« PreviousContinue »
The “ differences" with Canada about our fishery rights in the North Atlantic are still unsettled, and in order to determine what are proper terms for the settlement of the dispute it is necessary to examine the title under which we claim our rights, and the extent to which we have been enabled to enjoy them.
Notwithstanding the rejection of the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty by the Senate, the policy influencing the present Administration at Washington, in its negotiation, is still in control; and as Mr. Cleveland has, by his message to Congress of August 23d, 1888, officially declared "that the treaty just rejected by the Senate was well suited to the exigency, and that its provisions were adequate for our security in the future from vexatious incidents and for the promotion of friendly neighborhood, and intimacy without sacrificing in the least our national pride or dignity,” it is plain that he would approve another treaty containing similar provisions.
Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at Birmingham, March 28th, 1888 (see London Times of March 29th, 1888), said: “I observe that within the last day or two Mr. Bayard [“ Hear, hear!”], a distinguished man who occupies at the present time the position of Secretary of State in America (cheers], has declared that in his judgment the treaty concedes to American fishermen all that in reason and justice they can ask from the Government of Canada. [Cheers.] But, if that be so, the refusal of such a settlement, the rejection of such an olive branch held out to the American people, would throw a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of those who would prolong the state of irritation and of dangerous antagonism which prevailed only two years ago in the relations between Great Britain and the United States. [“ Hear, hear!”] I hope, as I have said, that nothing of the kind will occur; but in any case, even if the final result should be delayed, we have at