ruUsoJOurYLA en vomXslA ■ 
 
Glass LaH 
 
 Book H3 9&, 
 

 ADDRESS. 
 
 ¥i9 
 
 T H B 
 
 PRESENT RELATIONS OF PARTIES. 
 
 DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO ADJUST THE 
 
 QUESTIONS WITH OTHER NATIONS BROUGHT 
 
 OUT BY THE REBELLION, 
 
 PROTECT AMERICAN FISHERIES 
 
 AGAINST BRITISH AGGRES 
 
 By BEMT. F. BUTLER, 
 
 MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, NOV. 33, 1S-70. 
 
 WARDEN & ROWELL, PRINTERS, LOWELL. 
 
 'fjo 
 

of 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 RESULTS OF THE WAR ABROGATING 
 PARTY DISTINCTIONS. 
 
 By the results flowing from the 
 late Rebellion ; by the growth and 
 expansion of the country ; by the 
 facilities of intercommunication and 
 transportation, demanding a system 
 of national internal improvements ; 
 by the variety of interests arising 
 from opposing differences of indus- 
 trial, agricultural and commercial 
 pursuits ; b} r the necessities for rev- 
 enue calling for taxation, both direct 
 and indirect ; by the extent and 
 varied character of our national ob- 
 ligations introducing new forms of 
 wealth and subjects for a circulating 
 medium of unchangeable and equal 
 value ; — -quite all the distinctions of 
 party doctrines and party watch- 
 words have been abrogated, save the 
 single dogma, still adhered to by the 
 Democratic party, as to the rights of 
 the States as corporations in con- 
 tradistinction to the rights of the 
 Federal Union as a national govern- 
 ment. 
 
 MISSION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT 
 HOME ENDED. 
 
 The Republican party, in its 
 inception, held in fact but one 
 cardinal principle in common ; its 
 members divided upon every other. 
 Its highest claim was a demand for 
 the extinction of slavery by the grad- 
 ual circumscription of its limits. By 
 the insurrection of the seceding 
 States, by their union into a con- 
 federation exercising the powers of 
 government, by the overthrow of that 
 confederation, preceded by the 
 emancipation of every slave, and by 
 the subsequent reconstruction of 
 eveiy insurgent State with constitu- 
 tions themselves obliterating slavery ; 
 and lastly by the 14th and 15th 
 amendments giving to all men equal 
 rights and equal powers under the 
 government, even that distinctive 
 idea has been taken from the Repub- 
 lican part}', leaving it, as a party, 
 no peculiarity of doctrine for its 
 future aspirations upon which to rally 
 its partisans. Its record is of the 
 
past alone. Its mission, at home, 
 has ended save to garner the gleanings 
 of the harvest of its great past. 
 
 THE DEMOCRACY DWINDLE INTO AN 
 OPPOSITION ONLY. 
 
 The more intelligent of the Demo- 
 cratic party — those not hound up in 
 the simple traditions of the resolu- 
 tions of '98 — those who think for 
 themselves, who study the philosophy 
 of events and indulge even a hope of 
 a political future, accept the amend- 
 ments of the constitution — which are 
 but the statutory expression of the 
 condition of the public mind on the 
 questions which the war settled — as a 
 finality, and propose no longer to 
 struggle against what is political 
 fate ; so that to the leading minds, of 
 the Democrac}^ all former party 
 ideas have vanished save carping 
 criticisms upon the republican admin- 
 istration of government, which 
 may be the basis of an opposition, 
 but not the foundation upon which 
 a great party can sustain itself and 
 govern a country. 
 
 THE SHIBBOLETH OF REPUBLICANISM 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUN- 
 TRY IS NOT TO PASS INTO THE 
 HANDS OF ITS ENEMIES. 
 
 When the call to arms in 1861 
 ranged patriotic men of all shades 
 of political opinion on the side 
 of the government, and by the 
 mere force of that circumstance they 
 were thrown into the ranks of the 
 Republican party because they saw 
 that the time had come when slavery 
 
 was no longer compatible with free 
 institutions as they existed under 
 the Union and Constitution, many 
 who had acted all their lives with 
 the Democratic party became identi- 
 fied as Republicans, bringing into that 
 party all their Democratic doctrines 
 and opinions except those upon free- 
 dom and slavery, which had been 
 grafted upon the Democratic creed 
 by the necessity of sustaining the 
 institutions of the South where the 
 majority of «fche party held sway. 
 This class of Republicans, or war 
 Democrats, formed no inconsiderable 
 portion of the Republican party and 
 aided not a little in the ultimate 
 triumphs of the country in the 
 struggle for its life. So it hap- 
 pens that the Republican party is 
 scarcely a homogeneous one. Its 
 members to-day hold but a single 
 thought in common — they may and 
 do differ upon all else. That is the 
 determination that the government 
 of the country ought not, must not 
 and shall not pass into the hands of 
 those who sought to divide and 
 destroy it, or who were passively 
 willing it should be divided. 
 
 GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION STRONGER 
 THAN ANY SINCE JACKSON. 
 
 Herein lies the secret of that ad- 
 mirable vitality of the Republican 
 party which has become the wonder 
 of. the politician and the d-read of 
 the Democrac}'. This determination 
 of all true men, shown in every 
 canvass, expressed by every ballot 
 
has enabled the Republican party, 
 after ten consecutive years of 
 administration, after three times 
 electing its president notwithstand- 
 ing the apostasy of one, in spite of 
 the many corruptions that necessar- 
 ily creep into a party so long holding 
 power, to do, as it is now doing, 
 what no other administration has 
 been able to do since Jackson — elect 
 to the first House of Representatives, 
 chosen after the inauguration of its 
 president, a majority of nearly two- 
 thirds. Save in the case of Lincoln 
 only in 1862, when the war united 
 all parties at the North, and the 
 whole South had thrown itself off, who 
 was enabled to carry a small majority, 
 this has not been done since Jackson. 
 Every other president but Grant 
 has found an opposition speaker in 
 his first House of Representatives. 
 Even Pierce, who carried the whole 
 country save five States, is not an 
 exception. 
 
 LOYALTY TO FREEDOM THE PREREQUI- 
 SITE TO POLITICAL PREFERMENT. 
 
 And why this marvellous result? 
 Because the people believe the Re- 
 publican party have saved the coun- 
 try ; they believe that it desires to 
 maintain liberty and free institutions 
 secured by law ; that in spite of all 
 its mistakes, all its shortcomings, 
 and all its sins of omission and com- 
 mission — and they are many, to our 
 shame be it spoken — that the interests 
 of the country as the representative 
 government, as an exemplar to man- 
 
 kind, are safer in the hands of the 
 Republican party than in the hands 
 of that Democracy who sympathized 
 with the rebellion and threatens 
 when in power, to unsettle all the 
 issues closed by the war. This 
 one vital thought — Fidelity to 
 Freedom, Law and Country — is the 
 shibboleth that every true man must 
 fitter who expects political prefer- 
 ment at the hands of the people. 
 
 Upon all other questions the wid- 
 est latitude of opinion is permitted 
 in the Republican party. 
 
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DIVIDED UPON 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 Upon the tariff some are for pro- 
 tection per se, and some are free 
 traders, while perhaps the major 
 part, learaing from experience that 
 indirect taxation is most easily 
 borne by the people and most 
 easily enforced by government, and 
 believing that the . necessities of 
 the country to meet the required 
 large expenditures of administration 
 and the interest upon the public 
 debt — a legacy of the war — have 
 made a need for tariff to raise reve- 
 nue sufficient for a basis to all 
 necessary incidental protection to 
 American industries, have adopted 
 for their policy such a revenue tariff 
 with incidental protection, with the 
 largest possible free list. 
 
 DEMOCRACT NOT A UNIT FOR FREE- 
 TRADE. 
 
 Like differences upon a tariff policy 
 disturb the peace of the Democracy. 
 
6 
 
 The farmer of the Northwest believes 
 there outfit to be protection for his 
 wool. The Kehtuckian asks it for 
 his hemp, and the Louisianian for 
 his sugar. So by no means are our 
 opponents united upon revenue 
 measures. 
 
 REPUBLICAN DIFFERENCES UPON FI- 
 NANCE AND CURRENCY. 
 
 Upon measures of finance and the 
 character of our currency, similar 
 differences divide the adherents of 
 each party. Many good and earnest 
 Republicans believe that the present 
 currency furnished by the national 
 banks is the best that the world ever 
 saw, and that the prosperity if not 
 the safety of the country is bound 
 up in the sustenance of those insti- 
 tutions and the mone} r they issue. 
 Some also believe that the m i 
 loaned the government during the 
 war, although the lender took ad- 
 vantage of the then depressed state 
 of the nation's credit to make the 
 best bargain he could and to loan his 
 money at fifty per cent, or less of 
 the obligation in coin, should never 
 be made subject to taxation for an}' 
 purpose whatever, and should be paid 
 in gold at its fall face, irrespective 
 •of the terms of the law which created 
 the debt. Others are equally certain 
 that paper money issued by corpora- 
 tions for their own gain and profit is 
 the dearest and worst currency with 
 which a nation can be cursed, and in 
 the language of Webster, that of all 
 institutions ever devised by men to 
 
 make the rich richer and the poor 
 poorer, and to till the rich man's 
 field by the sweat of the poor man's 
 brow, the banking system which is- 
 sues as mone} r , an irredeemable 
 currency, bears the palm. Some 
 believe that the burdens of taxation 
 upon invested capital should be 
 equal, whether the investment is in 
 commerce, in manufactures, in agri- 
 culture or in national securities, and 
 see no reason why more than two 
 thousand millions of the most pro- 
 ductive wealth of the country should 
 be substantially exempted from the 
 public burdens, and especially the 
 taxation of the nation which gives the 
 only value to that class of capital. 
 Some of these last also believe that 
 the notes of the nation issued without 
 cost or interest is a better currency 
 than the note of any corporation is- 
 sued for profit to the corporators can 
 be. And they further believe that it 
 is right of the government, if it is 
 deemed politic, to pay its debts 
 in exact accordance with the pro- 
 visions of the laws creating them. 
 
 SOLDIERS' PENSIONS A PREFERRED DEBT, 
 TO BE PAID IN GOLD. 
 
 And they know if any preference is 
 to be given to any class of the gov- 
 ernment creditors by provisions for 
 payment in coin, it should be to 
 those debts of high honor due to the 
 soldiers who fought in the trenches 
 of Vicksburg, Petersburg, and on 
 the fields of Gettysburg and the 
 heights of Lookout Mountain, and to 
 
the mothers, widows and orphans in 
 their promised pensions, the price of 
 a husband's and father's life-blood 
 and limb. 
 
 FAILURE TO MAKE FINANCIAL QUES- 
 TIONS A TEST OF REPUBLICANISM. 
 
 An attempt was made two years 
 ago to read out of the Republican 
 party those who held such belief, 
 irrespective of their record of ser- 
 vices to the country, or their fidelity 
 upon those other great and vital 
 questions of freedom and loj'alty to 
 the government, which were the very 
 essence of its existence. That attempt, 
 however, was soon found to be utterly 
 futile in the West, and the only case 
 in which it was tried in the East 
 resulted in so miserable a failure, so 
 disastrous to those who undertook it, 
 that the experiment will|hardly be re- 
 peated. 
 
 CONGRESS REFUSES TO TAX THE PEO- 
 PLE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PAYMENT 
 OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, 
 
 The division in sentiment in both 
 parties upon finance is still more 
 curiously shown in what may be 
 properly denominated the only ad- 
 ministration measure of finance, that 
 is, the taxation of the people for the 
 immediate payment of the public 
 debt. 
 
 In his last annual report, the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, speaking 
 as the organ of the administation, 
 
 fully recommended congress to sustain 
 the then rate of taxation in order to 
 a speedy payment of the public debt. 
 The administration seemed to en- 
 trench itself as in its stronghold in 
 this, its great finance measure, yet 
 we see a Republican congress, not 
 without division in the Republican 
 party, aided largely by Democratic 
 votes, reducing both direct and indi- 
 rect taxation of the people more than 
 eighty millions of dollars at a single 
 session, thus depriving the Treas- 
 ury in a very large degree — nearly 
 50 per cent. — of the means to carry 
 out its own recommendations. Per- 
 haps upon no measure was there a 
 greater departure from the recom- 
 mendation of the administration by 
 congress than upon this. The Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury made the 
 ultimatum of his administration the 
 immediate payment of the public 
 debt, which could only be done, by 
 keeping up the high rates of taxation 
 imposed by the necessities of the 
 war. And if economy in expendi- 
 tures, if vigor in the collection of 
 the revenue, if studious, energetic 
 employment of all its products in 
 cancelling the national obligations, 
 be evidence of the wisdom of a poli- 
 cy, certainly the highest praise is to 
 be bestowed upon our honored fellow 
 citizen, the Secretary of the Treasu- 
 ry. Assuming the desirableness of 
 his end, with scrupulous honesty and 
 integrity of purpose, he has adopted 
 every means to that consummation. 
 
8 
 
 UNWISE TO EXHAUST BY TAXATION CAP- 
 ITAL NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE 
 COUNTRY. 
 
 But a Republican congress doubted 
 — and I am one of those who think 
 that they might well be permitted to 
 doubt — the wisdom of exhausting 
 the commercial capital of the coun- 
 try in order to cancel the national 
 obligations within the life-time of the 
 present generation. What, exactly, 
 did the Secretary propose to do ? It 
 was proposed to take by taxation 
 from the people one hundred and 
 fifty to two hundred millions of dol- 
 lars each year with which to lessen, 
 or, as it was phrased, to pay the 
 national debt. 
 
 SIX PER CENT. ONLY SAVED, AND TEN 
 PER CENT. LOST THEREBY. 
 
 But we all of us know that 
 every dollar of money used in 
 the agricultural, commercial and 
 industrial enterprises of this coun- 
 try costs the merchant, manufac- 
 turer or agriculturist at least ten 
 per cent, interest per annum ; and 
 we have seen the "singular spectacle 
 of a government, in order to save 
 six per cent, interest, taking by tax- 
 ation from the capital which the peo- 
 ple needed to carry on their business, 
 costing them ten per cent., nearly 
 two hundred millions of dollars a 
 year. Or, in other words, in order 
 to save six per cent, interest to itself, 
 the government causes the people to 
 pay ten per cent, interest to obtain 
 the money to answer the demands of 
 the tax gatherer. 
 
 CONGRESS CUT OFF EIGHTY MILLION 
 TAXES LAST SESSION — WILL AN 
 EQUAL AMOUNT NEXT. ' 
 
 A majority of the Republican par- 
 ty and a portion of the Democratic 
 party did not think this wise, and 
 therefore taxation was reduced, as 
 we have seen, more than eighty mil- 
 lions, and, in the coming session of 
 congress it is safe to predict it will 
 be reduced in quite an equal amount. 
 
 THE ALLEGHANIES DIVIDE BOTH PAR- 
 TIES ON FINANCIAL QUESTIONS. 
 
 The Democracy of the West are 
 sundered from their brethren upon 
 these same measures. Indeed, with 
 a few exceptions, upon questions of 
 finance both parties in the country 
 are substantially divided by a line 
 running North and South along the 
 backbone of the Alleshanies. Those 
 on the Easterly side, where capital 
 abounds, believe that it should be 
 exempt from taxation ; those on the 
 Westerly side, the debtor portion of 
 the nation, believe that capital 
 should bear equal if not a greater 
 share of the public burdens. 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHANGES 
 
 FRONT ON THE ACQUISITION OF 
 
 TERRITORY. 
 
 Upon another set of great public 
 measures a still more curious divis- 
 ion and exchange of party ideas takes 
 place. Heretofore it has been the 
 boast of the Democratic party that 
 they desired to extend the bounda- 
 ries of the country, or, in the catch- 
 
word of the day " the area of free- 
 dom," by acquisition of territory. 
 Now we see a Republican administra- 
 tion with wise prescience of the inter- 
 est of the nation, seeking to annex 
 San Domingo, sustained by a majority 
 of a Republican Senate, and by a 
 majority of a Republican House, and 
 the whole Democratic vote solidly 
 against receiving into the Union the 
 best and most desirable acquisition 
 that has ever offered an extension of 
 our empire. 
 
 THE WISDOM OF THE ANNEXATION OF 
 SAN DOMINGO. 
 
 Upon the annexation of San Do- 
 mingo, one would have thought no 
 patriot would have doubted the wise 
 foresight of the President in eagerly 
 pursuing this acquisition. The outer- 
 most island of the Antilles, with the 
 best harbor and most easily defended 
 as a naval station of any on the 
 continent, safe and salubrious at all 
 seasons of the year at Samana Bay, 
 a well-fortified naval station and coal 
 depot of the United States established 
 there, would render all the naval sta- 
 tions of Great Britain or other 
 foreign powers in the West Indies 
 untenable and useless. Whoever 
 desires this continent shall be 
 ruled by Americans, and that all 
 foreign powers shall retire therefrom, 
 will agree with the President in his 
 desire to have San Domingo, the 
 priceless jewel of the sea, the 
 possession of which insures Cuba 
 as our own. 
 
 ACQUISITION FAILED THROUGH DEM- 
 OCRATIC VOTES. 
 
 That administration measure failed 
 by a union of a minority of the Re- 
 publicans with the solid of the Demo- 
 cratic vote ; yet the acquisition of 
 Cuba, a less fertile and less com- 
 manding island of the Antilles, at 
 the cost of unnumbered millions, has 
 been the subject of advocatory re- 
 solutions, time out of mind, in De- 
 mocratic conventions, equalled in 
 number only by the repetition of 
 the resolutions of '98. 
 
 DEMOCRATS AND TARIFF MEN UNITE 
 TO CRIPPLE OUR COMMERCE. 
 
 We also see a like division in each 
 party upon the question of the re-es- 
 tablishment of American commerce, 
 crippled and almost destroyed by 
 the hostile acts of Great Britian 
 during the rebellion, most vividly 
 illustrated at the breaking out of the 
 war between Prussia and France, 
 when the President, as an adminis- 
 tration measure, by a formal message 
 recommended that our merchants 
 have liberty to purchase the iron 
 steamships of the belligerents which 
 might be otherwise locked up by 
 blockade in their ports to be naviga- 
 ted under our flag, thus give em- 
 ployment to our sailors and to cheap- 
 en the transportation of our exports. 
 
 TARIFF MEN AND FREE TRADERS UNITED 
 AGAINST OUR BUYING SHIPS. 
 
 We then saw the singular spectacle 
 in congress of leading Democrats, 
 one, an old whig abolitionist, rep- 
 
10 
 
 resenting the Democracy of New 
 York city, striking hands with 
 the Republican tariff men of Maine 
 and Pennsylvania, as well in the 
 Senate as in the House, to talk against 
 time so that the waning hours of the 
 session might expire, to prevent the 
 passage of a Republican administra- 
 tion measure to relieve American 
 commerce. 
 
 BOTH UNITE AGAINST OUR SHIP- 
 BUILDERS. 
 
 Nor was this the only instance of 
 the division of the members of both 
 parties on a kindred subject. A 
 bill prepared by a select committee of 
 the Republican House of representa- 
 tives on the decline of American 
 commerce, endorsed by a Republican 
 President of the United States in a 
 special message, devised to afford 
 relief to American ship builders, 
 failed of consideration in a House of 
 Representatives with a nominal Re- 
 publican majority of more than two- 
 thirds, by the votes of a minority of 
 the Republicans going with the not 
 undivided handful of Democrats. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC PARTY DESTROYING STATE 
 RIGHTS IN THE VITAL POINT. 
 
 Let us now turn to the only ques- 
 tion in which the Republican aud 
 Democratic parties seem to be exact- 
 ly and diametrically opposed, the 
 rights of the States in the Union as 
 States. Upon the most material of 
 the rights of States, there seems to 
 be a vivid interchange of views once 
 
 held by the two parties. Previous 
 and subsequent even to the last 
 Presidential canvass, the candidate 
 of the Democratic party has been de- 
 monstrating to his followers, as a 
 matter imperatively calling for re- 
 form, the inequality of representation 
 in the Senate of the Uniled States of 
 the smaller States, such as Delaware, 
 Rhode Island, Florida and Nevada, 
 showing that their representation as 
 States by Senators having equal pow- 
 ers with the Senators of such States 
 as New York, Pennsylvania and Ill- 
 inois, is unequal and unjust, and 
 wholly subversive of the Democratic 
 doctrine of the right of the majority 
 of the people to govern. So that the 
 Democracy is found attacking the 
 rights of States at the only point 
 where States as States can make 
 themselves felt in federal legisla- 
 tion, to wit : State representation in 
 the Senate ; while the Republican 
 party, so far as it has expressed it- 
 self, sustains the rights of all the 
 States to equality of representation 
 in the Senate. 
 
 ALL FORMER PARTY ISSUES EITHER 
 
 IGNORED OR EXCHANGED. 
 
 » 
 
 Thus we have seen that upon quite 
 every issue that once divided the two 
 great parties, either differences exist 
 among their partizans or that each 
 party has substantially changed its 
 ground, one upholding that which 
 the other formerly denied, the other 
 denvino- that which it had asserted. 
 
11 
 
 THE DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
 TO ADJUST FOREIGN QUESTIONS. 
 
 We have also seen that the Republican 
 party has adjusted all the questions 
 raised by the war, so far as they affect 
 the internal polity of the government, 
 and so far as itself is concerned. 
 There now remains to it only to 
 adjust the great international and 
 foreign questions that were evolved 
 by our late terrible civil contest. 
 And as we have reconstructed the 
 States lately destroyed by the rebel- 
 lion, so we should reconstruct our 
 commerce likewise destroyed in the 
 same war. As we have adjusted the 
 claims of our citizens for damages 
 done in the war by our own gov- 
 ernment, so far as we have thought 
 them just and equitable and not 
 tainted with rebellion, so we should 
 now adjust the claims of our citi- 
 zens and the claims of our nation 
 upon those nations who took advan- 
 tage of our crippled condition to 
 show a hostile spirit followed by un- 
 friendly acts. 
 
 THE COURSE OF ENGLAND DURING THE 
 
 WAR WAS MORE OBJECTIONABLE 
 
 THAN THAT OF FRANCE. 
 
 The chief offender against the 
 national dignity and honor in this 
 regard is the government of Great 
 Britain. True, imperial France was 
 quite as early iu the recognition of 
 the belligerent rights of the rebels, 
 quite as unfriendly in its spirit — in 
 its attack upon the neighboring 
 republic of Mexico ; but in the latter 
 
 it failed to do us any injury, and the 
 former was followed by no act of 
 which we could justly complain. No 
 rebel cruiser was fitted out or enter- 
 tained and refitted in any French 
 port. No pirate was let loose by 
 Napoleon to prey upon our com- 
 merce. 
 
 ALABAMA CLAIMS DO NOT REST ON 
 
 THE MERE INFRACTIONS OF PUBLIC 
 
 LAWS. 
 
 Upon what are popularly known 
 as the Alabama claims, I entertain 
 some views of the grounds upon 
 which they may rest different from 
 those usually put forth as the basis 
 of our grievances. I do not now 
 nor should I ever propose to ai-gue 
 the question whether England was 
 too earl}' or sufficiently late in her 
 recognition of the belligerent rights 
 of the South. I hold, with the Presi- 
 dent, that the question of time for 
 recognizing the belligerency of con- 
 tending parties is one to be settled 
 by each nation for itself, and no other 
 nation has airv proper ground for 
 complaint of that determination. 
 Nor do I care to examine whether 
 the Alabama and Shenandoah might 
 or might not have been kept in port 
 by more vigilance or increased activ- 
 ity of the British law officers, or by 
 more stringent municipal laws. Ad- 
 mit, for the sake of the argument, 
 that in that regard Great Britain did 
 each act in conformity with the laws 
 of nations. 
 
12 
 
 THE LAW OF NATIONS VIOLATED. 
 
 Yet, it will not be denied that 
 afterwards the Alabama and Shen- 
 andoah were received in British ports, 
 their officers feted, toasted and dined, 
 and the vessels refitted, provisioned 
 and supplied with the necessary 
 means of continuing their warfare 
 upon our commerce, which was 
 clearly a violation of international 
 laws. 
 
 BITTER HOSTILITY OF ENGLISH GOV- 
 ERNMENT. 
 
 Nor will it be denied that the 
 government of England was bit- 
 terly hostile to the Union during 
 the whole prosecution of the war ; 
 and was only restrained by her fears 
 of the results, and not by love of 
 the United States, from actively tak- 
 ing sides in that contest by acknow- 
 ledging the Confederacy. No man 
 can doubt that her government heart- 
 ily desired that her only successful 
 commercial rival should be crushed. 
 
 ENGLAND FOUNDS THE DOMINION OF 
 CANADA TO CRIPPLE US. 
 
 to be in accord with a hostile nation 
 on the South. B}' the valor of our 
 soldiers and the patriotism of our 
 people, under the providence of God, 
 the British government was disap- 
 pointed in its dearest wishes and 
 failed of its most cherished desires. 
 
 SHE HAS DESTROYED OUR COMMERCE 
 AND PROLONGED THE WAR. 
 
 The effect of what was done and 
 omitted to be done by Great Britain, 
 that as a friendly nation she ought 
 to have done, is that our com- 
 merce has been substantially swept 
 from the seas ; we had only thousands 
 of tons at the close of the war where 
 we had millions of tons at the begin- 
 ning. No man, even now, can. cross 
 the Atlantic Ocean in a sea-going 
 steamer flying the American flag. 
 
 Another eifect of the position of the 
 British government toward the South, 
 by giving false hopes to the Con- 
 federacy, was to prolong the war, at 
 the expense of millions upon millions 
 of treasure and thousands upon 
 thousands of lives 
 
 NOTHING UONE FOU SIX YEARS. 
 
 • Nor can we look upon the consolida- \ 
 tion of her provinces upon the north | 
 of us into a new nation called a Do- 
 minion, from which unchecked raids ! And yet we are far into the sixth 
 were made upon our defenceless bord- ! year since the war was ended without 
 ers, (while the war was raging), as being nearer, — not to say to a 
 
 other than a hostile movement, de- 
 signed to cripple us in case the South 
 should be successful, by creating an 
 unfriendly nation on the North of us, 
 
 reparation for these wrongs — even 
 to a practical consideration of the 
 questions involved than we were at 
 the dav of the surrender of Lee. 
 
13 
 
 DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO 
 SETTLE FOR THESE WRONGS. 
 
 The Republican party is the dom- 
 inant party of the country, and must 
 remain so for the next three years at 
 least. Upon it and upon its admin- 
 istration devolve the duty and the 
 burden of bringing to a conclusion 
 all these questions and obtaining the 
 needed reparation, indemnification, 
 and apology for our wrongs. Delays 
 aid not their solution, but rather 
 add to their complications. Time can 
 never obliterate the deep sense of in- 
 jury this nation entertains of the ac- 
 tion of Great Britain during our war. 
 Years only intensify its bitterness. 
 The gaping wounds in our national 
 honor never will close up by lapse of 
 years. They must always remain 
 green, open, sore, until healed by the 
 potent salve of ample reparation and 
 indemnification. 
 
 WRONG AND COWARDLY TO WAIT TILL 
 
 ENGL VND 16 IN WAR TO LET 
 
 PERATES LOOSE ON HER 
 
 COMMERCE. 
 
 True, it is urged by some, not too 
 far-sighted or discriminating people, 
 principally newspaper writers, that 
 we should delay settlement of our 
 claims until England gets into, a war, 
 and then let loose other Alabamas, 
 other Shenandoahs, and other Flori- 
 das from our ports, in the interests 
 of the belligerent nation with 
 which she should be at war, to prey 
 upon her commerce, especially to 
 
 make the pretext ol war between her- 
 self and either of her dependen- 
 cies, to have our own citizens 
 fit out our ships as cruisers un- 
 der some apochryphal fiag and thus 
 to avenge our wrongs. The states- 
 manship of those who advocate 
 such a course would seem to be this : 
 we complain of her wrongs, and we 
 propose to make those right by doing 
 other like wrongs to be inflicted in 
 safety when our enemy is crippled. 
 Is this statesmanship? Is it mag- 
 nanimous? Is such redress bold, is 
 it manly ? Na3 r , is it not sneakingly 
 cowardly ? 
 
 LET US DEMAND OUR RIGHTS AND 
 MAINTAIN THAT DEMAND. 
 
 Let us rather stand up in the 
 manly strength of our nationhood, 
 and fearlessly, boldly claim the 
 rights which belong to us, insist up- 
 on their being respected, and that all 
 questions between us and Great 
 Britain be adjusted at once and for- 
 ever, so as to take away all cause of 
 unfriendliness between two powerful 
 nations of the earth. Let us say to 
 Great Britain, " Thus much we are 
 wronged ; thus much we require to 
 satisfy the nation's honor and the 
 nation's loss, and for that wrong, 
 and that loss, thus much we must 
 have, because it is our right, and be- 
 cause we are able to maintain our 
 right." Judge ye between the two 
 proposed modes of adjusting the 
 Alabama claims. 
 
14 
 
 OUR CLAIMS AGAINST ENGLAND DO NOT 
 DEPEND ON LEGAL QUIBBLES. 
 
 I have already said that I would 
 deal with this question wholly indepen- 
 dently of the discussion of the mere 
 legal rights of the parties as deter- 
 mined by public law ; and I do so upon 
 this, among other grounds. Whether 
 England stood upon the apices of her 
 legal rights, or stepped beyond them 
 when she made use of her power and 
 position to injure us, because of her 
 hostile spirit, can make no difference 
 in the amount of wrong clone to us. 
 The injury is as great, if she was 
 technically within the law, as if 
 she had broken some rule of inter- 
 national law, fancifully enacted by 
 some student publicist in his closet, 
 when writing a book. 
 
 OUR CLAIM IS THAT SHE HARMED US 
 BY HER HOSTILITY. 
 
 I only see that her government was 
 hostile, and her hostility was harmful 
 to the United States, and was so in- 
 tended. We claim reparation for that 
 harm done by this hostility. The 
 question is how are we to enforce our 
 rights? By declaring war? By no 
 means. The United States will never 
 lightly declare war. We are not a 
 war-making government ; we are only 
 a war-canying-on government when 
 war is made upon us. 
 
 HOW TO BEAT A VICIOUS NEIGHBOR. 
 
 I would apply the same doctrine to 
 nations that I would to individuals un- 
 
 der like circumstances. If my neigh- 
 bor takes advantage of the fact that 
 his line lies close under my windows, 
 to build a high fence to shut out the 
 light and air from my dwelling, in or- 
 der to show his hostility to myself and 
 family, do I stop to inquire whether 
 he has put that fence one inch over 
 or one inch within the line which di- 
 vides his land from mine? If he 
 has put it one inch over, I may sue 
 him in the courts of law. But there 
 are no courts of law to adjust dis- 
 putes between nations. If he has 
 put it one inch on his own land, to 
 gratify his ill will and injure me, 
 what is my remedy? Simply to de- 
 clare him a bad neighbor, and that I 
 will have notning to do with him in 
 the future, save to get him out of 
 my neighborhood if I can, and as 
 soon as I can, either by causing him 
 to move or by removing myself. 
 
 OUR REMEDY, NON-INTERCOURSE, WHICH 
 IS NOT JUST CAUSE OF WAR. 
 
 So would I do with England. ' If 
 she will not make reparation for the 
 wrongs done us during the war by 
 her hostility, not by simply making 
 good the millions that our mer- 
 chants lost, but by making good all 
 that the nation has lost, I would 
 treat her as I should my vicious 
 neighbor, who gave vent to his 
 enmity by darkening my windows — 
 declare that [ would have notning to 
 do with her, that I would neither buy 
 nor sell with her, or after due notice 
 hold diplomatic or commercial rela- 
 
tions with her henceforth until full re- 
 paration is made. Complete, thorough 
 and stringent non-intercourse is the 
 remedy. That is not war. That, is 
 not a casus belli under any sugges- 
 tion of the law of nations. We have 
 the undisputed right to trade with 
 whom we please, or to refuse to 
 trade with whom we please. 
 
 ENGLAND DARE NOT TREAT US AS SHE 
 DID CHINA. 
 
 True, Great Britain, when the 
 Government of China refused to 
 have its subjects poisoned by English 
 opium, sent a fleet and forced the 
 opium down the throats of the Chin- 
 ese at the mouth of her cannon ; but 
 what publicist ever dreamed that 
 that was ' done under any provision 
 of international law, but only an ex- 
 hibition of force? Besides, China 
 had not been admitted into the fam- 
 ily of nations. When tne United 
 States decides not to buy British 
 goods until she settles the Alabama 
 claims, I am willing to see Great 
 Britain if she thinks best sent her 
 fleets to our ports to sent ns to 
 take her manufactures of iron and 
 wool. 
 
 We know how to conduct a defen- 
 sive war whether by sea or laud. 
 
 TAKING OUR TRADE AND PRODUCTS 
 
 FROM ENGLAND WOULD WORK A 
 
 REVOLUTION IN THEIR 
 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 I do not deem it either unmanly or 
 unfair to say to England that she 
 
 shall have none of our cotton or 
 breadstuff's until this question is 
 settled, although such deprivation to 
 Manchester, Birmingham and Brad- 
 ford might work a revolution in 
 her government in six months. 
 
 NON-INTERCOURSE RIGHT, THOUGH WE 
 
 TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE 
 
 OPPORTUNITY. 
 
 Nor would it be more unmanly or 
 unfair to declare such non-inter- 
 course, because now is our opportu- 
 nity insomuch as Prussia and 
 France will be ready, in recovering 
 from their exhaustion, to take from 
 us all the surplus that we have both 
 of cotton and food for export, even 
 if they become sellers of the 
 first to England. Nor is it our fault 
 if England's delays in doing us jus- 
 tice have postponed our demand for 
 it till her complications with Russia, 
 have substantially put her at our 
 mercy. 
 
 BY THIS COURSE WE SHOULD SAVE MORE 
 
 THAN THE AMOUNT OF OUR LOSSES 
 
 BY THE ALABAMA, WHICH TnE 
 
 U. S. GOVERNMENT OUGHT 
 
 TO ASSUME. 
 
 The saving to the country by non- 
 importation of British goods — the 
 impetus given to our manufactories — 
 the protection thus afforded to Ameri- 
 can industry, would very soon quite 
 make good to us all that we have lost 
 in money by the Alabama outrages. 
 The United States government ought 
 to assume and pay all that there is of 
 
16 
 
 ascertained loss to the individual 
 citizens because of these claims. 
 
 THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF WRONGS 
 STATED. 
 
 The magnitude of the claims by this 
 country, as a nation, upon England, 
 and the claims of individuals as in- 
 dividuals upon either government, is 
 very different. When the individual 
 claims upon the government, he can- 
 not make good his claim if, being 
 insured, he has been paid insurance, 
 because, if his claim is allowed he 
 will receive his pay twice. Nor can 
 the insurer, even if he has paid the 
 insurance, make any claim, because 
 the war-premiums which he de- 
 manded for his insuring were 
 equal to the losses which he 
 paid. Such is the very theory of 
 insurance ; so that if he were paid 
 by the Government too, he would be 
 twice paid. The loss has fallen upon 
 the merchants, who paid the war-pre- 
 miums and had their commerce 
 crippled by British interference, 
 who are too scattered and too numer- 
 ous to have their losses adjusted as 
 individual claims, and upon the 
 nation whose sovereignty and honor 
 were defied and insulted. 
 
 Therefore, it seems to me but 
 proper that the United States should 
 undertake to remunerate small 
 amounts due the individual claim- 
 ants, and then add the amounts so 
 paid to its own great claim to be ad- 
 justed by Great Britain as a whole. 
 
 ENGLAND, AS REPARATION, OUGHT TO 
 REMOVE ALL DANGER OF COL- 
 LISION IN THE FUTURE. 
 
 For, after all, the great injury and 
 wrong is not one' to be compensated 
 in money. The better reparation to 
 this nation would be for England to 
 remove all opportunity or cause of 
 collision between the two countries in 
 the future. But those must always ex- 
 ist so long as England has a govern- 
 ment under her control, and for the 
 acts of which she is responsible, 
 stretching from ocean to ocean, across 
 our northern border, and for many 
 hundred miles intervening between us 
 and our newly acquired territory, 
 Alaska, and while she holds her 
 naval stations and depots at Jamaica, 
 Nassau and the Barbadoes, from 
 which our commerce and our coast 
 can be menaced in any future war 
 on this side the Atlantic* 
 
 TO SO DO SHE SHOULD REMOVE HER 
 POWER FROM THIS CONTINENT. 
 
 Therefore would I suggest that 
 that which would best satisfy the peo- 
 ple — that which would best meet the 
 exigencies of the occasion, and that 
 which England could part with her- 
 self in most honor, by showing a de- 
 sire to take away all ground of 
 possible unfriendly relations in the 
 future, would be that she should 
 withdraw her power from this con- 
 tinent. 
 
17 
 
 SUCH REMOVAL AN HONORABLE AND 
 
 SUFFICIENT EQUIVALENT FOR THE 
 
 ALABAMA CLAIMS- 
 
 I 3o not ask her to give us 
 Canada and her Provinces. I should 
 be willing to assume all the Alabama 
 claims and settle all possible differ- 
 ences between the two nations to- 
 morrow, if Great Britain will leave 
 the Western Continent. Simply 
 divorce herself from them, and per- 
 mit her provinces of Canada, Nova 
 Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Ed- 
 ward Island, Newfoundland, and 
 British Columbia, each to settle for it- 
 self b}^ the action of its own people, 
 what shall be its future. I am asked, 
 will the Provinces vote for annexation 
 to this country ? I am willing to 
 take the risk that men and countries 
 will act for their own best interests. 
 
 OBJECTIONS IN MONEY POINT OF VIEW 
 
 TO THIS MODE OF SETTLEMENT 
 
 ANSWERED, AND REASONS 
 
 FOR IT SHOWN. 
 
 It is objected, why pay the millions 
 due us for the Alabama losses to 
 great Britain for the Provinces 
 which she is ready to give up without 
 money and without price as soon as 
 Canada asks for the separation ? 
 
 The answer is an obvious one, 
 viewing the matter only as a money 
 question. So long as Great Britain 
 does not say to her colonies : " You 
 are quite at liberty, and jt would be 
 an advantage to both, to have you 
 separate from us," so long a spirit 
 
 of loyaltj', foslcred by the social re- 
 lations of the ruling classes in Can- 
 ada with England, and the feeling 
 that they have a right to call upon 
 British protection at all times for 
 their territory, and even for British 
 indemnity against any loss in defend- 
 ing it, will exist in the Provinces, 
 which will hold them to the mother 
 country against their better interests, 
 and so long will the progress of an- 
 nexation, which is at last inevitable, 
 be slow, and the period at which 
 Canada and the adjoining provinces 
 will come to us be dela} r ed. 
 
 Meantime, we are losing millions 
 upon millions by smuggling, and the 
 expense of keeping up a line of six 
 thousand miles of custom houses 
 along our external border, but which 
 indeed, are powerless to prevent 
 illicit traffic and the consequent im- 
 mense losses to our revenue. In 
 fact, the Minister of Finance of 
 the dominion openly declares that 
 the United States must depend 
 upon their own laws alone to 
 prevent the importation of for- 
 eign goods along their borders, 
 and he holds out that threat as one 
 of the inducements to a reciprocity 
 treaty. To tempt fishermen and 
 coasters to smuggle, free ports have 
 been established, covering the line of 
 lakes Hudson and Superior, of more 
 than one thousand miles, and on the 
 Gulf of the St. Lawrence, at Gaspe, 
 with an extent of one thousand five 
 hundred miles, as depots of free 
 goods imported, to lie there ready 
 
18 
 
 for the smuggler whenever opportu- 
 nity permits. 
 
 Further, Canada threatens that 
 unless we admit her grain at a low 
 rate of duty, so as to vie with the 
 productions of our own farm, it shall 
 be distilled into spirits and in that 
 form smuggled into our territory in 
 competition with our distillers, and in 
 evasion of the heavy tax upon spirits 
 from which we hope at some time, 
 not long in the future, to receive tax- 
 ation enough to pay the interest on 
 our debt. 
 
 It would be more economical 
 for the United States to pay 
 the Alabama claims, whatever they 
 may be, in money five times over, 
 than to allow the present commercial 
 and political relations of Canada, 
 with all the losses, expenses and 
 complications to remain open 
 for a single year, to say nothing of 
 the cost to us of the suppression of 
 the raids of our irrepressible Fenian 
 brethren, which seem likely to be 
 periodically repeated, at least until 
 Ireland is free. 
 
 THE DANGERS OF WAR FROM OUR FISH- 
 ERY COLLISIONS. 
 
 But there are other and more diffi- 
 cult complications arising daily which 
 demand in the interest of peace be- 
 tween the two nations, the immediate 
 settlement of the Alabama claims, 
 in a manner which shall take away all 
 possibility of future entanglements. 
 For the purpose of forcing a recip- 
 rocity treaty upon the United States, 
 
 the Canadian government has been for 
 the past two years renewing its pre- 
 tensions to the exclusive right of the 
 fisheries in the great bays and estu- 
 aries along shores adjoining the Brit- 
 ish provinces, pretensions which are 
 only to be examined to be found un- 
 just, pretensions under which they 
 have seized a number of vessels be- 
 longing to the United States upon 
 the flimsiest pretexts, broken up the 
 voyages ; turned loose the crews 
 who are part owners ; and subjected 
 the owners to the hardship of de- 
 fending their claims to their own 
 property before a British Vice-admi- 
 ralty Court, only to find their vessels, 
 if they succeed, returned to them strip- 
 ped of their lines, cordage and rim- 
 ing rigging ; allowed to go to waste, 
 while in the hands of the court ; 
 with their cargoes perished ; the voy- 
 age broken up, and the means of 
 continuing it carried oft' without any 
 responsibility for the loss. Canada 
 claims to enact laws providing for the 
 seizure and confiscation of our ves- 
 sels if they fish within the lines 
 which her laws prescribe, and also 
 if found taking shelter for more than 
 twenty-four hours in her bays and 
 harbors, whatever the inclemency of 
 the weather, or even if buying provis- 
 ions or supplies therein, with which 
 to fish anywhere upon the broad ex- 
 pause of the ocean. This condition 
 of conflicting rights and claims can- 
 not long rest without collisions 
 win 'h will severely endanger the 
 peace of the nations. American sea 
 
19 
 
 men are not too patient of wrongs 
 from that power which impressed their 
 fathers and searched their ships on the 
 high seas — till Ave went to war for 
 sailors' rights. 
 
 OUR RIGHTS TO THE FISHERIES HISTORI- 
 CALLY VINDICATED. 
 
 As the conflicting claims of the 
 two governments to these fisheries, 
 are but little understood save by stu- 
 dents of our international relations, 
 I may be pardoned, I trust, for tres- 
 passing upon your patience a few mo- 
 ments to succinctly state exactly our 
 rights and the claims of Canada. 
 
 The importance of the fisheries on 
 the northern coast of America was 
 very early known and appreciated 
 by both France and England ; in- 
 deed it is almost certain that the 
 Grand Bank were known and fish- 
 ed by Europeans before the discov- 
 eries by Columbus. When France 
 had colonized Canada, Acadia and 
 Cape Breton, she built her strongest 
 fortress on this continent at Louis- 
 burg, so important did she deem her 
 fisheries, to protect them. 
 
 THE FISHERIES CAPTURED FROM THE 
 FRENCH BY MASSACHUSETTS TROOPS. 
 
 That fortress was captured by the 
 infant colonies of Massachusetts Bay, 
 without any assistance of the troops 
 of the mother country, and the fisher- 
 ies were thereby wrested from France. 
 This gallant exploit was done in 
 1758, a year before Wolf attacked 
 Quebec, and was the beginning of 
 
 that series of victories by which 
 Great Britain destroyed the power 
 of France upon this continent. The 
 expedition was under a Massachu- 
 setts General, and largely composed 
 of Massachusetts troops, and was 
 fitted out and carried to its suc- 
 cessful result that Massachusetts 
 fishermen should have free fishery 
 in these seas. And permit me to say 
 here, that the rights obtained by 
 the fathers will be maintained by 
 their sons. 
 
 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FISHING 
 RIGHTS AS VIEWED BY THE FOUND- 
 ERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 In the negotiation for peace which 
 terminated the war of the Revolu- 
 tion^ John Adams, although his State 
 had suffered fearfully in the contest, 
 had contributed more men and 
 money than all the other states put 
 together, and was enormously invol- 
 ved in debt, yet that sturdy, incor- 
 ruptible old patriot, declared that 
 the war should go on rather than 
 give up any portion of rights to the 
 fisheries ; and by the treaty of 1783, 
 all the rights of fishing in Canadian 
 and Nova Scotian waters, that we 
 had ever enjoyed in common with 
 other British subjects, were especially 
 reserved to us. 
 
 RIGHTS NOT CHANGED BY THE WAR 
 OF 1812. 
 
 At the conclusion of the war of 
 1812, the subject of the fisheries 
 was not brought into controversy 
 in the negotiations of the treaty. 
 
20 
 
 Other points of difference were 
 thereby settled, but upon the fisher- 
 ies nothing was said in the treat}', 
 for upon these rights and immunities 
 of the United States there were no 
 differences. The American commis- 
 sioners were expressly instructed not 
 to yield our fishing rights, and the 
 English commissioners made no claim 
 that they should so do. Upon this 
 topic, John Adams, although bitterly 
 opposed to the war as a Federalist, 
 wrote to President Monroe this 
 memorable and emphatic sentence : 
 
 " I would continue this war for- 
 ever rather than surrender one acre 
 of our territory, one iota of our 
 fisheries, as established by the third 
 article of the treaty of 1783." 
 
 Brave, true old man ! And for 
 myself, let me say, I could almost 
 vote for his great grandson gover- 
 nor if he will take the same bold 
 stand beside me in behalf of Ameri- 
 can fishermen. 
 
 It is necessary to observe, how- 
 ever, that the rights of fisheries 
 secured by this treaty did not extend 
 to the shores of Newfoundland, of 
 the Magdalen Islands, or Labrador, 
 nor did it include the right, which 
 was well secured by the law of na- 
 tions without it, of putting in for 
 shelter and repairs into the provin- 
 cial ports and harbors. For the 
 three years succeeding the war there 
 was never a suggestion from any 
 quarter that we did not enjoy all the 
 fishing rights we had ever had since 
 John Adams's time. 
 
 THE CONVENTION OF 1818 ONLY KEPT US 
 
 OUTSIDE OF A LINE THREE MILES 
 
 FROM SHORE. 
 
 It being deemed of the highest 
 importance to obtain the right to 
 land upon Labrador, the Magdalen 
 Islands and Newfoundland to cure 
 the codfish, Rush and Gallatin were 
 appointed commissioners in 1818 to 
 negotiate for such unprovided-for 
 privileges. To obtain these they 
 incautiously — and as I think un- 
 wisely — surrendered the right always 
 before enjoyed by our fishermen to 
 take and cure fish within three miles 
 of the land on the coasts, ba} r s, har- 
 bors and creeks of the provinces. 
 The contemporaneous construction 
 of the provision of the treaty made 
 by them by all parties, as well the 
 local officers and magistrates as those 
 of the Imperial Government, was to 
 permit our fishermen to fish in the 
 great bays and gulfs like those of 
 Chaleurs and the Bay of Fundy, and 
 that the three-mile construction only 
 applied to those little bays or har- 
 bors wherein we had reserved the 
 right to go for shelter and repair. 
 
 ENGLAND PUTS A FALSB CONSTRUCTION 
 
 ON THE TREATY TO FORCE US INTO 
 
 RECIPROCITY. 
 
 For more than twenty years this 
 construction prevailed without ques- 
 tion, when suddenly the Colonial 
 Governments, desiring to force upon 
 us a reciprocity Treaty and thereby 
 to gain commercial, advantages, 
 claimed a construction that the 
 three-mile line was to be drawn 
 
21 
 
 from headland to headland, i.e. 
 from a point three miles out- 
 side of one headland to a point three 
 miles outside of another headland, 
 and by which the great bays of Fun- 
 dy and Chaleur were shut in from 
 our fishermen, where we had been 
 accustomed to fish ever since the 
 capture of Louisburg, by our 
 fathers, in 1758. This new construc- 
 tion was firmly and earnestly pro- 
 tested against by our government, 
 but unfortunately not resisted. 
 
 LUDICROUS OPINION OF THE BRITISH 
 LAWYERS. 
 
 But an opinion of the British Crown 
 lawyers was taken, who decided, with 
 the singular infecilit} r of carelessness 
 of examination, that as " headlands " 
 were referred to in the treaty, the 
 line must be drawn from a point 
 three miles outside of one headland, to 
 a like point opposite the nearest head- 
 land. Now it is a curious fact that the 
 word "headland" is not used in the 
 convention at all, so that the opinion 
 was simply an unfounded decision 
 sustained only by the arrogance of 
 British power. 
 
 England's arrogant pretensions to 
 our northeastern boundary. 
 
 Nor is this the only instance 
 in which England, in her deal- 
 ings with us has construed 
 treaties to suit herself, and we have 
 tamely, nay, ignominousty submitted 
 to her pretensious interpretations. 
 
 We cannot fail to remember in 
 the treaties of 1783 and 1814, that 
 
 our boundary line was to " run from 
 he sources of the St. Croix to the 
 northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and 
 thence by the highlands that divide 
 the waters running into the sea from 
 those that flow into the St. Lawrence." 
 But when it was found that the " high- 
 lands " thus described came a little 
 too near Quebec, the principal for- 
 tress of Great Britain on this con- 
 tinent, her diplomats claimed that 
 those highlands could not be our 
 boundary because the River of the 
 St. John whose head-waters begin on 
 the atlantic side of these highlands, 
 did not run into the sea at all, 
 but only into the Bay of Fundy ! 
 And England sent Lord Ashburton 
 to treat with us, upon this basis, and 
 the government of the United States, 
 for the sake of peace, yielded 
 up a large portion of the territory of 
 Maine and Massachusetts upon this 
 absurdity. This could easily be 
 done in the interest of peace, because 
 as. the land did not belong to the 
 government but only to the States, 
 it cost it nothing to make the con- 
 cession. Have we not sufficiently 
 abased ourselves for the sake of 
 peace to the grasping arrogance of 
 British dominion ? 
 
 THE ABSURDITY OF THE LINE CLAIMED 
 BY THE CROWN LAWYERS. 
 
 The absurdity, not to say the mon- 
 strosity, of the British claim as to 
 where the line bounding our fishing 
 rights should be drawn, will be seen 
 from the fact that there is but one 
 
22 
 
 headland of the Bay of Fundy in 
 British territory ; and the other be- 
 ing on our own coast, if our fisher- 
 men are by this constiuction to be 
 excluded from that bay, then they are 
 to be excluded from fishing on a long 
 line of the coast of Maine. Again, 
 there are many headlands which make 
 the indentations of the coast many 
 miles within a line drawn from head- 
 land to headland ; nay, the coast 
 is hardly visible in the finest 
 weather. Take, for example, Prince 
 Edward's Island, which, being cres- 
 cent-shaped, a line drawn three miles 
 from headland to headland would keep 
 a fisherman out so far from shore that 
 it would be impossible for him to tell 
 even where the shore was, or whether 
 he was within or without such suppo- 
 sititious three-mile line. But absurd 
 as this construction is, and as con- 
 trary to natural right, and as unsup- 
 ported as it is by any word of treaty 
 or convention of any kind, or by pub- 
 lic law, which recognizes the marine 
 league as following the indentations 
 of the coast, — save, perhaps, only 
 where it covers narrow straits con- 
 necting inland seas with the ocean — 
 yet it was eagerly seized upon by 
 the British government as a means 
 of annoyance to the hated and dread- 
 ed Yankee fishermen whose enterprise 
 and success eclipsed their own. 
 
 THE PROVINCES PASS LAWS TO CONFIS- 
 CATE OUR FISHERMEN FOUND 
 OVER THAT LINE. 
 
 As soon as this construction of then- 
 claims was sustained by the British 
 
 government, the Provinces passed 
 acts confiscating the vessels of our 
 fishermen found in their bays and 
 harbors ; restricting their right to put 
 in for shelter and repairs to twenty- 
 four hours only, and holding it cause 
 of the forfeiture of the vessel if 
 found there for a longer period, 
 whatever might have been the stormy 
 condition of the sea. And, in order 
 to make the seizing officers wholly 
 irresponsible, exempted them from 
 personal liability in case they captur- 
 ed our vessels without probable cause 
 to believe they had infringed even 
 this odious law. 
 
 THEY FIT OUT EIGHTEEN ARMED VESSELS 
 
 TO DRIVE OUR FISHERMEN OFF 
 
 THE FISHING GROUNDS. 
 
 In support of such illegal enact- 
 ments, the British government and 
 the Provinces fitted out and sent on 
 to the fishing grounds of our fathers 
 as many as eighteen armed vessels 
 to drive out our fishermen from these 
 great bays and gulfs, destroying their 
 property and crippling their enter- 
 prise to millions in amount — scarcely 
 less than the Alabama claims. To 
 such an extent was this carried while 
 the reciprocity treaty was being 
 urged, that no fisherman was allowed 
 to remain more than twenty-four 
 hours in any port, or to buy any sup- 
 plies except such necessary equip- 
 ments as would enable him to put to 
 sea ; and if he lingered longer or 
 bought other provisions with which 
 to prosecute his voyage, he was seized 
 and confiscated. 
 
23 
 
 COMPARE BRITISH OPPRESSION OF OUR 
 
 FISHERMEN WITH THE AH) THEY GAVE 
 
 TO THE PIRATE ALABAMA. 
 
 Upon the question how friendly 
 to us were the acts of Great Britain 
 during the rebellion, we have only to 
 point to these enactments and their 
 enforcement in regard to our fisher- 
 men, the subjects of a friendly nation 
 then at peace with Great Britain, and 
 compare them with the reception in 
 a British port of the Alabama, 
 staying many days and receiving 
 provisions, outfit, balls, parties, 
 plaudits and cheers at the hands 
 of the British Governor at Nassau. 
 How long will the people of this 
 country pause, even in their love of 
 peace, and see their fishermen driven 
 out from the shelter of the harbors 
 of a self-stlyed friendly power into 
 the storms of the icy ocean, while 
 the same power fetes, protects, and 
 cheers on our pirate enemies ? 
 
 BY CRIPPLING OUR FISHERIES ENG- 
 LAND FORCED THE EEC IP 
 CITY TREATY. 
 
 This crippling of our fisheries had 
 the desired effect, and in 1854, Presi- 
 dent Pierce, who was a New England 
 man and deeply imbued with the 
 value of these fishing privileges, to get 
 them made a treaty of reciprocity 
 of commerce with Canada, which re- 
 mained in force until 1865, when for- 
 tunately the exigencies of the war 
 and the unfriendly legislation of the 
 Canadians caused its abrogation, and 
 we are now free from its unwise and 
 onerous provisions. 
 
 TREATY HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO CAN- 
 ADA AND INJURIOUS TO THE 
 UNITED STATES, SAVE ITS 
 GRANTS TO FISHERMEN. 
 
 How greatly it benefited Can- 
 ada will be seen in this, that while 
 in 1854, at the date of the treaty, 
 our total of exports into Canada 
 was twenty-four millions, her ex- 
 ports into the United States were 
 only eight millions ; yet in five years 
 what we sent Canada had dwindled 
 to twenty-two milli'ons annually, 
 while she sent us twenty-four mil- 
 lion dollars' worth of her products, or 
 quite treble the amount before the 
 treaty. It is to be hoped that a re- 
 ciprocity treaty so onerous especially 
 to our agricultural interests, will nev- 
 er be renewed. 
 
 NO COMPLAINT MADE BY CANADA OF 
 
 CONDUCT OF OUR FISHERMEN 
 
 WHILE THE TREATY 
 
 EXISTED. 
 
 During the existence of this treaty 
 our fishermen exercised the same 
 rights and privileges in British wa- 
 ters and on British shores as their 
 own subjects, without complaint, 
 murmur or collision, and the British 
 fishermen did the same upon ours — a 
 privilege, by the way, which we still 
 permit them to enjoy unmolested. — '■ 
 The fact of the peaceful relations be- 
 tween the fishermen of the two coun- 
 tries during the treaty makes a curi- 
 ous commentary upon the pretext 
 upon which the prohibitory laws of 
 Canada were passed prior to 1852 to 
 shut out our fishermen from Canadi- 
 
24: 
 
 an waters. It was then said that 
 the fishermen trespassed so much 
 much upon the shore, and were so 
 troublesome, that it became necessa- 
 ry to exclude them from British wa- 
 ters. All complaint of any such trou- 
 ble ceased when Canada had got her 
 reciprocity treaty, although our fish- 
 ermen fished even in the very ports 
 and harbors of the Provinces. 
 
 SINCE ABROGATION OF THE TREATY 
 
 CANADA HAS REVIVED HER LAWS 
 
 TO CRUSH OUR FISHING 
 
 INTEREST. 
 
 Canada, now that the treaty is annul- 
 led, has again revived her oppressive 
 sive laws passed prior to the treaty,and 
 is enacting new and more stringent 
 ones against our fishermen, arming 
 revenue cutters supported by British 
 men-of-war, who have been engaged 
 even during the present summer in 
 arresting our own fishermen,insomuch 
 that some seven fishing vessels 
 have been seized, their voyages bro- 
 ken up and crews discharged in for- 
 eign ports without cause save appar- 
 ently for the purposes of annoyance. 
 
 THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT INTEREST. 
 
 Nor is this interest an inconsidera- 
 ble one. Massachusetts alone sends 
 more than fifteen hundred sail of ves- 
 sels on to the northern fishing grounds 
 at different seasons, every year. It 
 is evident that these seizures and 
 condemnations cannot continue. Our 
 fishermen will not long submit to be 
 seized by the Canadian revenue cut- 
 ters without defending themselves. 
 
 UNLESS A REMEDY BE FOUND, ARMED 
 
 COLLISION INEVITABLE AND 
 
 DESIRABLE. 
 
 A collision is inevitable it there is 
 no other way in which our rights of 
 fishing can be protected. If the gov- 
 ernment is powerless to preserve our 
 rights through its diplomacy, a colli- 
 sion is desirable, because then this 
 series of injuries will be terminated 
 in a manner that will astonish diplo- 
 macy. 
 
 AN OCEAN-BOUND REPUBLIC THE ONLY 
 SURETY FOR PEACE. 
 
 Therefore urging the settlement of 
 the Alabama claims in the manner I 
 have suggested, by withdrawing Brit- 
 ish power from the continent and giv- 
 ing us an ocean-bound republic, is in 
 the interest of peace and not in the in- 
 terest of war. No statesman, no pa- 
 triot can desire war. Nay, no parti- 
 san can desire war, as a means of sus- 
 taining his party. "War is by far too 
 terrible to be lightly levied, or until 
 all other means have failed. We as 
 a nation unhappily now know what 
 war is, its effects, its sequences and 
 its consequences. 
 
 DUTY OF REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRA- 
 TION TO REMOVE ALL PROVO- 
 CATION TO WAR. 
 
 It is, therefore, the duty of the pa- 
 triot and the statesman to provide 
 for a permanent and honorable peace, 
 and to see to it that all causes that 
 mayprovoke war are removed. There- 
 fore it is the duty of the Administra- 
 tion and the Republican party, as the 
 governing power of this country, to 
 
25 
 
 "bring, at once and at all hazards, 
 these Alabama claims and our fishing 
 troubles to an honorable adjustment : 
 such an adjustment as will be sus- 
 tained by the country, and give as- 
 surance that no causes of serious dif- 
 ference between us and England can 
 arise in the future. Such an adjust- 
 ment will commend the administra- 
 tion of General Grant, with redoubled 
 force, to the people, and win him new 
 laurels in peace, to entwine in the 
 chaplet with those won in the war. 
 
 A PEREMPTORY DEMAND OF OUR 
 
 RIGHTS, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, 
 
 NO CAUSE OF WAR. 
 
 It is said, by certain timid anglo- 
 phobists, that a peremptory demand 
 upon England to do what we believe 
 of right ought to be done, to be fol- 
 lowed, if refused, by a declaration of 
 non-intercourse on our part, will 
 bring on war by England in prefer- 
 ence to an honorable adjustment. — 
 As the action I have proposed to-be 
 taken is fully within every rule of 
 international law, such result ought 
 not to follow, and cannot follow, un- 
 less England chooses to add violence 
 to her hostility and injustice towards 
 us. Much more stern measures than 
 I have suggested, have been taken by 
 nations in pursuit of their just rights, 
 and not been held to be causes of 
 war. 
 
 EXAMPLE OF THE DIPLOMACY OF 
 CROMWELL. 
 
 Reprisals and embargoes, it is 
 agreed by all writers on international 
 
 law, are not casus belli. Oh! for an 
 hour of the diplomacy of the ablest 
 Ruler England ever had to maintain 
 her national reputation, the stern old 
 puritan, Cromwell, when he sent the 
 Quaker merchant, whose ship had 
 been unjustly seized by a French 
 man-of-war, to Cardinal Mazarin, the 
 Prime Minister of Louis XIV, for re- 
 dress of his grievance, and told him 
 to wait three days only for an answer. 
 No answer being given in the pres- 
 cribed time, Cromwell seized a num- 
 ber of French vessels, sufficient to 
 pay the Quaker's claim, sold them 
 and made good the wrong from the 
 proceeds, notifying the king of 
 France that the residue of the price 
 of the vessels was at his service. — 
 Yet no war ensued, says a French 
 writer, because an act of justice was 
 done, although violently done. 
 
 EXAMPLE OF THE DIPLOMACY OF 
 JACKSON. 
 
 Or, if you desire a later example, 
 let me recall to your memories Jack- 
 son's message to Congress in 1834, 
 when the French Chamber of Depu- 
 ties had neglected to vote ajmrojuia- 
 tions to pay claims to our citizens 
 which weie acknowledged to be due. 
 He said : 
 
 " I recommend that a law be passed 
 authorizing reprisals upon French prop- 
 erty in case provision shall not be made 
 for the payment of the debt at the ap- 
 proaching session of the French Cham- 
 bers. Such a measure ought not to be 
 considered by France as a menace. Her 
 pride and power are too well known to 
 expect anything from her fears, and pre- 
 clude the necessity of a declaration that 
 nothing partaking of the character of in 4 - 
 timidation is intended by us. She ought 
 
26 
 
 to look upon it us the evidence only of 
 an inflexible determination on the part 
 of the United States to insist on their 
 rights." 
 
 FISHING EIGHTS DEFINED BY QUEEN 
 ELIZABETH. 
 
 When we make any declaration 
 to England of our rights in the fish- 
 eries, I want no other language of 
 instruction to our ambassadors than 
 that given by Queen Elizabeth, in 
 1602, to her ambassadors, when she 
 settled British rights of fishing with 
 Denmark. The British Queen tells 
 them: 
 
 " And you shall further declare that the 
 Lawe of Nations alloweth of fishing in 
 the sea everywhere ; as also of using 
 ports and coasts of princes in amitie for 
 traffique and avoidinge danger of tem- 
 pests ; so that if our men be barred 
 thereof, it should be by some contract. — 
 We acknowledge none of that nature." 
 
 I ask no stronger language than 
 this, and I have used none, in de- 
 manding the rights of my constitu- 
 ents and country. But it must be 
 followed up by acts with a determin- 
 ation to make it good by the Admin- 
 istration and the governing party of 
 the country. 
 
 VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF OUR 
 RIGHTS WOULD BRING AN HON- 
 ORABLE ADJUSTMENT BY RE- 
 MOVING CAUSES OF 
 CONTENTION." 
 
 In my poor judgment, such lan- 
 uage, properly enforced to the Court 
 of Great Britain, would bring about 
 an honorable adjustment of all our 
 claims, and a full acknowledgment 
 of all our rights. And I also believe 
 that, upon full examination of the 
 
 case in all its bearings, the form of 
 settlement I have already suggested 
 would be found the most consistent 
 with the honor and pride of Eng- 
 land, most convenient and satisfactory 
 to this country, and most certain 
 to insure lasting peace and amity. 
 
 ENGLAND SHOULD HERSELF MAKE 
 
 OFFERS OF CONCESSION AND 
 
 APOLOGY. 
 
 Mere money, without other rep- 
 aration, will never satisfy the wound- 
 ed honor of this country. We must 
 have for our satisfaction something 
 more of concession and apology; 
 and it is for Great Britain to say 
 in what form that will be easiest to 
 herself. I can have no doubt but 
 that her withdrawal from the con- 
 tinent will satisfy our people, al- 
 though it is only the anticipation of 
 an event which must happen in a 
 few, very few, years, but an hour of 
 a nation's life. If England refuses 
 this, let her say what reparation she 
 will offer to us, the injured party. If 
 nothing, then let all intercourse be- 
 tween the two countries cease. 
 
 OUR ADTERNATIVE NO JUST CAUSE 
 OF WAR. 
 
 This, our alternative, — non-inter- 
 course — I do not conceal, either from 
 myself or from you, although not a 
 justifiable cause of war, would, unless 
 it led to a settlement of the difficulty, 
 probably result in a declaration of 
 war by Great Britain. If so, be it so. 
 And in that again case I would say, 
 in the language of Jackson to France: 
 
27 
 
 " If [Great Britain] makes that occa- 
 sion for hostilities against the United 
 States she but adds violence to injustice, 
 and could not fail to expose herself to 
 the just censure of civilized nations and 
 the retributive judgments of heaven." 
 
 THAT MAY HAPPEN TO A NATION 
 
 WHICH IS MORE TROUBLESOME 
 
 THAN WAR. 
 
 I have said, and I repeat again and 
 again, I would not declare war ; it is 
 the last and worst remedy for griev- 
 ances ; but yet there are other alter- 
 natives more terrible to a nation than 
 war — loss of honor, loss of rights, loss 
 of self-respect. I would do every- 
 thing, yield everything, accept any- 
 thing, consistent with patriotism, jus- 
 tice and the dignity of the nation, to 
 adjust peaceably and forever these 
 momentous questions, claims and as- 
 sertions of international rights, be- 
 tween this country and England. 
 But more we cannot yield or accept, 
 and if the dread alternative is forced 
 upon us of an appeal to arms because 
 of unrequited indignities, injuries and 
 wrongs, as a Republican, then, as an 
 American, I cannot fail to observe 
 the great temptation that this nation 
 has for a war with Great Britain. 
 
 THE GREAT PROVOCATIONS TO A WAR 
 WITH ENGLAND. 
 
 Let me say nothing now of the keen 
 sense of wrong and injury inflicted. 
 Let me say nothing of the rising gorge 
 at the thought that England took ad- 
 vantage of our crippled condition to 
 do those things to our hurt which she 
 would not have dared otherwise to 
 do. Let me say nothing now of the 
 
 fact that what she did was done to 
 crush a hated commercial rival. Let 
 me say nothing of the fact that she 
 hoped by her course to demonstrate 
 to mankind that the great experiment 
 of freedom to all, now being wrought 
 out by this American government, was 
 a failure, and thus in the interest of 
 Despotism to crush out all hope of re- 
 publican liberty throughout the 
 world. Let me say nothing of the 
 fact that her hostile* acts were done 
 in the interest of a Confederacy 
 whose corner-stone was slavery, and 
 whose object was to perpetuate that 
 slave power which the greed of Brit- 
 ish merchants and slave-traders had 
 fastened on our country in its infan- 
 cy- 
 
 THE GREAT TEMPTATIONS TO MAKE 
 WAR WITH ENGLAND. 
 
 But I do remember and cannot for- 
 get that we have sixteen hundred 
 thousand naturalized Irishmen in this 
 country,every one eager to avenge the 
 wrongs done his mother-land, the 
 Green Isle of the ocean, by British ty- 
 ranny, which drove him from her soil. 
 I cannot but remember that they re- 
 quire no urging to join our armies in 
 a war with their oppressors, but are 
 prevented by the repressive hand of 
 our government, in the interest of 
 peace and in sacred regard for our 
 treaties of amity, from making war on 
 their own account, and that if we did 
 not hinder them they would take 
 Canada by contract in sixty days. 
 
28 
 
 IT WOULD UNITE THE WHOLE COUN- 
 TRY AND BEING THE SOUTH 
 UNDER OUR FLAG. 
 
 I cannot but recall the truth that 
 our Southern brethren, many of the 
 best and bravest of them, who fought 
 against the government, with a vain 
 attempt to rid themselves of the 
 glorious memory of its history, are 
 impatiently longing to fight once 
 more under tl^e starry folds of the 
 old flag. Give the privilege to the 
 brave sons of the South to defend 
 their country again in a foreign war, 
 and specially one with Great Britain 
 — not loved by them any more than 
 by us — and it would bring us all to- 
 gether again, uniting us with one 
 flag, one country and one destiny. — 
 In so much is this reunion the hope 
 of the patriot, that one feels almost 
 to doubt whether to achieve it would 
 not be worth all the loss of blood and 
 treasure in such a war. 
 
 IT WOULD BE A WAR UPON THE 
 OCEAN ONLY, NOT A COSTLY ONE. 
 
 Again, let me not forget that it 
 would be a war upon the ocean — 
 never -an expensive one — and where 
 the most brilliant laurels of Ameri- 
 can arms have been won. And I 
 cannot fail to perceive that the sav- 
 ing of money by the non-importatiun 
 of British goods, and the stimulus 
 given to American production, would 
 quite equal all the expenditures of 
 the war. I can never forget that in 
 .such a war we have no commerce to 
 
 lose. Quite all our ships are gone 
 already because of the warlike acts 
 of England's cruisers, which we have 
 so long suffered in insulted silence, 
 although we know that we can sweep 
 the sails of her commerce from the 
 ocean. 
 
 SUCH A WAR WOULD BE SUSTAINED 
 BY A MAJORITY OF THE DEMO- 
 CRATIC PARTY. 
 
 As a Republican and a partisan I 
 cannot but remember that whenever 
 a country is engaged in a foreign 
 war, the administration of the gov- 
 ernment is always sustained by the 
 patriotism of the people. Never 
 would that be so signally demonstrat- 
 ed as in a defensive war with Eng- 
 land, brought on by the Republican 
 administration, in a firm, manly and 
 strenuous endeavor to enforce the 
 rights of our injured and despoiled 
 citizens, to 'avenge our insulted hon- 
 or, and to maintain our fishermen in 
 those rights now taken from them by 
 England's wrongs, which their fathers 
 won for England and themselves with 
 their own right arms. As a party 
 man I do not fail to remember that 
 of the twenty odd hundred thousand 
 votes of the Democratic party now 
 in opposition, twelve hundred thous- . 
 and at least are naturalized Irishmen 
 who would stand side by side with 
 a Republican administration in a war 
 with England, Ireland's oppressor for 
 nearly a thousand years, and would 
 vote as they fought. 
 
TT WOULD SUSTAIN THE REPUBLICAN 
 PARTY IN POWER. 
 
 As a politician I have an incentive 
 to such a war, as its result would be 
 the perpetuation of the Republican 
 party in power for more than a gen- 
 eration. 
 
 " LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION." 
 
 If, therefore, when we ask for our 
 just rights and indemnification for 
 our losses through her acts, England 
 
 should incline to offer us, instead 
 thereof, such a war as I have sketch- 
 ed, with such causes, with such hopes,, 
 with such results and such memories, 
 ought not every patriotic American 
 to address to Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment a portion of the prayer which 
 we were taught in childhood every 
 day to say to our Maker — so much 
 more beautiful and appropriate in the 
 original than as translated by Eng- 
 lish Bishops — " Suffer us not to fall 
 into temptation " ? 
 
B S '12 
 
 €