ton, question was ever made of the right of American fishermen to purchase bait and other supplies in Canadian ports, or that such privileges were ever denied them.

Moreover, in Mr. Bayard's letter to Minister West of May 10, 1886, he recites the

gradual extension from time to time of the provisions of Article I of the convention of July 3, 1815, providing for reciprocal liberty of commerce between the United States and the territories of Great Britain in Europe so as gradually to include the colonial possessions of Great Britain in North America and the West Indies within the results of that treaty.

And then Mr. Bayard proceeds to make the following statement: President Jackson's proclamation of October 5, 1830, created a reciprocal commercial intercourse, on terms of perfect equality of flag, between this country and the British American dependencies by repealing the navigation acts of April 18, 1818, May 15, 1820, and March 1, 1823, and admitting British vessels and their cargoes "to an entry in the ports of the United States from the islands, provinces, and colonies of Great Britain on or near the American continent and north or east of the United States."

And thereupon Mr. Bayard further says to Mr. West:

I ask you to consider the results of excluding American vessels, duly possessed of permits from their own Government to touch and trade at Canadian ports as well as to engage in deep-sea fishing, from exercising freely the customary and reasonable rights and privileges of trade in the ports of the British colonies as are freely allowed to British vessels in all the ports of the United States under the laws and regulations to which I have adverted.

Among these customary rights and privileges may be enumerated the purchase of ship supplies of every nature, making repairs, the shipment of crews in whole or part, and the purchase of ice and bait for use in deep-sea fishing. Concurrently, these usual, rational, and convenient privileges are freely extended to and are fully enjoyed by the Canadian merchant marine of all occupations, including fishermen in the ports of the United States. The question therefore arises whether such a construction is admissible as would convert the treaty of 1818 from being an instrumentality for the protection of the inshore fisheries along the described ports of the British American coast into a pretext or means of obstructing the business of deep-sea fishing by citizens of the United States, and of interrupting and destroying the commercial intercourse that since the treaty of 1818, and independent of any treaty whatever, has grown up and now exists under the concurrent and friendly laws and mercantile regulations of the respective countries.

I may recall to your attention the fact that a proposition to exclude the vessels of the United States engaged in fishing from carrying also merchandise was made by the British negotiators of the treaty of 1818, but being resisted by the American negotiators was abandoned. This fact would seem clearly to indicate that the business of fishing did not then and does not now disqualify a vessel from also trading in the regular ports of entry.

In his speech of April 10 Sir Charles Tupper states this contention of Mr. Bayard and makes the best reply he can to it, as follows:

It was claimed by the Government of the United States in 1818 that as no commercial vessel could come into the waters of British North America from the United States, there was no intercourse; that those were privileges given to the fishing vessels by that treaty beyond anything that was enjoyed by any other class of vessels. And when a changed condition of things came about, when the commercial arrangement of 1830 had, as they contended, entirely changed the status of their fishing vessels in our waters-since, as they said, under that commercial arrangement it was provided that their trading vessels could enter freely the ports of British North America, and our trading vessels could enter their ports, as there was no exemption or exclusion of fishing vessels, they claimed that rights had been acquired by the fishing vessels that entirely took them out of the category of the treaty of 1818, under which they were restricted from going into our waters for any but the four purposes.

Sir Charles then proceeds to assert that the contention is unfounded, because the arrangement of 1830 was a commercial arrangement, and that the king's order in council was "silent as to fishing vessels." He then says:

The treaty solemnly declared that the people of the United States renounced forever the right to claim for a fishing vessel any such commercial privileges whatever. And under those circumstances it is a principle in law, constitutional as well as general law, and, I believe, accepted by all countries, that you can

break down our tariff system. The utterances of Sir Charles Tupper, which I have quoted conclusively prove this. To carry out this plan diplomatic correspondence was dropped; an unconstitutional commission was created; the demand for commercial rights was abandoned; a surrender was made to all the Canadian theories concerning the fisheries, and the initial step in the main purpose of the alliance was taken in Article XV of the treaty, which is intended to force Congress to remove some of our customs duties. Southern Democrats gave the orders to Northern Democrats; the Democratic party abandoned its spasmodic attempt to defend the fishermen against Canadian aggression; and the great object of this Democratic-British alliance now is to pass the Mills bill, keep the Democratic party in power, and destroy the American tariff system.

These unpatriotic and injurious assaults upon American interests of the combined forces of English free-traders and Southern Democrats should be met at the threshold by the rejection of this discreditable treaty. The admissions made by its negotiators will doubtless make it more difficult to obtain from England our just rights. But asserted with moderation, patience and firmness they will surely be granted. England will not in 1888 refuse to grant us the article of the treaty of 1815 with the two words "in Europe" omitted, which is all we need desire, as follows:

ARTICLE 1. There shall be between the territories of the United States of America and all the territories of Her Britannic Majesty a reciprocal liberty of commerce. The inhabitants of the two countries, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all such places, ports, and rivers in the territories aforesaid, to which other foreigners are permitted to come, to enter into the same and to remain and reside in any parts of the said territories, respectively; also, to hire and occupy houses and warehouses for the purposes of their commerce; and generally the merchants and traders of each nation, respectively, shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.

The bugbear of war need not frighten any one. England never went to war with any nation to force the opening of ports for trade, except with China to compel the admission of opium. Even the excessive retaliation which it has been intimated the President will attempt if this pet treaty shall be rejected would be no cause for war. A decision to give to Canadian fishing vessels in American ports only the same privileges which are given American vessels in Canadian ports, and to exclude Canadian fish from our markets, will at any time give the New England fishermen all they desire. Retaliation to this extent the President, who is not always under the control of Southern Democrats, will doubtless first adopt; there will probably never be occasion to resort to more.

The question of the rights and privileges of American fishermen in the waters, on the coasts, and in the harbors of Canada, in recently dealing with which the United States has occupied the position of an inferior nation, dealing with one vastly superior, if taken up for consideration by our Government in a spirit not sectional, but national, and treated in appropriate negotiations with England, as it should be dealt with in this era of international intercourse by two great nations, equal in dignity, honor, and power, may yet be, even by this Administration, satisfactorily and honorably settled; if it is not it certainly will be so adjusted by the administration which will come into power on the 4th of March, 1889.

In this connection it is interesting to notice the contrast between two distinguished New England Democrats. One of them, Mr. Will nations. It has also formally surrendered the Monroe doctrine, and the surrender has been submitted to by Southern Democrats without one dissenting voice. Nothing so plainly shows the change that has come over the spirit of the Democracy of the South occasioned by their unsuccessful attempt at rebellion as their indifference to the encroachments of European nations on the North American continent. Once au assault upon the Monroe doctrine by a President, Whigor Democrat, would have brought every Democratic Senator to his feet with bold and patriotic denunciations. Now, not one of them so much as notices the ignominious betrayal of the interests of the United States in connection with the American Isthmus by their President and their Secretary of State.

Upon no one subject have American statesmen been more emphatic or so unanimous as they have in declaring that European powers shall obtain no new foothold in the western hemisphere.

John Quincy Adams when Secretary of State wrote to the Russian minister at Washington:

We should assume distinctly the principle that the American continents are no longer subjects for any new European colonial establishment.

Jefferson, on the 24th of October, 1823, wrote to President Monroe that the

object is to introduce and establish the American system of keeping out of our land all foreign powers; of never permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our nation.

Madison, in a note to Jefferson early in November, 1823, said: In the great struggle of the epoch between liberty and despotism we owe it to ourselves to sustain the former, in this hemisphere at least.

In July, 1823, Mr. Adams, in a letter to Mr. Middleton, further declared that the claim then pressed by Russia to possessions on the northwestern coast of North America was not conducive to the peace of the world.

He said:

With the exception of the British establishments north of the United States, the remainder of both the American continents must henceforth be left to the management of American hands.

President Monroe, in his annual message to Congress dated December 2, 1823, giving an account of the claims of Russia on the northwest and of Spain on her late colonies, declared that

The occasion had been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and naintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonizaon by any European powers.

President Adams, in his message of March, 1826, speaking of advantages to be derived from independent American states, says that among the subjects of consultation proposed at Panama was

the means of making effectual the assertion of that principle to permit no colonial lodgment or establishment of Kuropean jurisdiction upon its own soil,

The same policy was urged by Mr. Clay, as Secretary of State, in cor. respondence with Mexico, and it was adopted by the four states represented at Panama.

President Polk, in his message of December, 1845, after approving the Monroe declaration, says:

No future European colony or domain shall, with our consent, be planted or established on any part of the American continent.

President Grant was firmly in favor of the Monroe doctrine and of CHANDLER-2