OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Monday, July 16, 1888,

On the treaty between the United States and Great Britain concerning the interpretation of the convention of October 20, 1818, signed at Washington February 15, 1888.

Mr. CHANDLER said:

Mr. PRESIDENT: The people of the West and South need not believe that the people of New England wish unnecessarily to prolong controversy between the United States and Canada concerning the rights and privileges of American fishing vessels, or are unwilling that a fair adjustment should be effected through appropriate methods. On the contrary they earnestly desire the speediest possible settlement that will reasonably protect the interest involved and maintain national dignity and honor in intercourse with Great Britain. The protection of that interest is required only by a section; the maintenance of national dignity and honor is demanded by the whole people.

A fair summary of the changes to be effected by the proposed treaty of February 15, 1888, is as follows:

1. After the rights of American fishermen, which were amply secured by the treaty of 1783, had been reduced by the treaty of 1818, they yet had the right to take fish in all the waters of Canada outside of 3 miles from the indented shore line of the various coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors; and to enter such bays or harbors for shelter, repairs, wood, or water. By the pending treaty, under a delimitation process, they are to be totally excluded from taking fish in certain specified bays which they have been wont to frequent, and across the mouth of every bay not more than 10 miles wide a straight line is to be drawn and from that the 3-mile line of exclusion is to be measured seaward. (Articles III and IV.)

Under this delimitation process substantially everything is given up by the United States; nothing valuable is received. No reasonable excuse is given for the enlargement of the exclusion from 6 miles across bays to 10 miles, except that Canada has in the past argued that she had the right to draw a line of exclusion across the headlands of bays. But it clearly appears that the headland theory has always been a technical and unsubstantial pretense; has never been seriously asserted; has always been scouted by the United States, and was decided against by an umpire in the only cases in which it was ever formally promulgated.

It is sufficient to quote what Sir Charles Tupper said of this claim April 10, 1888, in the Canadian Parliament. He termed it a right "technically claimed but practically abandoned for forty years."

In making such a headland pretense a reason for retiring our fishermen from 10-mile bays when they have always entered 6-mile bays, the Administration proceeds upon the principle which it has been said in New Hampshire has usually governed the decisions of one of our most distinguished citizens, George W. Nesmith, of Franklin, a bosom friend of Daniel Webster, a magistrate for sixty-five years, now living in his eighty-eighth year, hale and hearty. Although alawyer, he has not been litigious but always a peace-maker, and has been a referee in more controversies than any other citizen. It is said that a visitor to our State, riding through Franklin, expressed to the stage-driver great admiration for a beautiful farm and said he would much like to own it. The driver said, "I do not know how you can get the whole of it, but I can tell you how you can certainly get half of it. Stop here and bring a lawsuit against the owner for the whole, have the case referred to Judge Nesmith and he will award you one-half." The Secretary of State, on a recent visit to Dartmouth College, made the acquaintance of Judge Nesmith, and doubtless learned from him his principle of decision. But he has enlarged it in the delimitations in this treaty, for, instead of giving Canada half that she claimed without any right, he has given her nearly the whole.

2. The treaty provides, in Article X, that American fishing vessels entering Canadian bays or harbors for repairs, shelter, wood, or water shall be exempt from pilotage and harbor dues, and need not formally report at the custom-houses, except twenty-four hours after entering established ports.

The exemptions thus grudgingly granted to distressed vessels are slight favors, and could not be refused to any vessels according to the law of nations without resort to any treaty, as is clearly shown in Mr. Bayard's letter to Mr. Phelps of November 6, 1886.

3. If the treaty is confirmed, by Article XI American fishermen are to receive certain hospitable treatment which none but barbarous nations refuse to vessels on their coasts. If driven in by stress of weather and compelled to repair, they may, if it be necessary to the repairs, unload, reload, transship, or sell their fish; and may replenish outfits, provisions, and supplies damaged or lost by disaster; and in case of sickness or death may be allowed all needful facilities, including the shipping of crews, and in all cases may have provisions and suppliesfor homeward voyages.

The privileges given by this article to fishing vessels only when they are in distress are properly termed by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] "rights of hospitality." The London Times of February 23, 1888, says the treaty resolves itself "chiefly into a liberal extension of what may be called the humane provisos of the convention" of 1818, the American renunciation in which "was subject to certain exceptions dictated by humanity."

While we can afford to accept such exemption from barbarous treatment if freely granted by the Canadians without price, we can not afford to purchase it by the humiliations imposed upon us by this treaty. 4. There shall be a "conspicuous exhibition by every United States fishing vessel of its official number on each bow." (Article XIII.) This is a petty humiliation, will be irritating to all Americans, and is of slight importance to the Canadian authorities.

5. Canadian penalties for unlawful fishing by American fishing ves