The American Fisheries Question.

Thames Star, Volume XIX, Issue 5657, 15 March 1887, Page 4

The American Fisheries Question.

ATTACKS ON ENGLAND. The American Senate.on Janoary 24th discussed the bill authorising the" President to protect and defend the rights of American fishing vessels and fishermen and the trading of other vessels in certain oases.

Mr Ingalls (Kansas) thought the fishing difficulties must be ultimately settled either by negotiations or by war; and it was important that, before a vote was taken on the bill, the Foreign Affairs Com* xnittee should state whether the measure was intended to be pacific or hostile, and whether in effect it was an invitation to negotiate or a practical declaration of war. A feeling of irritation prevailed, the real party interested being Great Britain, and not Canada, which was liable at any moment, if the present attitude continued, to lead to discontent *and this might ripen into exasperation, and the latter into open hostility. It was therefore necessary for the Senate to know now whether the bill was a paciGc or a hostile measure. Mr Frye (Maine) intimated that President Cleveland and the Cabinet desired the proposed legislation. He declared that Great Briiain knew the utter inhumanity of its aciion in the recent fishery cases, and referred to England's approval of the recent Canadian statute, which, he said, destroyed the hope that she would do what was fair and just. -Mr Hoar (Massachusetts) regarded this as an attempt by a foreign Power to force upon the United States, against her will, a certain domestic policy, ar>d as the most emphatic) and flagrant act of ibostility which it was possible to commit short of actual war. He disagreed, however, with Mr Ingalls regarding the object of the bill, which was merely intended to inform Great Britain and Canada, that so long as they attempted to interfere with the domestic arrangements of the United States, so long would they not be permitted to sell fish and other produce in this country. Mr Ingalls declared that the purpose of the bill was a declaration to Great Britain that if she continued her present course it would be at her peril, and that if she did not desist there would be war. He maintained that, so far as this bill was concerned, the matter had to be settled either by diplomacy or war. Mr Ingalls then delivered a violent attack against England, declaring that she had always been " a ruffian, a coward, and a bully among nations; insolent to the weak, tyranical to the feeble, and cringing and obsequious to the strong." Her rulers were, he added, unfriendly to the United States. Her course was in the direction of wrongs, insolence, and outrage. He thought, however, that there was no special reciprocity of goodwill in America towards her. England desired to render it impossible for free and friendly reciprocal relations, political or otherwise, to exist between Canada and the United States.

After some further debate, the bill was agreed to by 46 votes to 1. The New York Herald publishes a telegram from Ottawa, dated January 26, according to .which Sir John Macdonald, the Canadian Premier, has stated that the Dominion wishes to live in peace and harmony witb the United States, and that he had only acted in tue Fisheries qupstion according to treaty rights. He bad endeavored to avoid all sources of friction, and the whole matter had been one of grave solicitude to the Dominion Government. It was not contemplated to coerce the United States, and no such spirit prevailed in the Cabinet. The whole subj'-ct was one of law, and the English la?? officers sustained the action of Canada, who, he declared, would not recede from her present position.