery question, which instruction that committee complied with, and on 19th January, 1887, made report recommending the enactment of a law for the protection of American rights.

From the date of the expiration of the modus vivendi up to the end of the fishery season of last year, the Dominion of Canada, apparently with the approval of Great Britain, ceaselessly committed every conceivable outrage upon our fishermen, boarded their vessels, placed them under guard, seized and bonded them, insulted their masters, pulled down the American flag, and refused our sailors the common rights of humanity. More than one hundred complaints of these outrages were formally filed with our Secretary of State. So grossly unjust and outrageous was this treatment that in the month of February, 1887, a stringent and comprehensive retaliatory law passed the Senate by a vote of 46 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 256 to 1.

The only difference between the two Houses was, that the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House, in its majority Democratic, reported to the House (Democratic), a bill which passed that body authorizing the President to go to the extent of declaring absolute non-intercourse with the Dominion of Canada if these outrages were continued; while the Senate believed that retaliation in kind would be all that was necessary. The disagreement between the two Houses resulted in a Conference Committee, which reported (the House yielding) the