subjects in ours, and which we claim we have a similar right to en-joy in theirs at the present moment. The past unfriendly acts of Canada, and the seizure of our vessels on mere technicalities for the last two years, and denial of all commercial rights, and the barbarous treatment of our fishermen, have been for the single purpose of coercing this Government into opening its markets and permitting foreign-caught fish to compete with the products of our own fisheries. It is true this treaty does not state this in so many words, but it leaves the question open, and so long as the Uaited States Government is apparently indifferent to the welfare of our fishermen so long will Canada resort to unjustifiable means to force us to open our markets to her fishery products. No one who has watched the progress of our food-fisheries can fail to be convinced that those industries will be ruined if we again permit the free entry of foreign-caught fish. It is not necessary here to reiterate how unfortunate this would be for the country; for the maintaining of our fisheries has been shown time and again to be a matter of the most vital consequence to the United States, both as a source of food supply and a resource wherefrom to draw men to man our navy in time of war. The following testimonial of their usefulness and their importance to the United States is from the pen of the present Secretary of State. He says: "They pursue one of the most useful and meritorious of industries; they gather from the seas, without detriment to others, a food which is nutritious and cheap for the use of an immense population; they belong to a stock of men which contributed before the Revolution most essentially to the British victories on the Northeastern Atlantic, and it may not be out of place to say they have shown since that Revolution, when serving in the Navy of the United States, that they have lost none of their ancient valor, hardihood, and devotion to their flag.' Elsewhere he says: "Fishermen, as you are aware, have been considered from the usefulness of their occupation, from their simplicity, from the perils to which they are exposed, the wards of civilized nations."'* The eminent and experienced legislator, Hon. S. S. Cox, bears equally efficient testimony to the usefulness of the fishermen. In a speech delivered in the House of Representatives (May 12, 1884), he says: "A legislator caring for the common weal should not only look at the economic value of fish as food for the people, but he should also regard the fisheries as a fostering element in seafaring and training for maritime adventure and hardship, with a view to the humanities of life saving on the coast and the possibilities of international conflict." And the importance of the fisheries have been shown by him in the same speech. "From Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of St. Lawrence," he remarks, * Letter of Hon. T. F. Bayard to Sir L. West, October 19, 1886. "where mackerel and men haden are taken; from North Carolina to Massachusetts, where the oyster and other mollusks abound; about the keys of Florida, where the red snapper is caught in abundance; from the fur-seal fishery of Alaska to the North Pacific, which our whalers penetrate; from the waters where rolls the Oregon that once heard no sound save its own dashing, but now hears the hum of men engaged in a great industry, to the Great Lakes, where white-fish play around the isles made memorable by Perry's victory; from one end of our land to the other, over one hundred thousand of hardy men pursue this interesting and adventurous industry. A million of souls depend upon the pursuit. Their fleet is nearly seven thousand vessels and forty-five thousand boats." It may be asked how shall we deal with this matter, what can be done to settle the fishery question between the British North American provinces and the United States? This can be done, and it has the sanction of the Forty-ninth Congress. Wipe out all legislative commercial arrangements, and let us go back to where we were, so far as commercial intercourse with the British provinces is concerned, when the treaty of 1818 was made. In other words, declare non-intercourse. Put Canada in the same relation to the United States as she was seventy years ago. Then our fishermen would have the same rights they have now under the treaty of 1818, and we should then be in a position to say to her: "Are you willing this should continue, or do you prefer to deal with us on a fair basis and give to all our vessels, as we are willing to give to yours, full commercial rights in your ports?' This may seem a harsh measure to adopt, but is it not justifiable? Can it be claimed that we are dealing unfairly in asking or demanding that we go back to the precise conditions under which the treaty of 1818 was made, and then propose to meet Canada half way and give her as much as she gives us, and no more? Beyond question, this was the sentiment of the people of the United States, as expressed in the "retaliatory act" of the last Congress. Nor has the executive branch of our Government been oblivious to the injustice with which our fishermen have been treated by Canada and the deliberate purpose of the officials of that country to rob Americans of their rights. "The hospitalities of Canadian coasts and harbors, which are ours by ancient right," writes Secretary Bayard, " writes Secretary Bayard, and which these treaties confirm, cost Canada nothing and are productive of advantage to her people. Yet, in defiance of the most solemn obligations, in utter disregard of the facilities and assistances granted by the United States, and in a way especially irritating, a deliberate plan of annoyances and aggressions has been instituted and plainly exhibited during the last fishing season-a plan calculated to drive these fishermen from shores where, without injury to others, they prosecute their own legitimate and useful industry."* *Letter to Hon. Edward J. Phelps, U. S. Minister to Great Britain, under date November 6, 1886. It is not surprising, in view of this vigorous and truthful state_ ment of the case by Mr. Bayard, that he should have signed a treaty (as the principal party on the part of the United States) in which these very rights of the American fishermen have been surrendered? The protection of our fisheries is a matter of the utmost consequence to this country, nor should their future prospects be placed in jeopardy, as they have been in the fifteenth article of this treaty, by holding over them the prospective threat of free trade in fish. The statesmen who guided the destinies of this country in its early days saw the necessity of fostering the fisheries, and immediately after the close of the war of independence bounty laws were enacted by Congress which granted to the fishermen certain financial encouragement to enable them to prosecute their industries at a greater advantage than otherwise. In 1819, a few years after the close of our second war with Great Britain, these laws were amended so as to give the fishermen a larger bounty than they had previously received. With this encouragement, and with the markets of the United States protected by a duty on foreign fish, the American fisheries prospered to a remarkable degree; nor was the increase in thefishing fleet much retarded by loss and the interruption caused by the war of 1812-'15, or by the many annoyances to which our fishermen were subjected by the harsh interpretation of the fishery clauses of the treaty of 1818. The impulse which had thus been given to our fisheries continued to have its effect, even after the conclusion of the so-called reciprocity treaty, for it took some years for the Canadians to realize and properly appreciate the advantages which they had over Americans, under the provisions of that treaty. Ι Thus we find that the American fishing fleet engaged in the cod and mackerel fisheries reached its maximum about 1862, in which year there was employed in these two branches of the food fisheries 214,197 tons of shipping, according to the returns of the Bureau of Statistics. Although there has been more or less fluctuation since that date, the general result has been a decline in our fisheries which is as marked as it is deplorable. In 1883 we had employed in the cod and mackerel fisheries about 74,197 tons, and since that date, though I have no statistics at hand to substantiate the statement, I am positive that there has been a still further decrease in our fishery marine. Considering the growth of the country, the demand which exists for food products of all kinds, and the necessity for the maintenance of a large fishery marine, these figures are certainly startling and may well arrest the attention of political economists. It is too evident to admit of argument that this result, which is much to be regretted and which ought to be humiliating to the pride of every American citizen, is due to the fact that our fisheries have been left unprotected, and the American fisherman has had to compete in his own markets against the foreigner, who is encouraged by bounties, and who is assisted in every possible manner, as any one may learn who chooses to study the subject. The evil effects which might have resulted from the admission of foreign fish into our markets have been fully set forth and ably discussed by numerous writers. Therefore a lengthy discussion of the question is rendered unnecessary here. We may judge of the future by the past, and statistics and the evidence of men who are qualified to speak or write upon this subject, and who are unbiased in their opinions, except so far that they are disposed to urge the protection of American fishery interests from the aggressive policy of foreign powers who are inimical to these interests, show conclusively that the free admission of foreign fish into our markets has been a great injury to the development of our own fisheries. Indeed, not only have our fishing interests been retarded in development, but they declined under the so-called reciprocity treaties in a manner that was truly startling, as has been previously shown. "In many places on the [New England] coast," says a writer on this subject, it was found the treaty had exerted a very baneful influence. Towns which had formerly sent to sea fleets of fishing vessels varying from twenty-five to upwards of one hundred sail had then barely a remnant left, and in some cases not a single schooner. Some of these outfitting stations were veritable pictures of desolation-merely reminders of a lost industry. One in particular called Rigg's Cove,' at Georgetown, Me., impressed me the most forcibly. From here had sailed a few years previously fifty fine schooners. But what a change! But what a change! At the time of our visit nothing remained to indicate its former business importance but neglected and tumble-down storehouses and decaying wharves, against which lay a superannuated fish freighter, the tide flowing. in and out of her open seams, and the broken cordage flapping monotonously against her hare spars as if she had come here to die on the scene of her former usefulness. "It may not then be wondered at that, with such examples before them, American fishermen look with dread and distrust upon any proposition to renew similar relations with the British provinces. The evils they now have under the treaty of 1818, though they are many and onerous, are preferred instead. Judging from the past, there can be no question that the result of another era of free fishing and "free fish" would be the practical annihilation of our ocean fisheries. And there can be little doubt that fair success can be obtained and our fisheries restored to prosperity if they are accorded a reasonable amount of protection, so that, at least, they may be placed on an even footing with foreign competitors who are fostered by bounties, and have none of the onerous duties to pay which are exacted from our fishermen. * * * "And will it not be a wiser policy to promote by all justifiable means an industry which adds to the country's wealth, and at the same time trains a large body of efficient seamen who must ever stand as a bulwark against its invasion by sea? If this is granted, then experience has proved that there is only one way to reach the desired result. While free fish will surely sound the death knell of the American fisheries, the assurance of American markets for American products will as certainly promote them." * Statements of this kind from impartial observers might be multiplied to any extent, but, we are sure, enough has been said to impress any one with the fact that we must always protect our fisheries from aggressions of foreign officials, and from the free competition of foreign fishery products, or else, in a very brief time, we shall be compelled to rely for fish-food entirely upon a monopoly controlled by foreign capital and operated under a foreign flag. Patriotism and the principle of self-protection should be sufficient to induce every citizen of the United States who has the welfare of his country at heart to oppose any measure which will bring about such results, which are certain if we comply with the wishes of Canada. And why should Canada complain, as she has done, of what she is pleased to term prohibitive duty on fish, when as a matter of fact our rates of tariff on fishery products are only about half of her own rates, and only a few of our industries, if any, are so poorly protected as the fisheries are under the present tariff and the prevailing regulations of the Treasury Department. Well may Senator Frye exclaim, "Of all our industries this alone is left unprotected, and the men employed in it are the most exposed, the hardest worked, and the poorest paid. The duty which England seeks to repeal is the lowest in the list of duties, less than that on any agricultural products, not one-half so great as that on any manufacture, two-thirds lower than that on sugar and rice, lower than that on beef, or mutton, or pork."t Under our present tariff arrangement salt fish only are dutiable, 1 cent per pound, or two dollars per barrel, being the duty on mackerel, and 50 cents per hundred pounds on most all other kinds of salt fish. This specific duty averages about 10 per cent. ad valorem, which is certainly not a tariff to be complained of when we consider the much higher rates charged on nearly all other kinds of imported goods. But fresh fish are admitted free of duty. In strict accordance with the law such fish are only to be admitted when they are intended for "immediate consumption," but by a ruling of the Treasury Department the plain intent of Congress is thwarted, and the fishery interests of the country are suffering a great injury for lack of that protection which should be given to those who deal in fresh foodfish. Under the present system of refrigeration, both by natural and artificial means, it is possible to preserve fresh fish for an indefinite period. These are admitted into our markets free of duty, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to say definitely whether they are intended for immediate consumption or not, though it is no secret with all well-informed men that these products are often kept weeks, *J. W. Collins, in the Century Magazine, October, 1886. |