Camden Journal

The Present Aspect of the Fishery Question.—We never believed that this dispute would lead to a rupture of the peaceful relations between the two countries. We have conceived, however, that complicity might arise from mutual irritation. The two Governments could adjust the controversy in one week. But if popular feeling should be excited on either side, it is almost inevitable that the public councils would sympathize with the excitement. Ambitious politicians would gladly fan the flame. Speeches would be made in Congress that would react on popular feeling. Government would be placed in a position the most unfavorable for negotiation. And if unhappily any indiscreet act should be committed by those to whom a large discretion is given, in the execution of orders, retaliation, lawful or unlawful, may commit the country to war irrevocably. If members of Congress will, therefore, abstain from inflaming the public mind—if they will leave the subject where the Constitution has placed it, in the hands of the Executive, the result will not fail to be pacific.—There can be no apprehension that the honor and dignity of the country will not be cared for by those who have the diplomatic management of this question.

The position of things from 1810 to 1815 was nearly similar to the present posture of affairs.—Then the British North American Provinces complained loudly of our encroachments on their fishing grounds. Then the British cruisers on those grounds, captured our vessels, and then there arose feelings of irritation and loud complaints. The English and American Governments adjusted the controversy in a time more unpropitious than the present for settlement.—The Tories were then in power, potentially, in England. They were adverse to concessions which might weaken the maritime strength of Great Britain. They looked with jealousy to our fisheries as nurseries of seamen. Yet a treaty of compromise was made. Each party surrendered something in 1818. A difference that appeared invincible arose then. A difference of construction has arisen now, which can only be reconciled by looking at the intention of the framers of a Convention that was designed to close this controversy.

We need not say how much more favorable circumstances are now to a pacific solution. The Tory party has come into power with abstract views of Protection, but with practical concessions to Free Trade. The fisheries are a part of the system of protection. The Tories wield since their advent to power a diminished Parliamentary authority. Will they hazard the game of war with so slender a majority as they possess in the House of Commons? Most certainly not, unless they can strengthen themselves within, by an excitement without Parliament, through irritating language by Congressmen and newspapers on this side of the Atlantic. With the risks of a French war and the possible dangers of invasion, there must be hardihood, indeed, in Tory councils that would invite the chances of a two-fold conflict—a war at the same time with the best customer and the bitterest enemy of England.