Chapter XVII: Section 6: of the amended Chinese immigration act of 1884 purports to (12)

I also transmit a report from our consul at Marseilles, dated February 4, 1888, representing that for a number of months a highly contagious and fatal disease has prevailed among the swine of a large section of France, which disease is thought to be very similar to hog cholera by the Commissioner of Agriculture, whose statement is herewith submitted.

It is extremely doubtful if the law passed April 29, 1878, entitled "An act to prevent the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United States," meets cases of this description.

In view of the danger to the health and lives of our people and the contagion that may be spread to the live stock of the country by the importation of swine or hog products from either of the countries named, I recommend the passage of a law prohibiting such importation, with proper regulations as to the continuance of such prohibition, and permitting such further prohibitions in other future cases of a like character as safety and prudence may require.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, April 2, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with its inclosures, in response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 8th ultimo, in relation to affairs in Samoa.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[A similar message was sent to the Senate in answer to a resolution of that body of December 21, 1887.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 5, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 3d instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to provide for the revocation of the withdrawal of lands made for the benefit of certain railroads, and for other purposes.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 9, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 6th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of proposed legislation, prepared in the Office of Indian Affairs, to authorize the use of certain funds therein specified in the purchase of lands in the State of Florida upon which to locate the Seminole Indians in that State.

The matter is presented for the favorable consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 12, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith and commend to your favorable consideration a letter from the Secretary of State, outlining a plan for publishing the important collections of historical manuscripts now deposited in the Department of State.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 12, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In response to the resolution of the Senate dated March 8, calling for the correspondence respecting the seizure of the American steamships _Hero_, _San Fernando_, and _Nutrias_, the property of the Venezuela Steam Transportation Company of New York, and the imprisonment of their officers by the authorities in Venezuela, I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State on the subject, together with the accompanying documents.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 18, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 5th of March last, calling upon the Secretary of State for copies of the correspondence relating to the claim of William H. Frear against the Government of France for money due him for provisions furnished in March, 1871, for revictualing Paris, I transmit a report from that officer, together with the correspondence called for by the resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, April 23, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State and accompanying papers, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 25th of January last, requesting correspondence and other information in relation to the claims convention of December 5, 1885, between the United States and Venezuela.

This resolution was adopted in open session; but in view of the change of circumstances since its adoption, by the signature on the 15th ultimo of the convention which I transmitted to the Senate with my message of the 22d ultimo,[16] and which is now under consideration there in executive session, I transmit the accompanying report as a confidential document also.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 16: See p. 611.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 8, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I retransmit herewith a convention for the surrender of criminals between the United States and the Republic of Guatemala, concluded October 11, 1870, and ratified by the President of the United States, as amended by the Senate, on April 11, 1871, calling attention to the accompanying report of the Secretary of State as explanatory of my action.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 8, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of April 12, directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the Senate a copy of the correspondence in his Department in regard to the case of John Fruchier, an American citizen who has been impressed into the military service of France, I transmit herewith a report in relation thereto from the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying papers, not considering their communication to be incompatible with the public interests.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 14, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, relative to the claim of Mr. Rudolph Lobsiger, a Swiss citizen, against the United States, and recommend that provision be made by law for referring the matter to the Court of Claims for examination on its merits.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 14, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a report of Mr. Somerville P. Tuck, appointed to carry out certain provisions of section 5 of an act entitled "An act to provide for the ascertainment of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the 31st day of July, 1801," approved January 20, 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 15, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution originating in the House of Representatives and concurred in by the Senate, I return herewith the bill (H.R. 2699) entitled "An act for the relief of the heirs of the late Solomon Spitzer."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, June 14, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, to whom said resolution was addressed, together with a copy of the letter addressed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State, to the governors of certain States of the Union, under date of October 14, 1861, as described in said resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 26, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied with selected correspondence relating to foreign affairs for the year 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, July 5, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a convention for the extradition of criminals between the United States of America and the Republic of Colombia, signed at Bogota on the 7th of May, 1888, and I at the same time call attention to the accompanying report of the Secretary of State, suggesting certain amendments to the convention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, July 18, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, a convention between the United States and Mexico, signed July 11, 1888, regulating the crossing and recrossing of the frontier between the two countries by pasturing estray or stolen cattle, and I at the same time call attention to the report of the Secretary of State and accompanying papers, relating to the convention in question.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 18, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, submitting a series of reports on taxation, prepared by the consular officers of the United States.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 18, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying the annual reports of the consuls of the United States on the trade and industries of foreign countries.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 18, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Acting Secretary of State and accompanying documents, being reports from the consuls of the United States on the production of and trade in coffee among the Central and South American States.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 23, 1888_.

_To the Congress of the United States_:

Pursuant to the second section of chapter 27 of the laws of 1883, entitled "An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States," I herewith transmit the fourth report of the United States Civil Service Commission, covering the period between the 16th day of January, 1886, and the 1st day of July, 1887.

While this report has especial reference to the operations of the Commission during the period above mentioned, it contains, with its accompanying appendixes, much valuable information concerning the inception of civil-service reform and its growth and progress which can not fail to be interesting and instructive to all who desire improvement in administrative methods.

During the time covered by the report 15,852 persons were examined for admission in the classified civil service of the Government in all its branches, of whom 10,746 passed the examination and 5,106 failed. Of those who passed the examination 2,977 were applicants for admission to the departmental service at Washington, 2,547 were examined for admission to the customs service, and 5,222 for admission to the postal service. During the same period 547 appointments were made from the eligible lists to the departmental service, 641 to the customs service, and 3,254 to the postal service.

Concerning separations from the classified service, the report only informs us of such as have occurred among employees in the public service who had been appointed from eligible lists under civil-service rules. When these rules took effect, they did not apply to the persons then in the service, comprising a full complement of employees, who obtained their positions independently of the new law. The Commission has no record of the separations in this numerous class. And the discrepancy apparent in the report between the number of appointments made in the respective branches of the service from the lists of the Commission and the small number of separations mentioned is to a great extent accounted for by vacancies, of which no report was made to the Commission, occurring among those who held their places without examination and certification, which vacancies were filled by appointment from the eligible lists.

In the departmental service there occurred between the 16th day of January, 1886, and the 30th day of June, 1887, among the employees appointed from the eligible lists under civil-service rules, 17 removals, 36 resignations, and 5 deaths. This does not include 14 separations in the grade of special pension examiners--4 by removal, 5 by resignation, and 5 by death.

In the classified customs and postal services the number of separations among those who received absolute appointments under civil-service rules is given for the period between the 1st day of January, 1886, and the 30th day of June, 1887. It appears that such separations in the customs service for the time mentioned embraced 21 removals, 5 deaths, and 18 resignations, and in the postal service 256 removals, 23 deaths, and 469 resignations.

More than a year has passed since the expiration of the period covered by the report of the Commission. Within the time which has thus elapsed many important changes have taken place in furtherance of a reform in our civil service. The rules and regulations governing the execution of the law upon the subject have been completely remodeled in such manner as to render the enforcement of the statute more effective and greatly increase its usefulness.

Among other things, the scope of the examinations prescribed for those who seek to enter the classified service has been better defined and made more practical, the number of names to be certified from the eligible lists to the appointing officers from which a selection is made has been reduced from four to three, the maximum limitation of the age of persons seeking entrance to the classified service to 45 years has been changed, and reasonable provision has been made for the transfer of employees from one Department to another in proper cases. A plan has also been devised providing for the examination of applicants for promotion in the service, which, when in full operation, will eliminate all chance of favoritism in the advancement of employees, by making promotion a reward of merit and faithful discharge of duty.

Until within a few weeks there was no uniform classification of employees in the different Executive Departments of the Government. As a result of this condition, in some of the Departments positions could be obtained without civil-service examination, because they were not within the classification of such Department, while in other Departments an examination and certification were necessary to obtain positions of the same grade, because such positions were embraced in the classifications applicable to those Departments.

The exception of laborers, watchmen, and messengers from examination and classification gave opportunity, in the absence of any rule guarding against it, for the employment, free from civil-service restrictions, of persons under these designations, who were immediately detailed to do clerical work.

All this has been obviated by the application to all the Departments of an extended and uniform classification embracing grades of employees not theretofore included, and by the adoption of a rule prohibiting the detail of laborers, watchmen, or messengers to clerical duty.

The path of civil-service reform has not at all times been pleasant nor easy. The scope and purpose of the reform have been much misapprehended; and this has not only given rise to strong opposition, but has led to its invocation by its friends to compass objects not in the least related to it. Thus partisans of the patronage system have naturally condemned it. Those who do not understand its meaning either mistrust it or, when disappointed because in its present stage it is not applied to every real or imaginary ill, accuse those charged with its enforcement with faithlessness to civil-service reform. Its importance has frequently been underestimated, and the support of good men has thus been lost by their lack of interest in its success. Besides all these difficulties, those responsible for the administration of the Government in its executive branches have been and still are often annoyed and irritated by the disloyalty to the service and the insolence of employees who remain in place as the beneficiaries and the relics and reminders of the vicious system of appointment which civil-service reform was intended to displace.

And yet these are but the incidents of an advance movement which is radical and far-reaching. The people are, notwithstanding, to be congratulated upon the progress which has been made and upon the firm, practical, and sensible foundation upon which this reform now rests.

With a continuation of the intelligent fidelity which has hitherto characterized the work of the Commission; with a continuation and increase of the favor and liberality which have lately been evinced by the Congress in the proper equipment of the Commission for its work; with a firm but conservative and reasonable support of the reform by all its friends, and with the disappearance of opposition which must inevitably follow its better understanding, the execution of the civil-service law can not fail to ultimately answer the hopes in which it had its origin.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 26, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of 11th April last, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying correspondence, relating to the pending dispute between the Government of Venezuela and the Government of Great Britain concerning the boundaries between British Guiana and Venezuela.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 6, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Congress and to the people of the United States the death of Philip H. Sheridan, General of the Army, which occurred at a late hour last night at his summer home in the State of Massachusetts.

The death of this valiant soldier and patriotic son of the Republic, though his long illness has been regarded with anxiety, has nevertheless shocked the country and caused universal grief.

He had established for himself a stronghold in the hearts of his fellow-countrymen, who soon caught the true meaning and purpose of his soldierly devotion and heroic temper.

His intrepid courage, his steadfast patriotism, and the generosity of his nature inspired with peculiar warmth the admiration of all the people.

Above his grave affection for the man and pride in his achievements will struggle for mastery, and too much honor can not be accorded to one who was so richly endowed with all the qualities which make his death a national loss.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 7, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 3d instant (the House of Representatives concurring), I return herewith the enrolled bill (S. 3303) amendatory of "An act relating to postal crimes and amendatory of the statutes therein mentioned," approved June 18, 1888.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 10, 1888_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a report of the delegate on the part of the United States to the Fourth International Conference of the Red Cross Association, held at Carlsruhe, in the Grand Duchy of Baden, in September last.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 23, 1888_.

_To the Congress_:

The rejection by the Senate of the treaty lately negotiated for the settlement and adjustment of the differences existing between the United States and Great Britain concerning the rights and privileges of American fishermen in the ports and waters of British North America seems to justify a survey of the condition to which the pending question is thus remitted.

The treaty upon this subject concluded in 1818, through disagreements as to the meaning of its terms, has been a fruitful source of irritation and trouble. Our citizens engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to Canada have been subjected to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances; their vessels have been seized upon pretexts which appeared to be entirely inadmissible, and they have been otherwise treated by the Canadian authorities and officials in a manner inexcusably harsh and oppressive.

This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada by the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it and upon the ground that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests. We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further maintain that aside from any treaty restraints of disputed interpretation the relative positions of the United States and Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable relations surely guarantee, and, above all, the liberality always extended by the United States to the people of Canada furnished motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty covenants.

While keenly sensitive to all that was exasperating in the condition and by no means indisposed to support the just complaints of our injured citizens, I still deemed it my duty, for the preservation of important American interests which were directly involved, and in view of all the details of the situation, to attempt by negotiation to remedy existing wrongs and to finally terminate by a fair and just treaty these ever-recurring causes of difficulty.

I fully believe 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.

I am quite conscious that neither my opinion of the value of the rejected treaty nor the motives which prompted its negotiation are of importance in the light of the judgment of the Senate thereupon. But it is of importance to note that this treaty has been rejected without any apparent disposition on the part of the Senate to alter or amend its provisions, and with the evident intention, not wanting expression, that no negotiation should at present be concluded touching the matter at issue.

The cooperation necessary for the adjustment of the long-standing national differences with which we have to deal by methods of conference and agreement having thus been declined, I am by no means disposed to abandon the interests and the rights of our people in the premises or to neglect their grievances; and I therefore turn to the contemplation of a plan of retaliation as a mode which still remains of treating the situation.

I am not unmindful of the gravity of the responsibility assumed in adopting this line of conduct, nor do I fail in the least to appreciate its serious consequences. It will be impossible to injure our Canadian neighbors by retaliatory measures without inflicting some damage upon our own citizens. This results from our proximity, our community of interests, and the inevitable commingling of the business enterprises which have been developed by mutual activity.

Plainly stated, the policy of national retaliation manifestly embraces the infliction of the greatest harm upon those who have injured us, with the least possible damage to ourselves. There is also an evident propriety, as well as an invitation to moral support, found in visiting upon the offending party the same measure or kind of treatment of which we complain, and as far as possible within the same lines. And above all things, the plan of retaliation, if entered upon, should be thorough and vigorous.

These considerations lead me at this time to invoke the aid and counsel of the Congress and its support in such a further grant of power as seems to me necessary and desirable to render effective the policy I have indicated.

The Congress has already passed a law, which received Executive assent on the 3d day of March, 1887, providing that in case American fishing vessels, being or visiting in the waters or at any of the ports of the British dominions of North America, should be or lately had been deprived of the rights to which they were entitled by treaty or law, or if they were denied certain other privileges therein specified or vexed and harassed in the enjoyment of the same, the President might deny to vessels and their masters and crews of the British dominions of North America any entrance into the waters, ports, or harbors of the United States, and also deny entry into any port or place of the United States of any product of said dominions or other goods coming from said dominions to the United States.

While I shall not hesitate upon proper occasion to enforce this act, it would seem to be unnecessary to suggest that if such enforcement is limited in such a manner as shall result in the least possible injury to our own people the effect would probably be entirely inadequate to the accomplishment of the purpose desired.

I deem it my duty, therefore, to call the attention of the Congress to certain particulars in the action of the authorities of the Dominion of Canada, in addition to the general allegations already made, which appear to be in such marked contrast to the liberal and friendly disposition of our country as in my opinion to call for such legislation as will, upon the principles already stated, properly supplement the power to inaugurate retaliation already vested in the Executive.

Actuated by the generous and neighborly spirit which has characterized our legislation, our tariff laws have since 1866 been so far waived in favor of Canada as to allow free of duty the transit across the territory of the United States of property arriving at our ports and destined to Canada, or exported from Canada to other foreign countries.

When the treaty of Washington was negotiated, in 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, having for its object very largely the modification of the treaty of 1818, the privileges above referred to were made reciprocal and given in return by Canada to the United States in the following language, contained in the twenty-ninth article of said treaty:

It is agreed that for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of
this treaty goods, wares, or merchandise arriving at the ports of New
York, Boston, and Portland, and any other ports in the United States
which have been or may from time to time be specially designated by the
President of the United States, and destined for Her Britannic Majesty's
possessions in North America, may be entered at the proper custom-house
and conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, through the
territory of the United States, under such rules, regulations, and
conditions for the protection of the revenue as the Government of the
United States may from time to time prescribe; and, under like rules,
regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may be
conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, from such
possessions through the territory of the United States, for export from
the said ports of the United States.

It is further agreed that for the like period goods, wares, or
merchandise arriving at any of the ports of Her Britannic Majesty's
possessions in North America, and destined for the United States, may
be entered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without
the payment of duties, through the said possessions, under such rules
and regulations and conditions for the protection of the revenue as the
governments of the said possessions may from time to time prescribe;
and, under like rules, regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or
merchandise may be conveyed in transit, without payment of duties, from
the United States through the said possessions to other places in the
United States, or for export from ports in the said possessions.

In the year 1886 notice was received by the representatives of our Government that our fishermen would no longer be allowed to ship their fish in bond and free of duty through Canadian territory to this country, and ever since that time such shipment has been denied.

The privilege of such shipment, which had been extended to our fishermen, was a most important one, allowing them to spend the time upon the fishing grounds which would otherwise be devoted to a voyage home with their catch, and doubling their opportunities for profitably prosecuting their vocation.

In forbidding the transit of the catch of our fishermen over their territory in bond and free of duty the Canadian authorities deprived us of the only facility dependent upon their concession and for which we could supply no substitute.

The value to the Dominion of Canada of the privilege of transit for their exports and imports across our territory and to and from our ports, though great in every aspect, will be better appreciated when it is remembered that for a considerable portion of each year the St. Lawrence River, which constitutes the direct avenue of foreign commerce leading to Canada, is closed by ice.

During the last six years the imports and exports of British Canadian Provinces carried across our territory under the privileges granted by our laws amounted in value to about $270,000,000, nearly all of which were goods dutiable under our tariff laws, by far the larger part of this traffic consisting of exchanges of goods between Great Britain and her American Provinces brought to and carried from our ports in their own vessels.

The treaty stipulation entered into by our Government was in harmony with laws which were then on our statute book and are still in force.

I recommend immediate legislative action conferring upon the Executive the power to suspend by proclamation the operation of all laws and regulations permitting the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond across or over the territory of the United States to or from Canada.

There need be no hesitation in suspending these laws arising from the supposition that their continuation is secured by treaty obligations, for it seems quite plain that Article XXIX of the treaty of 1871, which was the only article incorporating such laws, terminated the 1st day of July, 1885.

The article itself declares that its provisions shall be in force "for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty." Turning to Article XXXIII, we find no mention of the twenty-ninth article, but only a provision that Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX shall take effect as soon as the laws required to carry them into operation shall be passed by the legislative bodies of the different countries concerned, and that "they shall remain in force for the period of ten years from the date at which they may come into operation, and, further, until the expiration of two years after either of the high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same."

I am of the opinion that the "term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII," referred to in Article XXIX as the limit of its duration, means the period during which Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX, commonly called the "fishery articles," should continue in force under the language of said Article XXXIII.

That the joint high commissioners who negotiated the treaty so understood and intended the phrase is certain, for in a statement containing an account of their negotiations, prepared under their supervision and approved by them, we find the following entry on the subject:

The transit question was discussed, and it was agreed that any
settlement that might be made should include a reciprocal arrangement
in that respect for the period for which the fishery articles should
be in force.

In addition to this very satisfactory evidence supporting this construction of the language of Article XXIX, it will be found that the law passed by Congress to carry the treaty into effect furnishes conclusive proof of the correctness of such construction.

This law was passed March 1, 1873, and is entitled "An act to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain signed in the city of Washington the 8th day of May, 1871, relating to the fisheries." After providing in its first and second sections for putting in operation Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX of the treaty, the third section is devoted to Article XXIX, as follows:

SEC. 3. That from the date of the President's proclamation authorized by
the first section of this act, and so long as the articles eighteenth to
twenty-fifth, inclusive, and article thirtieth of said treaty shall
remain in force according to the terms and conditions of article
thirty-third of said treaty, all goods, wares, and merchandise, arriving

etc., etc., following in the remainder of the section the precise words of the stipulation on the part of the United States as contained in Article XXIX, which I have already fully quoted.

Here, then, is a distinct enactment of the Congress limiting the duration of this article of the treaty to the time that Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX should continue in force. That in fixing such limitation it but gave the meaning of the treaty itself is indicated by the fact that its purpose is declared to be to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty, and by the further fact that this law appears to have been submitted before the promulgation of the treaty to certain members of the joint high commission representing both countries, and met with no objection or dissent.

There appearing to be no conflict or inconsistency between the treaty and the act of the Congress last cited, it is not necessary to invoke the well-settled principle that in case of such conflict the statute governs the question.

In any event, and whether the law of 1873 construes the treaty or governs it, section 29 of such treaty, I have no doubt, terminated with the proceedings taken by our Government to terminate Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX of the treaty. These proceedings had their inception in a joint resolution of Congress passed May 3, 1883, declaring that in the judgment of Congress these articles ought to be terminated, and directing the President to give the notice to the Government of Great Britain provided for in Article XXXIII of the treaty. Such notice having been given two years prior to the 1st day of July, 1885, the articles mentioned were absolutely terminated on the last-named day, and with them Article XXIX was also terminated.

If by any language used in the joint resolution it was intended to relieve section 3 of the act of 1873, embodying Article XXIX of the treaty, from its own limitations, or to save the article itself, I am entirely satisfied that the intention miscarried.

But statutes granting to the people of Canada the valuable privileges of transit for their goods from our ports and over our soil, which had been passed prior to the making of the treaty of 1871 and independently of it, remained in force; and ever since the abrogation of the treaty, and notwithstanding the refusal of Canada to permit our fishermen to send their fish to their home market through her territory in bond, the people of that Dominion have enjoyed without diminution the advantages of our liberal and generous laws.

Without basing our complaint upon a violation of treaty obligations, it is nevertheless true that such refusal of transit and the other injurious acts which have been recited constitute a provoking insistence upon rights neither mitigated by the amenities of national intercourse nor modified by the recognition of our liberality and generous considerations.

The history of events connected with this subject makes it manifest that the Canadian government can, if so disposed administer its laws and protect the interests of its people without manifestation of unfriendliness and without the unneighborly treatment of our fishing vessels of which we have justly complained, and whatever is done on our part should be done in the hope that the disposition of the Canadian government may remove the occasion of a resort to the additional executive power now sought through legislative action.

I am satisfied that upon the principles which should govern retaliation our intercourse and relations with the Dominion of Canada furnish no better opportunity for its application than is suggested by the conditions herein presented, and that it could not be more effectively inaugurated than under the power of suspension recommended.

While I have expressed my clear conviction upon the question of the continuance of section 29 of the treaty of 1871, I of course fully concede the power and the duty of the Congress, in contemplating legislative action, to construe the terms of any treaty stipulation which might upon any possible consideration of good faith limit such action, and likewise the peculiar propriety in the case here presented of its interpretation of its own language, as contained in the laws of 1873 putting in operation said treaty and of 1883 directing the termination thereof; and if in the deliberate judgment of Congress any restraint to the proposed legislation exists, it is to be hoped that the expediency of its early removal will be recognized. I desire also to call the attention of the Congress to another subject involving such wrongs and unfair treatment to our citizens as, in my opinion, require prompt action.

The navigation of the Great Lakes and the immense business and carrying trade growing out of the same have been treated broadly and liberally by the United States Government and made free to all mankind, while Canadian railroads and navigation companies share in our country's transportation upon terms as favorable as are accorded to our own citizens.

The canals and other public works built and maintained by the Government along the line of the lakes are made free to all.

In contrast to this condition, and evincing a narrow and ungenerous commercial spirit, every lock and canal which is a public work of the Dominion of Canada is subject to tolls and charges.

By Article XXVII of the treaty of 1871 provision was made to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion of Canada on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion, and to also secure to the subjects of Great Britain the use of the St. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States.

The equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion which we were promised in the use of the canals of Canada did not secure to us freedom from tolls in their navigation, but we had a right to expect that we, being Americans and interested in American commerce, would be no more burdened in regard to the same than Canadians engaged in their own trade; and the whole spirit of the concession made was, or should have been, that merchandise and property transported to an American market through these canals should not be enhanced in its cost by tolls many times higher than such as were carried to an adjoining Canadian market. All our citizens, producers and consumers as well as vessel owners, were to enjoy the equality promised.

And yet evidence has for some time been before the Congress, furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury, showing that while the tolls charged in the first instance are the same to all, such vessels and cargoes as are destined to certain Canadian ports are allowed a refund of nearly the entire tolls, while those bound for American ports are not allowed any such advantage.

To promise equality, and then in practice make it conditional upon our vessels doing Canadian business instead of their own, is to fulfill a promise with the shadow of performance.

I recommend that such legislative action be taken as will give Canadian vessels navigating our canals, and their cargoes, precisely the advantages granted to our vessels and cargoes upon Canadian canals, and that the same be measured by exactly the same rule of discrimination.

The course which I have outlined and the recommendations made relate to the honor and dignity of our country and the protection and preservation of the rights and interests of all our people. A government does but half its duty when it protects its citizens at home and permits them to be imposed upon and humiliated by the unfair and over-reaching disposition of other nations. If we invite our people to rely upon arrangements made for their benefit abroad, we should see to it that they are not deceived; and if we are generous and liberal to a neighboring country, our people should reap the advantage of it by a return of liberality and generosity.

These are subjects which partisanship should not disturb or confuse. Let us survey the ground calmly and moderately; and having put aside other means of settlement, if we enter upon the policy of retaliation let us pursue it firmly, with a determination only to subserve the interests of our people and maintain the high standard and the becoming pride of American citizenship.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 27, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th instant (the Senate concurring), I return herewith House bill No. 10060, entitled "An act prescribing the times for sales and for notice of sales of property in the District of Columbia for overdue taxes."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _September 7, 1888_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In reply to the resolution of the Senate in the words following--

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, _September 5, 1888_.

_Resolved_, That the President is requested, if not incompatible
with the public interests, to inform the Senate whether the recent
treaty with China and the amendments adopted by the Senate have been
ratified by the Emperor of China--

I have to communicate the annexed copies of dispatches from our minister to China, giving the only official information at hand in relation to the matter to which reference is had.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _September 12, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

Responding to the inquiries contained in the subjoined resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor to state in reply to the subject first therein mentioned, calling upon the Executive for "copies of all communications, if any, addressed by his direction to the Government of Great Britain, remonstrating with that Government against the wrongs and unfair treatment to our citizens by the action of the Canadian Government in refunding to vessels and cargoes which pass through the Welland and other Canadian canals nearly the entire tolls if they are destined to Canadian ports, while those bound for American ports are not allowed any such advantage, and the breach of the engagement contained in the treaty of 1871 whereby Great Britain promised to the United States equality in the matter of such canal transportation; also copies of any demand made by his direction upon Great Britain for the redress of such wrongs, and the replies of Great Britain to such communication and demand," that I herewith transmit copies of all communications between the Department of State and the United States consul at Ottawa, which are accompanied by copies of the orders of the Canadian officials in relation to the subject inquired of; also correspondence between the Department of State and the British minister at this capital, with copies of the documents therein referred to.

I also inclose, as connected therewith, a copy of Executive Document No. 406, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, first session, containing the answer of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated July 23, 1888, in reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the navigation of the Welland Canal, and the documents thus transmitted comprise the entire correspondence in relation to the subjects referred to in that portion of the resolution of inquiry which is above quoted.

The second branch of inquiry is in the words following:

And also that there be communicated to the Senate copies of all papers,
correspondence, and information touching the matter of the refusal of
the British Government, or that of any of her North American dominions,
to allow the entry at Dominion seaports of American fish or other
cargoes for transportation in bond to the United States since the 1st
day of July, 1885.

It will be remembered that though the fishing articles of the treaty of 1871 expired on the said 1st day of July, 1885, a temporary arrangement was made whereby the privileges accorded to our fishermen under said articles were continued during the remainder of that year's fishing season.

No instance of refusal by the Canadian authorities since July 1, 1885, up to the present time to allow the entry at Dominion seaports of American cargoes other than fish for transportation in bond across the territory of Canada to the United States has been made known to the Department of State.

The case of the fishing steamer _Novelty_, involving, among other things, a refusal, on July 1, 1886, of the right to permit the transshipment of fish in bond at the port of Pictou, Nova Scotia, was duly communicated to Congress in my message of December 8, 1886, a copy of which I herewith transmit. (Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, p. 1.)

On page 16 of this document will be found a copy of a communication addressed by the Secretary of State to the British minister, dated June 14, 1886, on the subject of the refusal of transshipment of fish in bond. At page 24 of the same publication will be found the protest of the Secretary of State in the case of the _Novelty_, and at pages 49-50 are the response of the British minister and report of the Canadian privy council.

On the 26th of January, 1887, a revised list of cases of alleged ill treatment of our fishing vessels in Canadian waters was furnished by the Secretary of State to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, in which the above case is included, a copy of which, being Senate Executive Document No. 55 of the second session Forty-ninth Congress, is herewith inclosed; and in the report by Mr. Edmunds, from the Committee on Foreign Relations (No. 1683 of the same session), the case referred to was again published. And, as relating to the subject of the resolution now before me, the following pertinent passage, taken from the said report, may be of interest:

As regards commercial and other friendly business intercourse between
ports and places in the Dominion and the United States, it is, of
course, of much importance that regulations affecting the same should
be mutually reasonable and fairly administered. If an American vessel
should happen to have caught a cargo of fish at sea 100 miles distant
from some Canadian port, from which there is railway communication to
the United States, and should be denied the privilege of landing and
shipping its cargo therefrom to the United States, as the Canadians
do, it would be, of course, a serious disadvantage; and there is, it
is thought, nothing in the treaty of 1818 which would warrant such an
exclusion. But the Dominion laws may make such a distinction, and it is
understood that in fact the privilege of so shipping fish from American
vessels has been refused during the last year.

I also respectfully refer to Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 54, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, being a communication from the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries to Hon. George F. Edmunds, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, dated February 5, 1887, which is accompanied by a partial list of vessels injuriously treated by the Canadian authorities, based upon information furnished to the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.

This list is stated to be supplementary to the revised list which had been transmitted to the committee by the Secretary of State January 26, 1887.

Of the sixty-eight vessels comprised in this list it is stated that six, to wit, the _Nellie M. Snow_, _Andrew Burnham_, _Harry G. French_, _Col. J.H. French_, _W.H. Wellington_, and _Ralph Hodgdon_, were refused permission to transship fish. None of these cases, however, were ever reported to the Department of State by the parties interested, or were accompanied by affidavit; nor does it appear the facts ever were investigated in any of the cases by the parties making the reports, which were obtained by circulars issued by order of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries. The concluding inquiry is as follows:

And also that he communicate to the Senate what instances have occurred
since the 3d of March, 1887, of wrongs to American fishing vessels or
other American vessels in the ports or waters of British North America,
and what steps, if any, have been taken in respect thereto.

Soon after the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, the negotiation which had been proceeding for several months previously progressed actively, and the proposed conference and the presence at this capital of the plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, out of which the since rejected treaty of February 7, 1888, eventuated, had their natural influence in repressing causes of complaint in relation to the fisheries. Therefore since March 3, 1887, no case has been reported to the Department of State wherein complaint was made of unfriendly or unlawful treatment of American fishing vessels on the part of the Canadian authorities in which reparation was not promptly and satisfactorily obtained by the United States consul-general at Halifax.

A single case of alleged unjust treatment of an American merchant vessel, not engaged in fishing, has been reported since March 3, 1887. This was the ship _Bridgewater_, which was first brought to the attention of the Department of State by the claimant by petition filed June 1, 1888.

On June 18, 1888, legal counsel, who appeared and desired to be heard, filed their formal authority and the claim was at once duly investigated, and on June 22, 1888, a communication was addressed by the Secretary of State to the British minister, which sets forth the history of the claim, and a copy of which is herewith transmitted; and of this formal acknowledgment was made, but no further reply has been received.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _September 18, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, a copy of a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents, relative to the pending treaty with China.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _October 1, 1888_.

_To the Congress_:

I have this day approved House bill No. 11336, supplementary to an act entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved the 6th day of May, 1882.

It seems to me that some suggestions and recommendations may properly accompany my approval of this bill.

Its object is to more effectually accomplish by legislation the exclusion from this country of Chinese laborers.

The experiment of blending the social habits and mutual race idiosyncrasies of the Chinese laboring classes with those of the great body of the people of the United States has been proved by the experience of twenty years, and ever since the Burlingame treaty of 1868, to be in every sense unwise, impolitic, and injurious to both nations. With the lapse of time the necessity for its abandonment has grown in force, until those having in charge the Government of the respective countries have resolved to modify and sufficiently abrogate all those features of prior Conventional arrangements which permitted the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States.

In modification of prior conventions the treaty of November 17, 1880, was concluded, whereby, in the first article thereof, it was agreed that the United States should at will regulate, limit, or suspend the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, but not absolutely prohibit it; and under this article an act of Congress, approved on May 6, 1882 (see 22 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 58), and amended July 5, 1884 (23 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 115), suspended for ten years the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, and regulated the going and coming of such Chinese laborers as were at that time in the United States.

It was, however, soon made evident that the mercenary greed of the parties who were trading in the labor of this class of the Chinese population was proving too strong for the just execution of the law, and that the virtual defeat of the object and intent of both law and treaty was being fraudulently accomplished by false pretense and perjury, contrary to the expressed will of both Governments.

To such an extent has the successful violation of the treaty and the laws enacted for its execution progressed that the courts in the Pacific States have been for some time past overwhelmed by the examination of cases of Chinese laborers who are charged with having entered our ports under fraudulent certificates of return or seek to establish by perjury the claim of prior residence.

Such demonstration of the inoperative and inefficient condition of the treaty and law has produced deep-seated and increasing discontent among the people of the United States, and especially with those resident on the Pacific Coast. This has induced me to omit no effort to find an effectual remedy for the evils complained of and to answer the earnest popular demand for the absolute exclusion of Chinese laborers having objects and purposes unlike our own and wholly disconnected with American citizenship.

Aided by the presence in this country of able and intelligent diplomatic and consular officers of the Chinese Government, and the representations made from time to time by our minister in China under the instructions of the Department of State, the actual condition of public sentiment and the status of affairs in the United States have been fully made known to the Government of China.

The necessity for remedy has been fully appreciated by that Government, and in August, 1886, our minister at Peking received from the Chinese foreign office a communication announcing that China, of her own accord, proposed to establish a system of strict and absolute prohibition of her laborers, under heavy penalties, from coming to the United States, and likewise to prohibit the return to the United States of any Chinese laborer who had at any time gone back to China, "in order" (in the words of the communication) "that the Chinese laborers may gradually be reduced in number and causes of danger averted and lives preserved."

This view of the Chinese Government, so completely in harmony with that of the United States, was by my direction speedily formulated in a treaty draft between the two nations, embodying the propositions so presented by the Chinese foreign office.