Revolutionary leadership; and every member of the new organization, in spite of the swelling jealousy of State-rights, was willing to give something in acknowledgement of her noble bearing, as the leader of the confederacy throughout the war. An act was accordingly passed, July 4, 1789, being one of the earliest acts of the first Congress, which, in lieu of a drawback asked for on articles used in the Fisheries, gave an allowance of five cents on every quintal of dried, and five cents on every barrel of pickled fish exported from the United States. Failing in their object, and fearing the ultimate total annihilation of their own Fisheries, by the navy of England together with the rivalry of her colonies, the French government at the opening of the century, in order to raise up a new rival to her enemy, admitted our fish into its ports under advantages denied those coming from other places. One reflection in regard to this policy. Had the old monarchy acted with the same wisdom in its dealings generally, with this country, after our Revolution, it might have occasioned a more auspicious train of affairs for France. While it professed warm friendship toward the American nation, it manifested toward us an extreme of jealousy and a narrow spirit, equal in degree to the hatred borne to its ancient enemy herself. Of course, the government of France, being less liberal than that of England, had never approved the principle on which the Revolution was effected; and it was, therefore, naturally very anxious to banish the theories, which, by the connection with America, were being rapidly transfused into its own people; and for that purpose endeavored as far as possible, to limit the intercourse and cool down the mutual sympathies of the two people. Had France acted throughout as wisely as England, who, in spite of her resentments, sought, immediately after the war, to re-establish the former commercial and social intercourse, the result must have been moment ous, regarding the comparative standing of the two powers. It is not impossible that the effect might have been, even with the preservation of our neutrality, to unseat Great Britain from her commercial supremacy, and to give France the ascendancy on the seas, and the uncontrolled dictatorship of European fortunes.* In 1792, an act was passed by Congress, giving more substantial encouragemen to the Fisheries. The allowance in lieu of the drawback on salt was discontinued, and it was provided that the collectors of the several districts should pay to the owners and crew of every vessel employed in the Fishery, provided she had been engaged fishing four months in the year, as follows:-for vessels of 20 tons and not over 30, $1 50 per ton; above 30 tons, $250 per ton, Of this amount, three-eighths to belong to the owner, and five-eighths to the fishermen employed, to be shared in proportion to the fish they had severally taken. Not above $170 was to be paid to any one vessel, for a single season. For boats and vessels of five to twenty tons, employed four mouths, provided they had landed twelve quintals, (after being dried) for every ton, $1 00 per ton was to be paid. The sune year the allowance was increased 20 per cent to vessels engaged in the bank and other The policy of the French government has always been exceedingly liberal in the encouragement of the fisheries of that country. The object has been, both to extend and protect the fisheries on their own account, and to strengthen its commercial and naval marine, in which it has been so much the desire of the French statesmen to wrest the palm from their great rival. For many years the French government has paid a bounty to its seamen in the codfishery, at a rate per quintal larger than the whole average price at which American codfish have been sold. Of course, the effect has been to nearly exclude American fish from France and her colonies, In a report recently made to the National Assembly, on the subject of the French Fisheries, it was proposed to continue the bounty at 20 francs (about $3 75) per quintal, for the trans-atlantic countries. ganization, in five cents on er to raise up advantages | to this polpalings genccasioned a varm friendextreme of e to its anless liberal ch the Revis to banish ing rapidly ed as far as mpathies of and, who, in establish the en moment is not imion of our cy, and to atorship of al encourk on salt everal dised in the e year, as above 30 he owner, on to the any one tons, emter being ar the alnd other uragement fisheries on en so much years the arger than t has been to the Na bounty at codfisheries. An act was also passed, granting a bounty of 12 cents per barrel on pickled fish (chiefly mackerel) exported, and another addition of 33 per cent made to the allowance on cod. These additional grants were continued only so long as the salt duty remained at certain rates, the effect of which on the Fisheries they were designed to obviate. The main act continues, by renewals, at different times, and with various modifications, -chiefly to accommodate it to the varying rate of the salt duty,—in force to this day. The average amount paid under these acts, to the vessels in the codfishery, was for the ten years from 1800 to 1810, $119,842. The number of seamen in the codfishery in 1800, was 3,481, and the average number during the ten years, was 4,000 to 5,000 men. Like other interests of the country, the fishing business derived considerable benefit for some years, from the wars and agitated condition of Europe, during the time of the French Republic and the career of Napoleon; but the same circumstances were to it, also, as to them, the occasion of serious embarrassment, and several times involved the shippers of fish to Europe, and with them, the fishermen partially, in heavy and unexpected losses. Although the measures and practices of the English were outrageously oppressive to our Commerce, the greatest losses were suffered from the French, through their depredations prior to 1800, and in conseqence of the confiscation of all American vessels in France, by the Emperor Napoleon, when finding all the seductions offered to the United States, failed to secure their alliance with him against England, he resolved to force them from their neutrality. Many engaged in the fishing business were broken down by these losses, and a large number of others were involved in their sufferings. The vessels loaded with fish taken in the French and Mediterranean ports, form an item in the several French claims, of which so much has been heard for some years past. A part of the claim of those interested in these vessels, has been, after long delay, as fairly settled as could be expected; others have been extinguished with a very reduced equivalent, and some have received as yet, no satisfaction at all. The war of 1812-15, of course, was another complete interruption to the prosecution of the codfishery, almost entirely suspending even that on our own coast. During the war, Congress passed an act, placing the allowances on a new footing, as an equivalent, principally, for the double duty imposed on salt. It provided that from January 1, 1815, there should be paid for all codfishing vessels, four months out, if above 20 tons, and not over 30, $2 40 per ton; distributed in proportion as before; for vessels of 5 to 20 tons, $1 60 per ton, on terms as before, the allowance for any one vessel for a single season, not to exceed $272. The act to continue in force during the war, and one year thereafter. It was renewed by act of February, 1816, without limitation of time. On the close of the war, the American fishermen returned to the business, with greater energy than ever. The war had served to clear the markets at home, and joined with other causes, to raise the prices abroad. Under the stimulus of the increased bounty of the government, with the ready sales and considerable profits of the few succeeding years, the fishing tonnage rapidly increased. But difficulties soon arose regarding the construction of the treaty of 1783; the British colonial authorities forbade our vessels to approach within 60 miles of the shore, at any place, and seized and condemned some of them for infringement of this regulation. The dispute being adjusted by a convention, in 1818, nothing farther of serious moment occured to interrupt the progress of the Fisheries. The profits, however, did not long remain so high as in the period immediately following the war. The maximum number of vessels engaged in the codfishery was reached in 1829; and that in the mackerel fishery in 1836. Since those periods, the amount in each fishery, has fluctuated considerably, owing to various causes, although the average for any series of years, is very nearly the same. Beside the special enactments for the benefit of the Fisheries, some consideration has generally been paid to their encouragement, in the various modifications of the tariff. In fact, the almost prohibitory duty on cod and other dried and smoked fish, and the considerable duty on other kinds, retained through several alterations of the general rates, must be regarded as designed far more for protection, than for the object of revenue. Under several of the late acts regulating the duties, the following were the rates fixed on foreign fish imported into the United States : The duty on salt, which has formed the basis of the bounties, has been in the several tariffs, as follows: A number of efforts have been made, at different times, to abolish the salt duty, and with it the allowance or bounty. Some have chosen to consider these measures an especial grievance, not to be tolerated by men loving justice and equal rights. But they have never yet brought any one Congress into their way of thinking. One very determined and persevering attempt was made, about the time of Mr. Van Buren's administration, by a very determined and persevering man, in most things-Hon. Thomas H. Benton. But although Mr. Benton declared, with his usual vehemence, that he would stick by his object until he had accomplished it, he has of late years found sufficiency of other matters to absorb his attention and his energies and the salt duty and bounties remain undisturbed. Should the nation soon relapse into a political quiet, embarrassing to presidential aspirants, for the lack of stimulus-enkindling matters, we may expect to see some genius in the budding hours or second stage of his statesmanship, endeavoring to develop a magnificent next degree, by the furious concentration of all his powers for the destruction of those twin abominations, the Salt, Duty and Fishing Bounty. CHAPTER II. TREATIES CONCERNING FISHERIES-TREATY OF 1783-TREATY OF 1815-CONVENTION OF 1818-SAC- The Fisheries have been several times the subject of negotiation with Great Britain. The first instance, was in the formation of the treaty by which the Revolutionary War was concluded. At the time the peace negotiation was agreed upon, Congress, tired of the war, and knowing the people to be nearly exhausted, yet resolved to make no peace without a guaranty of our rights to our ancient fishing grounds. The New England people, with one voice, declared they would never lay down their arms, though their condition were ten times worse, without this right; and Samuel Adams, echoing their voice, declared there should be "No Peace without the Fisheries." Their long and undisturbed resort to those waters, their heavy expenditures and great efforts in the establishment of English supremacy over the Canadas and the region adjacent, joined to almost a necessity for their use, and the right of all nations in the seas, they felt, gave them indisputable claim to frequent the fishing grounds still. The matter was long and warmly debated by the Peace Commissioners of the two parties, and after using every argument without impression, Mr. John Adams, who well understood the sentiment of New England, declared vehemently, and invoking Almighty God, that he would never put his name to a treaty that did not recognize the right. The British Commissioners at length finding the American envoys inflexible, declared their willingness to grant the Americans a privilege in the Fisheries, but objected to the use of the word "right." But Mr. Adams again vehemently replying, "The right-the right or no treaty," the point was finally, with great reluctance yielded. It has been said, that the commissioners in their anxiety to effect a treaty containing the acknowledgement of this claim, took the responsibility of violating their instructions on other points. How that may be, we do not know, and it matters little, as nobody has charged them with sacrificing anything, the retention of which would have been an equivalent for the loss of the Fish of eries. every The stipulations of the treaty of 1783, in regard to the Fisheries, were, that the citizens of the United States should have the right "to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish; and also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island ;) and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks, of all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled but as soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose, with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground." Under this guaranty of the right, our fishermen returned to their old haunts in 1783, and terminated the respite from their attacks which the confusion of 1775-83, and the necessity of looking to the preservation of nearer interests, had given to the icthyological inhabitants of the Northern waters. The second case of negotiation worthy of mention, was at the conclusion of the second war with England. When the Peace Commissioners of 1815 were sent to Europe, they were instructed, in anticipation of a renewal of the English pretension to an exclusive right in the fishing-grounds, to abandon the negotiation rather than to yield any of the right conceded by the treaty of 1783. The British Commissioners declared it as the view of their government that the war then existing, had abrogated the concession made in 1783, and insisted on a new arrangement, restricting the grant within much smaller limits. The principle, if acknowledged in any shape, would have been fatal, as it would have reduced our title from that of a right to a privilege, which the first Commissioners had peremptorily refused to consider it, and would have given ample room for further restriction, at will, and final reclamation of the whole grant, leaving us no other course but quiet acquiescence. The Commissioners promptly and decidedly took the high ground which could alone secure our claims, that we held our right in the fisheries by the same tenure by which we held our independence as a nation; that England could no more withdraw one than the other; that the treaty of 1783 did not convey anything, in this matter, from England to the United States, but merely-acknowledged a right residing in the latter; and that, apart from this, no nation has a right to appropriate all the wealth of the seas, or all the use of them to its own advantage. The efforts and arguments of the American Commissioners prevailed, and the right was left standing on the basis of '83. But now, what we had maintained through two wars, and had had confirmed to us by two Treaties of Peace, at their conclusion, was to be sacrificed, in part, by a convention, in the midst of a profound peace-a Congress simply to arrange difficulties experienced in putting former treaties in practice-in which neither was to gain any advantage of the other; but which by an adjustment mutually convenient and fair, was to conserve harmony in the relations of the two countries, so that even the talk of disturbance might not afterward occur at least, might find no reason for indulgence. Among the difficulties which led to this convention, not the least important were those regarding the fisheries. For several years, the British authorities, with a high hand had interfered with our rights; our vessels had been forbidden to approach within sixty miles of any coast of British America, had been seized and condemned for so doing; and other like outrages perpetrated. The convention for adjusting the several matters in issue, met in 1818. The ministers on the part of the United States were Albert Gallatin and Richard Rush. An arrangement was effected by this convention in regard to the fisheries, which was thought to adjust happily all points of dispute, and to secure important concessions in addition to what was before possessed. The terms were that the inhabitants of the United States should for ever possess the right, in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty to take fish of every kind, on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, between Cape Ray and the Ramean Islands, and between Cape Ray and the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors and creeks, from Mount Joly on the south coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Bellisle, thence North indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company. Also, to cure and dry fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the parts described, but not in any settled, without agreement with the proprietors or inhabitants. Of all other places, the United States give up all right ever claimed or enjoyed to "take or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors," belonging to Great Britain; their vessels to be allowed to enter them for shelter, or repairs of damages, or purchase of wood and obtaining water, "and for no other purposes whatever." |