Article 15, if we desire to purchase in a Canadian port bait or ice, sails or boats, or anything necessary for the prosecution of our business, we can have that privilege by paying for it from a million to two million dollars a year.

Seventh. One thing which we also obtain for this great price is the transshipment of catch in Canadian ports. Article 29 of the treaty of Washington was as follows:

"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 America and destined for the United States, may be entered 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 governments of said possessions may from time to time prescribe; and under like rules, 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."

Under that Article (never abrogated) Canada is enjoying, and has been ever since it took effect, to the fullest and completest extent, all the privileges it provides for. It has been of immense advantage to her business interests, to her railroads and her canals. Since the enactment of our interstate commerce law, it has given her undue advantage over our own trans-continental lines of road, and at their cost immensely benefited hers. It is not too much to say, that shut up as Canada is for six months in the year by her climate, without the privileges here provided for, she would be terribly cramped, and her interests would suffer most seriously. And yet by Article 15, if we wish to transship a barrel of mackerel in one of her ports, unless there in distress, we can be permitted to do it only by paying from a million dollars and upwards annually for the privilege.

Now where in this treaty is there anything gained to us? Is it not in all regards a surrender? Even if rejected, has not the President inflicted upon us a great wrong? Mr. Chamber

lain, in a speech made at a banquet after his return home to England, declared that even if the Senate should reject the treaty, immense concessions had been made, and our Government could not repeat its demands hereafter. Sir Charles Tupper intimated a like condition, if rejection should follow. The Montreal Gazette under date of March 1st says:

"If we have to revert to the condition of things which prevailed in 1886 and in 1887, there will be general regret; but at least Canadians can have this satisfaction, that in reverting to the treaty of 1818 we do so with our position infinitely strengthened by the formal acknowledgment on the part of President Cleveland and his government, that all our contentions are right."

The negotiation, the treaty, the message of the President of the United States, the speeches and proclamations of the Secretary of State in behalf of this treaty, the earnest and zealous efforts of the administration to induce its ratification, the arraying of the Democratic party in Congress for it (whether it may be rejected by the United States Senate or not), can be productive only of evil, and tend only to weaken or destroy the American sentiment which so prevailed in the Forty ninth Congress. Already administration papers begin to sneer at American fishermen, and to talk about "buying them up." Even the President of the United States singles out the fishery industry for attack, and writes a letter to a district-attorney in Massachusetts, calling his attention to violations of law in the importations of Canadian sailors, while since he has been President thousands of contract laborers on railroads have been imported, and complaints have been made to his attorneygeneral, presumably to him, without eliciting from him the mildest protest.

The next move of the Democratic administration will be a compulsory process against Congress, to force the enactment of a law placing fish on the free list, and thus surrender to Canada the market to obtain which she has committed these "brutal" outrages, and almost placed herself outside the pale of civilization. Sir Charles Tupper, in his speech on the treaty in the Canadian Parliament, practically says this was promised

him. Why should the American fishermen be selected for this sacrifice?

The Republic itself has a deep and an abiding interest in this industry. Can it see with indifference its gradual decay, and regard without lively concern its certain extinction? Will it enter no protest against the deadly blows struck by its own treaty-making power? Has it forgotten that its proud position was largely won by the endurance, skill, courage, and fidelity of these sailors; that Louisburg was wrested from the French. by their valor, and that these very waters, now in contention, were secured to Great Britain by their courage? Can she be unmindful of their conspicuous services in the war for our independence?

Who will deny that the glories we won in 1812 on lake and on sea were their achievement? Who does not know that in our last terrible struggle for life there was not a deck of our fleet unmoistened with their blood? If we ever have another war, which God forbid, it will be on the sea. Who shall man our fleet? It is asserted, and I believe truly, that 85 per cent of the sailors employed in our ocean foreign-carrying trade are foreigners, owing our country no allegiance, and inspired by no love for our flag. They surely would be a broken reed in the hour of national peril. Of the men in our fishing fleet 80 per cent are American citizens, 65 per cent of American birth. Inured to every hardship, exposed to constant danger, fighting a ceaseless battle with wind and wave, loving freedom for freedom's sake, and ready on call to defend their rights; courageous, skilled, and patriotic-they are to-day the best and most reliable sailors in the world, and to a man would promptly respond to their country's call.

The American fishermen are assuredly entitled to encouragement and protection by our government, and they may be certain that the Republican party, true to its instincts, will stand by them until all their rights are secured.

THE AMERICAN NAVY.

BY HON. WM. E. CHANDLER, U. S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.

COMING into power on the 4th of March, 1861, the Republican party found the slave-holding States seceding from the Union and ready to begin civil war.

"These

The condition of the navy is described in the official reports of Secretary Welles. There were in commission but 42 ships, built of wood and carrying only smooth-bore cannon. vessels had a complement, exclusive of officers and marines, of about 7600 men, and nearly all of them were on foreign stations. The home squadron consisted of 12 vessels, carrying 187 guns and about 2000 men. Of this squadron only four small vessels, carrying 25 guns and about 280 men, were in Northern ports." Four were at Pensacola, and four were returning from Mexico.

Mr. Welles said: "Neither the expiring administration nor Congress, which had been in session until the 4th of March, had taken measures to increase or strengthen our naval power, notwithstanding the lowering aspect of our public affairs; so that when a few weeks after the inauguration I desired troops for the protection of the public property at Norfolk and Annapolis, or sailors to man and remove the vessels, neither soldiers nor sailors could be procured. There were no men to man our ships, nor were the few ships at our yards in condition to be put into immediate service." He also said: "With so few vessels in commission on our coast, and our crews in distant seas, the Department was very indifferently prepared to meet the exigency that was rising. Every movement was closely watched by the disaffected, and threatened to precipitate measures that the country seemed anxious to avoid. Demoralization prevailed among the officers, many of whom, occupying the most responsible positions, betrayed symptoms of that in fidelity which has dishonored the service. But while so many

officers were unfaithful, the crews, to their honor be it recorded, were true and reliable, and have maintained through every trial and under all circumstances their devotion to the Union and the flag. Unfortunately, however, few comparatively of these gallant men were within the call of the Department at that eventful period. They, as well as the ships, were abroad.”

Thus it appears that because James Buchanan, a Democratic President, was weak and unfaithful to his high trust, and Isaac Toucey, a Democratic Secretary of the Navy, was at heart a traitor, the navy of the United States had been so managed as to offer as little hindrance as possible to the progress of the rebellion. The Republican administration, however, did the best it could. Mr. Welles in 1862 describes the progress made as follows:

"The result is that we have at this time afloat or progressing to rapid completion a naval force consisting of 427 vessels, there having been added to those of the old navy enumerated in my report of July, 1861, exclusive of those that were lost, 353 vessels armed in the aggregate with 1577 guns, and of the capacity of 240,028 tons. The annals of the world do not show so great an increase in so brief a period to the naval power of any country."

On December 4, 1865, Mr. Welles sums up what had been done by the navy in putting down the rebellion thus:

"From 7600 men in the service at the commencement of the rebellion, the number was increased to 51,500 at its close. In addition to these the aggregate of artisans and laborers employed in the navy yards was 16,880, instead of 3844 previously in the pay of the government. This is exclusive of those employed in private ship yards and establishments, under contracts, constituting an almost equal aggregate number. Two hundred and eight (208) vessels have been commenced and most of them fitted for service during this period. A few of the larger ones will require still further time for completion. Only steamers, the propellers also having sailing power, have been built by the government during my administration of the Department. Since the 4th of March, 1861, 418 vessels have been purchased, of which 313 were steamers, at a cost of