V aV^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^^ -^^ ^

1.0

I.I

12.5

1 2.0

1.8

L25 1.4

•

«l

6" -

►

"^^.s^

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

u..

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICIVIH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Instituto for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductibns historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques at bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in ths
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagie

Covers restored and/or laminated/

I I Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculAe

□ Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque

I — I Coloured maps/

Cartes gAographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

I I Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli* avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion le long de la marge int6rlaure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lore d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6ti film^es.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentalres:

L'Institut a microfilm^ la meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normale de filmage
sont indiqute ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

This item Is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous.

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endammagies

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxet
Pages dicolories. tacheties ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachies

Showthrough>
Transparence

Quality of prir

Qualiti inigale de ('impression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only (fcition available/
Seule Edition disponible

I — I Pages damaged/

pn Pages restored and/or laminated/

I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

pn Pages detached/

I I Showthrough/

rn Quality of print varies/

|~~| Includes supplementary material/

r~l Only (fcition available/

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont M film^es i nouveau de facon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

ils

lifier

age

ata

ilure.

I2X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Seminary of Quebec
Library

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or ':he back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol <— ^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"). Of the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire fiimA fut reproduit grftce d la
g6nArositi de:

S^minaire de Quebec
Bibliothique

Les images suivantes ont it6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et
de la netteti de l'exemplaire filmA, et en
conformitA avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exomplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont filmis en comment nt
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniire page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la
premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la darniire page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
film^s A des taux de reduction diffirents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour iue
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd A partir
de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de heut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

•?•■'"

"'-f ' -I- -r*'M

m -'/v.

STION

J:-': " "■■

li85-87. fi^

PBBSWrtiD Ttt PAROAMBNT

Vt QOUmm OF bib KCOELLlHOr T«E

oovtoKOB qfaaiUL. 8bd mat, 1881

■'3:

W-

PBQjiTSBBI

^iii^ta

:llC-

CORRESPONDENCE

BBLATIVS TO THB

FISHEEIES QUESTION

'M\

FBBSENTED TO PABLIAMENT BY COMMAND OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE
GOVEBNOB GENEBAL, 3RD MAY, 188Y.

\^A^

OTTAWA:
PRINTED BY MACLEAN, EOGBR & CO., WELLINGTON iSTBEHT,

188T.

INDEX TO CONTENTS.

From and To

Uinister at Washington to
Uorernor General.

Qovemor General toSeoret'ry
of SUte.

OoTernor General to Seoret'ry
of State.

Minister at Washington to
Oorernor General.

Secretary of State to Oover
nor General.

Minister at Washington to
Governor General.

Colonel Stanley to Lord Lans' Telegram, Ang. 1, 1885..
downe.

Official Number

and
Date of Despatch.

1886.
No. 83, Jane 3S, 1885.....

No. 212, July 9, 1885

No. 213, July 9, 1886......

No 93, Jnly 16, 1885;
"Nation," July 9, 1885

No. 160, July 21, 1885....
No. 97, July 21, 1885 ..

9
10

Ooyamor General to Secret'ry
of State.

Colonel Stanley to Governor
General.— Foreign Office to
Colonial Office.

Governor General to Minister
at Washington.

Governor General to Secret'ry
of State.

Governor General to Secret'ry
of SUte.

Governor General to Gov-
ernor of Newfoundland.

Mr. Carter to Governor Gen
eral.

The Administrator of New-
foundland to Governor
(General.

Minister at Washington to
Deputy Governor.

No. 238, Ang. 7,1885.

No. 167, Aug. 11, 1886 ;
F. C, July 18, 1885.

No. 89, Ang. 20, 1885;
0.0. No. 973/, Aug. U
1885.

No. 359, Aug. 21, 1885 ;
0.0. No. 972/, Aug. 14,
1885.

No. 297, Sept. 4, 1886;
O.C., Sept. S.

Sept. 4, 1886; 0. 0.
Sept. 3.

Telegram Sept. 7, 1885..
Sept. 21, 1886..

•••#• • •#•••••••

No. 123, Oct. 10, 1886.,

Forwards U.S Treasury Circular re
termination of Fishery Articles.

Forwards papers re temporary ar-
rangement, 1885.

Forwards U.S. Treaaory Circular re
termination of Fishery Articles.

Forwards newspaper extract nadvaO'
lages under Treaties of 1851 and 1871,

Tiusts arrangement satisfactory to
Dominion Government.

Papers re agreement published by
U.S. Government

Her Majesty's Government desires
Canaiiaa and Newfoundland Qov-
ernmfnts consider nature of propo-
sitions to be made in view negotia-
tions on expiration temporary ar-
rangemeat.

Forwards Sir L. West's No. 6, July 31,
re temporary arrangement.

Encloses F. 0. letter suggesting that
course to be adopted in view at
negotiations be decided on.

Expressing satisfaction Dominion
Government with arrangement and
appreciation Mr. West's seryioes.

Expressing satisfaction Dominioil
Government v/ith arrHngement and
appreciation Mr. West's services.

Communications opened with NeW'
foundland re anticipated negotia-
tions.

Represectative from Newfoundland
invited to confer with Canadian
Government.

Foregoing proposal submitted to Ex
eoutive Council.

Owing approaching General Elections
(Government deem it inexpedient to
send a delegate to Ottawa, or ex
press views.

Forwards Circnlar issued by Boston
Fish Bureau on reciprocity in Fish
Products.

13
13

16
16

166-A^

CONTENTS.

18
19

20
31

26
27

29
30

31
32
33

Prom aad To

Deputy Gorernor to Secre
tary of State.

Depaty GoTernor to Score
tacy of State.

Colonial Office to Gorernor
Ueoeral.

Governor Gt'neral to Admini-
strator, Newfoundland.

GoTernor General to Secre-
Ury of State.

Minister at Washington to
Governor General.

Governor General to Colonel
Stanley.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir L.
West.

Sir L. West, to Lord Lans-
downe.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Minister at tVasbington to
Governor General.

Minister at Washington to
Governor General.

Governor General to Minister
at Washington.

Governor General to Karl
Granville.

Governor General to Barl
Granville.

Governor General to Minister
at Washington.

Official Number

and

Date of Despatch.

1889.
No. 36, Oct 16, 1885.

No. 37, Oct. 16, 1885.

No. 263, Not. 4, 1886. . .

Nov. 30, 1885 ;0. 0. No,
1,03Q/, Nov. 11, 1885.

No 315, Nov. 23, 1886 ;
0. No. 1,0J0/, Nov.
11, IbSS.

1886.
No. 6, Jan. 16, 1886;

No 29, Jan. 36, 1886

February 6, 1886 —

Februarys, 1886 •

March 3, 1886

No. 20, March 19

No. 23, March 20...
No. 28, March 24. ■

No. 27, March 24

March 24.

March 36

No. 28, Msroh 25

Forwards copy Despatchn (Sept. 31)
from Newfoundland.

Forwards copy of Sir L. West's Na 17,
Oct. 10, with Circular of Boston
Fish Bureau.

Acknowledgment of Sir W. Ritchie's
No. 18, Oct. 16, 1889.

Dominion Governnent invite Delega-
tion from Newfoundland to confer
as to Fisheries negotiations.

Dominion Government have invited
a Delegation from Newfoundland to
confer as to Figheries negotiations .

Forwarding Joint Resolutions. 1. In
favor of Commercial Reciprocity ;
2. As to Reciprocal privileges re-
lating to aiding of wrecked or die-
abled vessels.

Forwarding copy of Sir L. West's No.
23, Jan. 16, with Joint ResolutionB.

Asks for information rt recent report
on Reciprocity by U. S. Senate Com-
mittee.

No commission will be issued..

Reports steps being taken by Domin-
ion Government for protection of
Fisheries; $160,000 will ba asktd
for the purpose.

Encloses copy of memo, handed to Ur.
Bayard, embodying view of Domin-
ion Government as to its position
under the Treaty of 1818.

Note to Mr. Bayard as to issue of
notices to Fishermen on position of
Fisheries.

Mr. Bayard's note states President's
Proclamation ot January 31, 1885,
sufficient; not necessary repeat
notice.

Acknowledges and approves memo..

Forwards Sir L. West's No. 28, with
memo, to Mr. Bayard.

Forwards confidential instructions is-
sued to Fishery Police Officers, and
copy of " Warning."

Sends copy "Confidential Instruc
tions " to Fisheries Officers, and ot
«« Warning,"

a.
18
It

1»
M

30
30

3ft

2S
38

42/

431

44)
46[

4710 J

481 Gc

481 Mii^

CONTENTS.

1)1 18

iT.l »

•I l»

iferi

itedl M

dto|

as.

I. Inl M

dty ;|
B re-

diB'

!b No.

itiOUB.

repoTtl tt
I Oom-I

Domin-j 3*
tion ofl
askirdl

to Mr.) 23
)OBitlonl

iBue ofl **
iition ofl

Bident'Bl **
H, 1886,1
repeatl

memOx

28, withl S*

BtioDBiB-' a*
en, andl

Instrac-
irB, and ot|

40
41

From and To

QoTernor Oeaeral to HiniBter
at VTaahiDnton.

QoTenior G«Dwal to Barl
QranTllle.

MlBiBter at Washington to
GoTernor General.

Minister at Washington to
Governor General

Gorernor General to Barl
OranTille.

Governor General to Barl
Granville.

Minister at Washington to
Governor General.

Minister at Washington to
Governor Oeneral.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Official Nnmber

and

Date of Despatch.

1886.
No. as, March 37.,

March 39....

>•••••••• «M«***<

Minister at Washington to
Governor Oeneral.

Governor Oeneral to Minister
at Washington.

Governor General to Barl
Granville.

Governor General to Barl
Granville, E.G.

Governor Oeneral to Barl
Granville, E.G.

Minister at Washington
Governor Oeneral.

No. "Ji, March 39 ,

No. 33, March 80.,

No. 38, March 30 ; 0.0.
March 30.

No. 9}, March 81.

No. 33, March 31..

No. 34, March 81.

No. 107, April 6, and 0.
0. No. 132^, April 6.

No. 37, April 6 ...a... ......

No. 43, April 7..M

Refers to Sir L. West's No. 38, March
19, informM him fishing IlcepseB will
not be issued by Dominion Govern
ment.

Forwards for Earl Granville's infor-
mation copy of 36 to Sir L. West
r« fishing licenses.

n. S. Oonsnl Genera) , Halifax, re-
ported to have arg;u?d that Treaty
of 1818 does not pi'Rvent landing
and transhipment, ia bond from
Canadian ports to United States of
fish cauKht la deep waters by Unit«d
StatCH tiabHrmeu.

Acknowledotment of Lord Lans-
downe's No. 33, March 36

Fisheries Police ; H. M. Government
asked to take steps necessary to
sustain the Convention of 1818.

Forwards Sir L. West's No. 41, and
Lord Lansdowne's No. 33 to Sir L
West.

Acknowledgment of No. 36, March
'it] encloses note to Mr. Bayard

as to intention of Dominion
ernment not \.j issue licenses.

Gov-

April 7......... ........

No. 109, April 7

No. 116» April 10

'•«•••••. Ofli

No. 39, April 13..

Asking if Mr. Mitchell's report on Mr.
BoutweU's circular. May 16, 1870,
maintained by Dominion Govern-
ment.

iSends copy of Sir L. West's No. 37,
and states Canadian Government
cannot admit argument D.S. Oon
anl Geceral as applied to fishing
vessels, to which Convention of
1818 will be strictly applied.

Pricis of Senate Debate on fisheries
question.

In reply to No. 37, March 39 ; en-
closes copy of Despatch No. 43 to
Barl Granville and copy of O.C.,
April 6.

Encloses copy of Sir L. West's No.
41, with memo, to Mr. Bayard on
licenses.

Encloses Report of Debate in Domin-
ion House of Commons on motion
of Hon. P. Mitchell rt Fisheries
Police Force.

Forwards Sir L. West's No. 44, and
enclosare for information.

Resolntion introdnced in House of
Representatives on Fishery question

3»

CONTENTS.

From and To

63
68
64
66
66

68
60

«I
63

68
64
66

QoTPrnor General to Minliter
at Wnshlopton.

QoTflrnor General to Earl
OranTiUe, K.G

Govornor General to Earl
Uranville.

Minister at Woghington to
Oovernor General.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Barl Granville to Lord Lani-
downe.

Lord Lanadowne to Barl
Granville.

Sir Liotel Weit to Governor
General.

Oovrnor General ta Earl
OrauviUe.

31r L. West to Governor
General .

Governor General to Sir L.

West.

Uinister at Washington to
Govornor General.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Governor General to Minister
at Wasliington.

Governor General to Barl
Granville.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Harqnis of Lanadowne to
Earl Granville.

Official Number

and

Date of Despatch.

li»86.

Kg 43, April 30; 0. 0.
April 16.

No. 130, April 30.,

No. 139, April 34. m-

No. 49, April 39

No. 146, Majl

May 10 .*....

Telegram, Hay 10.

Telegram, May 11.
May 11

Telegram, Hay 13.

May 13.

No 67, May 13.

No. 166, May 17.,

No. 64, May 17.

No. 160, May 18..

Enclosing minute of Council intimat*
ing that viewi expressed in 0. U.
referred to, are still held.

Bnolosea 8ir L. Weit'i No. 43, and
reply No. 60.

Forwardi Sir L. Weit'i No. 49

Acknowledgment of Lord Lans-
downe'a No. 60, April 30.

R* detention American schooner
"Joseph Story ' ' at Baddeck, O.U.

Telegraph particnlars seizure "D. J,
Aoami."

Reports particulars of seizure of " D,
J. Adams," and charges on whicl(
vessel be tried.

Secretary of State deprecates Oapt.
Scott's refusal
<• 0. J. Adams

Scott's refusal give reasous seiiilrs

No. 161, May 19

No. 162, Hay 19

Reports facts of seizure of " D. J.
Adams," and grounds for prosecn-
tion.

Informed by Secretary of State that
Oapt. Scott still declines to aive rea-
sons lor seizure of "D. J. Adams."

Offeufles for which "D J. Adams"
will be proceeded afrainst. Oapt.
Scott instructed in all oases state
reasons of seizure.

Encloses note from Mr. Bayard on
questions arising from seizure
" David J. Adams."

Encloses Oapt Scott's report and
statements relative seizure " D. J.
Adams " ; refers to reasons why
Oapt. Scott did not give particulars
of grounds for detention of vessel.

Acknowledges No. 61 with note of Mr.
Bayard, and expresses pleasure at
the temper with which Mr. Bayard
discusses the question.

Forwards for information, Sir L.
West's No. 61, with Mr. Bayard's
note and Lord Lansdowne's reply.
No. 68.

Reports seizure of ■'EllaM. Doughty"
at St. Ann's, N.S.

Forwards copy of Bill to amend Fish-
ery Act of 1868, with reasons for
introduction,

77
78
79

CONTENTS.

vii

44
44
U
48
48

67
68

From and To

Ifiaiater at Wathington to
Uovttrnor General.

Sir Lionel S. SackTille Weit
to Marquis of Lansdowne^

OfHoial Number

and
Date of Dei patch.

69 Sir L. 8. SackvlUe West to
Marquis of Laosdowne.

71
72

73
74

Mr.

ard

77
78

L.
rd'8

ply.

ity"

ftS

rish-
1 for

Earl Oranville to Lord Lani-
downe.

Lord Lansdowne to Barl
Granville.

Earl Granyille to Lord Lani'
dowoe.

Governor Geueral to Barl
Granville.

Governor General to Barl
Granville.

Lord Lansdowne to Barl
Oranville.

Lord Lansdowne to Barl
Granville.

Barl Granville to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lanidowne to Earl
Granville.

Minister at W^ashing'ton to
Governor General.

Sir Lionel West to Lord
Laosdowne.

1886.
No. 60, Hay 31.,

No. 60, May 21.,

No. 61, Hay 21

Telegram, May 22

Telegram, Hay 22
May 26 ,

No. 166, May 26.
No. 167, Hay 26..

Hay 27.

Telegram, Hay 27. .
Telegram, Hay 27. .
No. 67, May 29

Telegram, Hay 30..

Subjeat.

Acknowledgment of No. 63 ,

Encloses further note from Hr. Bayard,
who strongly deprecates 'he man-
nei- of thn seizure and detention of
tho ''David J. Adams" and the
action of the OanadiaiiCilieialB gen
eraily iu regard to the matters in
dispute.

R» case of "Jennie and Julia,"
attempt purcbaae herring at Digby,
N<8.

Report facta and legal position of
Oaoadian Governmeni f Piiznres
of vessels.

Answer to telegram, May 21 ; nave
sent despatches re leizareB.

U.S. Hinister has inqu' ■* why Heiz-
ures ooald not be aik«,ontinned and
seized vessel* rtiinmed owne*-. an
undertaking bean given to ri-i.'.ore
tlieriif required to do (" TLeS.
of S. replied that H. M. Govt, jould
hardly ask Canada anspeud her
legal rights without adequate ^ di-
valent.

Forwards copy of Sir L. West's
No. 03. .

Refers to ooncludine para, of No. 66,
of 19th May, " Ella M. Doughty "
will be proceeded against on »ame
grounds as "David J. Adams."

Aniwtr to 25 < A; Canadian Govern-
ment already snow anxiety to reach
friendly settlement, but cannot
again suspend their rights without
better assurance than that of Mr.
Phelp's statement

Refers to Despatch No. 162 ; Bill will
pass both Houses; renaers vessels
contravening Convention liable to
forfeiture.

Glad to receive report of Dominion
Government on Mr. Bayard's notes.

Report in preparation; will be sent
next mail.

Seizure of Canadian schooner "Sis-
ters," at Portland, Maine, for in-
fraction of Onstoms regulations.

Mr. Bbvard protests against Bill
amending Fisheriep Act, as assump-
tion of jurisdiction ultra viV«, and
wholly denied by U.S. ; Minister in
London instrncted to protest against
Bill.

68
68

viii

CONTENTS.

Trom and To

Sir Lionel West
Lanadowne.

to Lord

Official Number

and
Date of Despatch.

188«.
No. 69, May 30.,

IGnister at Washington to
Oovernor General.

Earl GrsnTille to. Lord Lans-
downe.

Earl Granyille to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lanidowne to Earl
Granrille.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Granville.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
OranTille.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Granville.

Marquis of Lansdowne to
Earl Granville.

No. 70. May 31

Telegram, June 3

Telegram, June 4

Telegram, June 7. ...

Extract, Jane 7

Telegram, June 8. ».,

Extract, Jane 8

No. 188, Jnne8 ,

Governor General to Earl
Gianville.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Oolonial Office to Governor
General.

Governor General to Earl
Granville.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Granville.

No. 193, June 9.,

No. 196, Jane 9 .

Jane 9

No. 199, June 14.

EocIoBes notA by Mr. Bayard on which
telegram of 30th May was based ;
Mr. Bayard protests stroncly against
the Bill amending the Pisheriea Act,
as well as the " Warning" of 6th
March, and Customs Circniar of 7ih
May, as violative of the commercial
privileges of the U.S , and an as-
sumption ot jurisdiction entirely
unwarranted and wholly denied by
the U.S ; Mr. Phelps has been in
Btructed to warn H.M. Government
that it will be held liable for all
losses and injuries under this action
of the Dominion.

Schooner " Sisters " released ; fine
remitted.

Mr Bayard's telegram to Mr. Phelps ;
telegraph purport of Oustoms cir-
cular.

Suggests amendment of concluding
paragraph of " Warning."

Purport of circular No. 371. In reply
to Earl Granville's telegram of
June 3.

Answer to Earl Granville's of 4th, rt
" Warning."

Re Bill for amending Act of 1868..

Re amendments Circular 371 .■

i2« Circular and Warning..

No. 204, June 18.

Case of " Jennie and Julia," with copy
of report by Minister of Fisheries in
relation to. See Mr. Bayard's note
of aoth May.

Re seizure and subsequent release of
Canadian schooner "Sisters," at
Portland, Maine.

Forwards Bill amend Act of 1868,
Encloses Mr. Bayard's note object-
ing to this Bill and to Circular
371.

Re conversation between Lord Ro°e-
bery and Mr. Phelps as to fisheries
seizures and Convention of 1818.

With report Council re Mr. Bayard's
notes of 10th and 20th May, and
rights of [Jnited States fishermen in
Canadian territorial waters.

With amended Customs Circular No.
371.

7fr

86^

CONTENTS.

«5
66

po?e-

eries

Ird's
land
In in

I No.

67
67
68
68
71

72
72

73
76

99
160
101
102

103

From and To

Sir Lionel Weak to Oorernor
General.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir L.
West.

Barl GranTille to Lord Lana-
dovne.

Lord Granville to Lord Lans-
downe.

Colonial OfBce to GoTernor
General.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Oranviile.

OoTernor General to Minister
at Washington.

Earl GranTille to Lord Lans-
dovne.

104
105

106
107

108
109
110
111

112
118

OfiBoial Number

and
Date of Despatch.

1886.
Telegram, Jnne 17.

Telegram, June 19.
Telegram, June 24 .
Telegram, June 24 .
June 24

Telegram, June 26-
No. 67, June 30

Telegram, Jnlj 6 ,

Minister at Washington to
Governor General.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Granville.

Colonial Office to Governor
General.

Oolonial OfiBce to Governor
General.

Barl Granville to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lansdowne to Barl
Granville.

Earl Granville to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lansdowne to Barl
Granville.

Earl Granville to Governor
General.

Earl Granville to Lord Lans-
downe.

No. 83, July 8

Telegram, Jnly 12

July 15

July 15 «.<

Re authenticity Minister of Fisheries
reply as published in New York
"Herald"

"Herald" letter authentic; text in-
accurate.

Legality "Adams " sei/.ure questioned
by U. S. Government.

Telegram, July 21

Telegram, July 24

July 28

Extract No. 238, July 29

No. 175, July 29.

Telegram, Aug. 2.

Rt schooner " Anme M. Jordan '

Forwarding Hr. Pbelp's note ques-
tioning powers of legislation.

/2« liability *' Adams" for purchasing
bait.

With report Oouncil re questions
raised by Mr. Bayard's notes of 10th
and 20th May.

Warning to U. S. fishermen, by Col-
lector Caneo, to keep 3 miles out-
aide line Oanso to bt. Esprit, and
north to East Cape, P.B.I., and
whether Dominion Government
withes to modify views headland
question.

Acknowledges receipt Report Minister
of Marine and Fisheries, re Seizures

No warning issned by Cauro Collector
Customs, save tbe oflScial warn-
ing.

Expressing satisfaction with changes
in circular and warning.

Forwards despatches from Sir L.
West, enclosing note from Mr. Bay-
ard alleging warnings unwarranted,
&c.

Re U. S. Government protest in case
schooner " City Point."

" City Point " committed breach of
Customs Laws,

Re " City Point," with copy Mr. Bay-
ard's protest.

With P. O. Order, re desirability of
Royal Assent buing given to Vieuery
Bill of last session.

Forwards protect of Hr. Bayard rt
treatment of U.S. fishing steamer
"Novelty' ' at Pictou. N.S., and U.S
fishermen at St. Andrews, N. B.

Particnlars requested of U. 8. vessels
(fishing) seized or warned off.

86
86
87
87
93

94
94
94
94

96
96
97
98

100
103

CONTENTS.

114
116
116
117
118
119
120
121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

Minister at Washington to
UoT»rnor Oentral.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Granville.

Governor General to Secre-
tary of State.

Lord Lansdowne to
Oranville.

Earl

Rt. Hon. Edward Stanhope to
Lord Lansdowne.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl
Oranville.

Ur. Stanhope to Marquis of
LaDslowae.

The Administrator to Rt.
Hon. E. Kitanhope.

The Administrator to Hon. E.
Sianhope.

''.be Administratorto Minister
at Washington.

Secretary of State to Gover-
nor General.

Mr. Stanhope to the Adminis-
trator.

Secretary of State to Lord
Lansdowne.

Mr. Stanhope to the Adminis-
trator.

Official Number

and
Date of Despatch.

No. 18, Aug. 21.

No. 2, Aug. 21... .,
Telegr:;^:, Aug. 21.

1686.
No. 88, Aug. 3

Telegram, Aug. 4

Extract, Aug. 4....

Extract, Aug. 4.. ..

No. 179, Aug. 4....

Aug 6

Aug. 6

Aug. 21

•••■••••

Aug. 25.,

Telegram, Sept. 1 .

No. 195, Sept. 1.

No. 203, Sept. 9.

Mr. Bnyard requests be supplied with
all Canada's orders, circulais and
regulations rt Fisheries.

Information by to-morrow's mail, re-
plying telegram Aug. 2.

Encloses copies of seizure reports in
cajes of ' 'Adams," and other vessels.

Re Mr. Bayard's note of June 14,
touching headland question.

Enclosing copy extract from " N. Y.
Herald."

With papers re seizure of
schooner " Ella M. Doughty."

With protest from Mr. Bayard r< refusal
permission purchase fish for canning.

With Priry Council Order of Aug 16
dealing with Mr. Bayard's not« of
July U, alleging that certain U. S.
fi'ihing vessels had been warned to
keep outside the Bay dca Cbaleurs,
and in which the statement was
made that the headlandqaestion bad
been "long since settled between
the U. S. and Great Britain."

Case of the " Novelty; " with Order
in Council of Aug. 20, in reply to
Mr. Bayard's protests ; also dealing
with threats to seize American ves
sels entering Canadian waters to
purchase herring for canning ; in
reply to 0.0. No. 112 of July 29.

Forwards copies of regulations, &o.
in force re Fisheries.

D. S. Government complains that the
schooner "Mascotte" had been
threatened with seizure at Port
Amherst, Magdalen Islands, in case
attempt made to obtain bait or take
a pilot. Under Treatv of 1818 the
n. 8. possess the right to fish in
these islands. H. H. Government

E resume that ofBcials on Magdalens
ave been instructed accoriiiagly.

Relating to .tllcged infraction of Con-
vention of 18 l8 at Port Amherst,
Magdalen Islands. With copy of
protest from Mr. Bayard.

Requests report concerning alleged
ill-treatment to "Rattler."

With copy of Mr. Bavard's protest re
"Rattler."

With Mr. Bayard's protest re alleged
prevention of schooner " Golden
Hind " entering Bay des Ohaleurs
for water.

103
103
104
106
105
lOT
114
115

117

119

120

121

122

123

CONTENTS.

lied with
tlaia and

mail, re-

eports iD
!r Teasela.

June 14,
n.

i'«N. y.

)f fishing

ty."

f« refusal
rcanaiog.

f Aug 16
's not« of
;aia 0. S.
earned to
Ohaleurs,
mient was
estioa had
I between
n."
1

ith Order
repl^ to
dealing
rican veS'
vaters to
ning ; in
uly 29,

ons, &o.,

that the
been

at Port
incase
or take

1818 the
fish in

ernment

igdalens

iingly

103

104

105

iOT

114

115

117

119

120

I of Oon-
imherst,
copy of

allege i

rotest re

alleged
Uolden
haleurs

120

121

122

123

129

130

131
132
133

134

136
136
137

138

13S

140

141
142

143
144
146

From aid To

tit Stanhope to the Adminis
trator.

The Administrator to Secre-
tary of State.

The Administrator to Mr.
Stanhope.

The Administrator to Mr
Stanhope. V

Mr. Stanhope to the Adminid'
trator.

Secretary of State to the
Administrator.

Mr Stmhope to the Admin-
istrator.

If r. Stanhope to the AdminiS'
trator.

The Administrator to Mr.
iScanhupo.

Sir L. West to the Adminis-
trator.

The Administrator to Secre-
tary of State.

The Aiiministrator to Uc
Stanhope.

The Administrator ta Mr.

Stanhope.

Secretary of State to Lord
Lansdowne.

Mr. Stanhope to Oorernor
Ueneral.

Official Number

and
Date of Despatch.

1886.
No. 203, Sept. 9

Telegram, Sept. 14

No. 31, Sept. 21

•Vo. 32, S<ipt. 21; 0. in
, Sept. 16.

Sept. 26 ; O. in 0. 332^,
bept 21.

No. 218, Oct. 6

Telegram, Oct. 6...
Telegram, Oct. 10
Oct. 12

No. 223, Oct. 16....

No. 66, Oct. 27 J 0. 0.,
Oct 26.

So. 22, Oct. 28

Telegram, Oct. 29.

Vo. 71, Oct. 29 ; 0. C,
No. 402^, Oct 28.

Oct. 30 ; 0. 0. No. 36l5r,
ucl. 30.

Telegram, Not. 2..
Nov. 4

Protect re (conduct Capt. Qaigley
towards (7. S. fishing schooners
" Shiloh " and " Julia £llen."

Facts as to " Rattler's " case. Gap-
tain attempted to put to sea with-
out repotting.

With Customs Circular No. 373 re
coasting trade of the Dominion.

Re alleged improper treatment of U.
S. fishing schooner ■ ' Battler."

Re alleged refusal to j^ermit Stephen
A. Balkam to bny fish from Oaa-
adians for canning, and Minute of
Uouncil on this subject

Protest from Ur Bayard re alleged
refusal of the Collector of Caatomi,
Port Mulgrare, N.S , to allow mas-
ter of tho n. S. fishing vessel
"MollieAdams" to purchase barrels
to hold water.

When may answer r» " Rattler " be
expected ?

When may answer re Magdalen Is-
lands be expected^

Forwards Mr. Bayard's protest re
alleged refusal permit schooner
" Crittenden " take water at Steep
Creek, N S.

Senate Committee of United States
leave shortly tor Canada to investi-
gate fishery question.

Case of the "Marion Grimes;" with
Order in Couucil txpre»)>ing regret
Dominion Government at action of
Capt. Quigley in lowering United
States flag.

With letter from Mr. Bayard re law
regulating sale and exportation
herring trom Grand Mauan.

Re '< Rattler " report

With 0. 0. re " Rattler " case and
Capt. Qnigley's stntement of facts
re schooners " Shiloh " and '' Jnlia
Ellen."

Re alleged infraction of Convention ot
1818, at Magdalen Islands.

Certified copy of Fishery Bill to be
sent to 0. 0.

Fishery Bill of laat Sasiioa ; assent
will be given.

BLi

125

las

138
127

12»

130

ISl

131

133

13<

134

138
13«

141
143

14t

Zll

CONTENTS.

1 1
il j

t.'i

■ 146
147

148
149
ISO

15)

1B3

163

1B4
165

156

167

168

15t

FromaadTo

OfBdal Namber

»nd
Dftte of Denpfttoh.

Seentery of State to the
Adniniitrator.

Lord Lanadowne to llr. Stan-
hope.

Lord Lanadowne to Mr. Stan-
hope.

Sir L. S. West to Ooremor
General.

Mr. Stanhope to GkiTemor
Qeneial.

Secretary of State to Got-
ernor General.

GoTernor General to llr.
Stanhope.

Governor General to Mr.
Stanhope.

Mr. Stanhope to Goyemor
General.

GoTemor General to Minister
at Washington.

QoTcmor General to Mr.
Stanhcpe.

Governor General to Mr,
Stanhope.

GoTernor General to Mr,
Stanhope.

Minister at Washington to
GoTernor General.

1886.

Telegram. Nor. 6 ; ao-
knowledged No. 356,
Not. 9.

Not. 9 ; 0. 0. No. 21^,
Not. 2.

Telegram, Nor. 17

No. 344, Not. 33.

Ee n. 8. fishins Tessels " Pearl Nel-
son " and " Breritt Steele."

With copy report of Minister of Jus-
tice re points raised by Mr. Phelps'
1. J. Adams' "

Not. 26 .

No.38a, Not. 39;0. inO.
No. 436^ (A.), Not. 18.

No 383, Not. 29 ; O.inO.
No. 436y (B), Not. 18.

No. 260, Dec. 3.,

No 81, Dee. 3; O.inO.,
Not. 24,

No. 386, Dec. 4 .

No. 288, Dec 7..

No. 290, Dec. 7

No. 103, Dec. 8..,

reference
ease,

With certified copy of Fishery Bill .

Aiks for information re oommnnica-
tioa Oct. 38, last.

Forwards F. O. Despatch with enclo-
sures from Mr Bayard re detention
schooners "Pearl Nelson" and
"BTeritt Steele."

Informing Admiralty will afford snp
port fiiheries police by the presence
of a cmiser if no agreement with
the U.S. is reached before next
season.

Forwards repbrt in the ease of the
"Peral Nelson," with Order in Ooon-
cil stating tacts of case.

Forwards statement of facts as to
" Breritt Steele " ; Teesel sailed
from Shelbnrne on 26tb March with'
out reporting.

Fishery Bill of last session, with Order
in Coancil giring Her Majesty's
assent to same.

He sale and exportoli.>n of herring
from Grand Manan Island ; with
Canadian laws regalating same.

With report of Council re fishing sehr
"Crittenden," to the effect that
master had violated Customs laws
by refusing to enter his yessel when
requested to do so by Customs ofBcer
at Steep Creek.

Forwards Canadian laws regulating
exportation fresh herring from
Grand Manan Island, and copies of
correspondence with Sir L. West in
relation thereto-

U.S. fishing Tessel " Highland Light"
seized for fishing within three-mile
limit ; ressel has been condemned
and ordered to be sold by Vice
Admiralty Court at Oharlottetown,
P.B.I. ; no defence.

Acknowledges No. 165 of 3rd Dec,
with iDformation respecting Grand
Manan herring fisheries, Ac.

149

14S

16T

167

16T

163

162

164

166

CONTENTS.

xiit

•■

earl Nel-

143

r of Jnt-
•. Phelps'
Adams'"

14S

ry Bill....

16T

nmnnioa-

15T

th enclo-
detention
m" and

167

ifford sup-
B presence
nent with
fore next

162

164

165

166

167

166

168

|d Dee.,
: Grand

16»

From and To

Official Number

and
Date of Despatch.

Sabjeet.

•

• •

1886.

160

Oolonial OiBoe to OoTernor
GeneraL

Rt sehr. -UoUle Adams"; Mr
Bayard forwards letter from Oapt.
Jacobs, statinsr that bis sole re<«son
for entering Malpeqoa harbour was
to land the shipwreeked crew of the
Canadian sehr. " NeskiUta," of
Lockeport, N.S., and other docu-
ments referring to this caje.

161

Mr. Stanhope to Gorernor
General.

No. 274. December 16

Re cases of U.S. fishing vessels "Laura
SaywKrd and "Jennie Searerna;"
Mr. Bayard asserts thattne captain
of the " Say ward ' ' was refused per-
mission to bay food for himself and
bis crew, and that his papers were
unnecenarily retained; that the
captain of the "SeaTems" was

>reTeuted from landing to Tisit

riends in Livei pool, N.S.

ITS

162

Sir L. West to Harqais of
Lanadawne.

No. 107, December 17

Forwarding ropies of correspondence
presented to D.3. Congress relative
to rights of American fishermen in
BS.A. waters.

17ft

163

Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr.
Stanhope.

No. 296, December 20

Oases of " Pearl Nelson " and «' Bver-
itt Steele ; " statemnntH cf Mr. Bay-
ard met by Or Jers in Gonncil of Ifth
November; fi«cts therein set forth
not disputed; statements of mus-
ters of both vessels as to inadver-
tence accepted ; vessels allowed to
go, and fiaeia case of the " Nelson "
lemitted.

17S

d64

Sir L. West to Lord Lans-
downe.

December 22 „

Forwards copy of note from Bayard
with proposttl for settlement ot fish-
eries difficulty.

177

166

Sir L West to Lord Lans-
downe.

No. 109, December 22 „...

Forwards copy of Mr. Bayard's note
to Mr. Phe pi, n above proposal.

177

166

Lord Lansdowne to Sir L.
West.

No. 88, December 28

Acknowledges receipt of proposal.-...

181

£67

Secretary of State to Lord
Lansdowne.

Telegram, December 24.„

U.S. Government requests solicitor of
" D. J Adams ' ' be given reports by
Oapt. Scott or Oustoms officers rt
seizure ; H.M. Government proposes
reply— can obtain them by legal
procedure.

181

168

Lord Lansdowne to Secretary
ofStote.

Telegram, December 25...

Canadian Government concur in
above answer.

182

169
170
171

GoTcrnor General to Mr.
Stanhope.

Mr. Stanhope to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lansdowne to Secre-
tary of State.

Deo. 28..

Mr. Rsyard's proposal reeeived and
referred to Privy Oonncii, with
Lord Lansdowne's remarks thereon.

Transmits copy note tir. Phei:js to
F 0., dated Dec 3, covering Mr.
Bayard's prorosal.

Canadian Government eannot enters
tain propoaal, present shape. Posi-
tion taken by Lord Olarendon't
despatch, May 11, 1886, to Sir F
Bruoe, in substance acceptable Ouh
adian Government.

18S

Dee. 30 -

Jan. 7, 1887 .».«. »..

184
18S

ZiT

CONTENTS

1 '

174

175

176
177
178

179
180

From Mid To

Sir L. WMt to Lord Lans-
downo.

Miniater mi Waibington to
Oovernor Q«neral.

Sir L. Weit to Lord Luu
downe.

Sir Heaiy HoUuid to Marqais
of Lansdowne.

Sir L. West to Lord Lane*
downe.

Lord Lansdowne to Colonial
Office.

GoTernor General to Secre-
tary ol State for Oolonies.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir L.
West.

Sir H. Holland to Lord Lans-
downe.

Official Number

and
Date of despatch.

1887.
No. 2, Jan. 15 ..

No. 4, Jan. 19.

No. 5, Jan. 21......>

No. 19, Jan. 24.,

No. 7, Jan. 26 .

18)
182

1«S

184

Sir Henry Holland to Lord
Lansdowne.

Colonial Offioe to Lord Lans-
downe.

Secretary of State to Oorer-
nor GeneraL

Lord Lansdowne to Secretary
of Stete.

No. 26, Jan. 31; 0.
No. 493^, Jan. 15.

feb. 1 ; 0. 0. No. 540^..,

No. 13, Feb. 16 ...
No. 38, Feb. 18 ...

No. 42, Feb. 23> . .
Feb. 24

Telegram, Feb. 24

Telegram, Feb. 26

Subject

Forwards copy reply, U.S. Secretary
of Treasury to resolution passed by
House of Representatives, and cal*s
attention to the expressions, "brn
tally excluded," "passionate
spite," used therein, in reference
to the Canadian Oorernment and
its officials.

Encloses copy of Bill protect American
vessels ia the ports of B.N. A.

Bn closes copy Bill and report re Com-
mission to investigate losses inflicted
on D. S. citizens engaged in N. A.
fisheries.

Refers to Colonial Office telegram of
Dec. 24, and Governor General's
telegram, Deo. 28, in reply to request
for " Adams" doeuments,

Transmits copy report Foreign Rela
tions Committee and Bill founded
thereon.

Re detention vessels " Pearl Nelson
and " Kveritt Steele ; " forwards
copy Privy Council report.

Forwards Canadian Government
views on proposal United States
Government for ad interim arrange,
ment.

Acknowledges receipt of Sir L. West's
No. 172, of 16th January.

Transmits copy of despatch from Sir
L. We»t with copy of a Bill and Re-

Sort thereon, introduced United
tates Congress re losses by United
States citizens engaged in North
Americaa fisheries.

Bncloses F. 0. letter re United States
schooner "Sarah H. Prior."

Trancmits copies of correspondence
relating to North American fisher-
ies, presented to Parliament.

Lord Lansdowne's despatch of Ist
Feb. considered. Her Majesty's
Government in geneial concurrence
with views respecting Ur. Bayard's
proposal re mixed commission. Bz-
presees approval of reviving (under
certain conditions) arrangement ex-
isting under Treaty of Washington.

Refers to foregoins ; Canadian Gov-
ernment prepared to accept sugges-
tion revert temporarily Treaty of
Washington without raising qnea-
tion indemnity.

18B

198

18A

210

211

214

n»

219

222

223

CONTENTS.

, V',

S. Seoretarj
on passed by
res, and oaPs
isions, "bru-
" passionate
in reference
ernment and

I«

Bct American
B.N.A.

iport re Oom-
MMB inflicted
;ed in N. A.

a telegram of 310
ior General's
ply to request
nts.

i'oreign Rela- 211
Bill founded

earl Nelson"
; " forwards
port.

OoTernment U4
nited BUtes
erim ariange-

, o
, 8

185
186

187
188

189

From and To

Sir L. West's

•y-

ktch from Sir
Bill and Re-
Iced United
les by United
led in Nwrth

Inited States
Kor."

Irespondence
n fisher
lent.

S19

319

Mch of 1st
Majesty's
Boncurrsnce
(r. Bayard's
lission. Ex-
ring (under
lement ez'
Washington

ladian Gor-
pt sngges-
Treaty of
sing ques-

310
332

322

190

191

192

193

194

823

1887.

Colonial Office to GoTemor No. 46, Feb. 26 .
General.

Official Number

and
Date of Despatch.

Sir H. Holland to Uarquiaot
Lansdowne.

No. 49, March 1 ...

Lord Lansdowne to Sir H. No. 67, March 9.
Holland.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir H.
Holland.

Sir L. Wcit to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lansdowne
Holland.

to Sir H.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir H.
Holland.

Sir H. Holland to Lord Lans-
downe.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir H,
Holland.

Sir H. Holland to Lord Lans
downe.

Governor General
Henry Holland.

to Sir

No. 74, March 11.

No. 31, March 20.,

No. 99, April 3 ; 0. in 0.
No. 612;, March 23.

April 2 ; 0. C. No. Bfil3g,
Mar. 31.

No. 73, April 7.,

No. 112, April 12 ; P. 0.
No. 624;, Report April 7.

No. 78, April 14

No. 140, Aprils?; 0. 0.
No. 763, April 26.

Subject.

Transmits extracts New York press
rtference passiDg of the so-called
" Ketaliation Bill."

Trantmits papers containing certain
questions respecting the Fisheries
put to Professor Baird, and answers
thereto.

In r« inctmotions to Fishery Officers,
and friendly spirit of.

Canadian GoTemment to faoiiitaie
compliance with Cnstoms Laws by
U. S. fishing vessels have appointed
additional Onstoms officers.

Encloses copy of a Treasury Circular
re recent Acts of Congress relating
to importing and landing of mack-
erel caught dnrini; the spawning
season, and authorizing President
to protect the rights ot U. S. fishing
vessels.

With 0. 0. in reference to the U. S.
fishing vessels "Laura Sayward"
and "Jennie S«averns; " calls at-
tention to penultimate para, of
Report.

Forwards certified copy of P. 0. Order
re schooner " Mollie Adams," con-
taining full reply charges preferred
by U. S. Government.

Transmitting copy of a Despatch from
H. M. Minister at Washington, lor-
wardtDg precis of the debate in the
0. S. House of Kepresentativ«s on
the Retaliatory Bill.

Forwards P. 0. Report re schooner
"Sarah H. Prior. ''^

Transmits copy letter Lord Salisbury
to Mr. Phelps, enclosing draft Pro-
tocol communicated by Mr. Adams
to the Earl of Clarendon in 1866 and
Mr. Bayard's memo, on the proposed
ad interim arrangement, with Lord
Salisbury's observations thereon.

Transmits Minnte P. C, with copy of
amended instructions issued to the
officers in command of the Fisheries
Protection vessels.

228

337

328

231.

)31

23a

238

246

347

248

253

! I

I )
t

11 Ji!!!

■!' i!

Ml i!

' i: M
Hi

MM i

•n

No. 1.

JUmitter at Washington to the Governor-General.

I His Szoelleooy

The Mabquis of Lansdownb.

L. S. a WEST.

[Bnolosure No. ].]
CIRCULAR.
Termination of oketain aetiolbs of the Treaty op WASHiNOTOif.

1885.
DflPABTUBNT No. 87,

Division of CiraTOJis.

Teeasurt Department,

Office of the Secretary,

Wa3hi-\oion, D.C, June 17th, 1885.

2b ChOeetort of Custom* :

UnitS'SofrS^Ku'^^^ Pi^lamation of the President of the

iacIudinK article 21, temiJlfe^Sri&S^^S J3y 'Ts?/ *^* ^'^^^^ "' Washington of 1871,

in»truc;^«Iat^"th^iSdt^ f T'''' f\ ««"-*«™ of «™toms are

«f (^uy^la, Prince Edward fshSand NeifoundllLd^^^^^^ "^ *^« I^rmZl

States from and after the said IstTjX S wHl Ch i?i ™»yi>«>mported into the United

j laws, without regard to then, origin? ^' ' ^ ^^^^ ^ **"*y "°d«'' t»»e existing tariff

(Sd.) DANIEL MANNING,

Secretary.

So.2.

Governor-General to Secretary of State.

Sir— wtk * Ottawa, 9th July, 1886.

between H^r M^^^^aUerJm^'ir^^^ '*'**'°6 *'> the negotiations

the 28tb April last, I have now tho honour to forward, herewith, for your information
a copy of a despatch which I have received from Her Majesty's Minister at
Washington, enclosinif copies of the currespondeDoe which has paseed between Mr.
West and Mr. Bayard ia tho coarse of the negotiations, and in which the agreements
ooncladed in this matter between the two Powers is embodied.

I have, etc.,
The Right Honorable (Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Sboretart of Stati
For the Colonies.

[Bncloaare No. 1.]

Minister at Washington to Oovtmor- General.

Washington, 22nd June, 1885.

Mv Lord,— With reference to the correspondence which bus passed ooncerning the tem-
porary arrangement proposed by the Secretary of State, in his memorandum, copy of which
was enclosed in my despatch to your Excellency, No. 50 of the 23rd of April last, in oonse-

Jucnce of the termination of the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington on the Ist
uly next, 1 have tho honour to inform your Excellency that I have been authorized by
Earl Granville to negotiate such an arrangement, following as closely as pobsible the wishes
of the Colonial Governments and on the distinct understanding that it is of a temporary
nature and without prejudice to equivalents which might be required in a more permanent
settlement. I therefore communicated to the Secretary of State the replies of Your Excel-
lency's Government and of that of Newfoundland as convoyed to me by Earl Granville to
the proposals contained in Mr. Bayard's above mentioned memo., and on the 19th I received
from him a confidential letter, copy of which is herewith enclosed, in which he assumes
that the replies oi' Your Excellency's Government and that of Newfoundland, embrace the
acceptance by them of the general features of his memorandum with the understanding
expres!<ed on their side that the agrAtment had been arrived at under circumstances affording
pyospectof negotiation for the development and extension of trade between the United States
and liritish Korth America, and to which contingent understanding he states that he has
no objection. To this communication I replied in a conRdential letter, copy of which is
enclosed, reiterating the essertions made by the Colonial Governments and stating that they
have consented to the arrangement solely as a mark of good will to the Government and
people of the United States.

On the 20th I received an official note from the Secretary of State, copy of which is
also enclosed, in which he states, that perceiving no substantial differences between the
respective propositions and the statement as contained in the correspondence on the subject
he considers the agreement as embodied in the memoranda and correspondence as thus
concluded, and that public notification to that effect will be given in a few days by the
President.

As no direct allusion was made in this note to the circumstances under which the
agreement had been reached, I called on Mr. Bayard and pointed this out to him and he has
thereupon addressed to me a further note, copy of which is enclosed.

As I considered this communication satisfactory, I replied to it by the note, copy of
which I have the honour to enclose to your Excellency herewith, stating that I considered
the agreement as concluded and that I should inform Her Majesty's Government, the
Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland accordingly.

In negotiating this agreement I have endeavoured as far as possible to meet the wishes
of Your Excellency's Government and I trust that it may meet with approval.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.
His Excellency

The Marquis of LiNSDOWNE.

[Enclosure Ko. 3.]

From Mr. T. F. Bayard to Sir L. S. S. West.

Dbpabtment of State,

Washington, June 19th, 1885.
Mv DEAR Mr. West :

I assume that the two memoranda you handed to me on the 13th instant, embrace
the acceptance by the Dominion and the British-American coast provinces of the

.►fview
}unt
iry

|ri

>ar information
's Aiinister at
1 between Mr.
rhe agreementB

DOWNB.

June, 1885.

lerning the tem-
1, copy of whioh
I last, in oonse-
ton on the 1st

autliorized by
iSible the wishes
}f a temporary
tore permanent
of Your Excel'
iarl Granville to

19th I received
ch he assumes
id, embrace the
) understanding
tances affording
he United Stales
;es that he has
py of which is
bating that they

ivemment and

of which is
)B between the
on the subject,
^dence as thus

days by the

|der which the
im and he has

1 note, copy of
I considered
bvemment, the

Leet the wishes

S. WEST.

|9th, 1885.

ant, embrace
tncea of the

leneral features of my memo, of April 21 st, concerning a temporary arrangement reapeoting
ihe fisheries, with the understanding expressed on their side that the '^ agreement has beea .
r arrived at under circumstances affording prospect of negotiation for development and ex-
|l< tension of trade between the United States and British North America."

To such a contingent understanding I have no objection, indeed, I regard it as covered
by the statement in my memo, of April 21st that the arrangement therein contemplated
irould be reached with the understanding that the President of the United States would
tiring the whole question of the Fisheries oefore Congress at its next session in December,
nd recommend the appointment of a Commission in which the governments of the
Jnited States and of Great Britain should be respectively represented, whioh Commission
Bhould be charged with the consideration and settlement upon a just, equitable and honoor-
ptble basis, of the entire (|uestion of the Ashing rights of the two governments and their
sspective citizens, on the coast of the United States and British North America.

The equities of the question being before such a mixed Commission would doubtlew
Jiave the fullest latitude of expression and treatment on both sides, and the purpose in
.jfView being the maintenance of good neighbourhood and intercourse between the two
acountries, the recommendation of any measures which the Commission might deem neeea-
pary to attain those ends would seem to fall within its province, and such recommendatioa
|could not fail to receive attentive consideration.

I I am not, therefore, prepared to state limits to the proposals to be brought forward in
;he suggested Commission on behalf of either party.

I believe this statement will be satisfactory to you, and I shall be pleased to be in-
formed at the earliest day practicable of your acceptance of the understanding on behalf (^
ritish North America, and by this simple exchange of notes and memoranda the agree-
ent will be comploted in season to enable the President to make the result publicly known
the citizens engaged in fisiiing on the British-American Atlantic coast.

I have, &c.,

lie Honourable

Sir Lionel S. Sackville West, K.C.M.O.

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD.

[Enclosure No. 3.]
From Sir L. S. S. West to Mr. Bayard.

Washington, June 20th, 1885.
|My Dear Mb. Bayard :

I beg to acknowledge tlie receipt of your note of yesterday's date concerning the pro-
posed temporary arrangement respecting the fisheries which I am authorized by Her
Isjesty's Government to negotiate with you on behalf of the Government of the Dominion
|or Canada and the Government of Newfoundland to be effected by an exchange of notes
founded on your memorandum of the 21st April.

The two confidential memoranda which I handed to you on the 13th instant, contain as

you assume the acceptance by the Dominion and the British American Coast Provinces of

|the general features of your above mentioned memorandum, with the understanding ez-

aressed on their si le that the agreement has been arrived at under circumstances affording

prospect of negotiation for the development and extensum of trade between the United

states and British North America, a contingent understanding to which, as you state, you

can have no objection as you regard it as covered by the terms of your memo, of April 21st.

In authorizing me to negotiate this agreement Earl Granville states as I have already

liad occasion to intimate to you that it is on the distinct understanding that it is a tem-

j)orary one and that its conclusion must not be held to prejudice any claim which may he

^dvanced to more satisfactory equivalents by the Colonial Governments in the course of the

^Negotiations for a more permanent settlement.

1 Earl Granville further wishes me to tell you that Her Majesty's Government and the
JColonial Government have consented to the arrangement solely as a mark of good will to
4he Government and people of the United States, and to avoid difficulties which might be
"raised by the termination of the fishery articles in the midst of the fishing season, and also
rthe acceptance of such modus vivendi does not by any implication affect the value of the
inshore fisheries by the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland.

4 1 had occasion to remark to you that while the Colonial Governments are asked to
^guarantee immunity from interference to American vessels resorting to Canadian waters, no
such immunity is offered in your memorandum to Canadian vessels resorting to American
"waters, but that the Dominion Government presumed that the agreement in tins respeet
Tfould be mutual.
l(6~li

As you aooepted this view it would I think be M well that mention ehould be made to
tbk eff)»ot in the noten.

Under the reienrationa ai above indicated in whioh I believe you acquiesce, I am pre-
pared to accept the understanding on behalf of British North America and to exchange note*
m the above sense.

I have, dec,

(Sd.) L. WEST.
The Honorable
T. F. Bayard.

[iDoloiure No. 4.]

Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. S. Weit. ,

Dkpabtmsnt of Stats,

Washinoton, 20th June, 1885.

Sib, — I have just received your note of today's date in regard to the proposed temporary
arrangement touching the fisherioB.

Undoubtedly it is our clear and mutual understanding that the an-angement now made
is only temporarjr, and it proceeds from the mutual good will of our respective governments^
and solely to avoid all dimoultios which might otherwise arise, from the termination of the
fishing of 1885 in the midst of the season.

I understand, also, that the same immunity which is accorded by this agreement to the
Teasels belonging to the citizens of the United States engaged in fishing in the British-
American waters will be extended to British vessels and subjects engaged in fishing in the
waters of the United States.

Perceiving, therefore, no substantial difference between our respective propositions and
these statements as contained in our correspondence on the subject, I shall consider the
agreement as embodied in our memoranda and the Correspondence between u.. as thutt
concluded ; and public notification to that effect will be given in a few days by the Presi-
dent.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.
The Honorable

Sir Lionbl S. Saokvili.e Wbst, K.C.M.O.

[Enclosure No. 6.]

Jlfr. Bayard to Sir L. S. 8. West.

Dkpartmknt op Statb,

Washington, 22nd June, 1885.

Sib,— In compliance with your verbal request that I should re-state part of my note to
you of the 19th, I repeat that the arrangement whereby a modua vivmdi on the fishery
question has been reached, rests on the memoranda and correspondence exchanged ; that
your memo, of the 13th mstant expressed the understanding on your side that the agreement
has been arrived at under circumstances aflfording prospects of negotiation for the develop-
ment a**d extension of trade " between the United States and British r<orth America," that
I not o. \j had no objection to such an understanding, but in fact regarded it as amply
embraced in our proposal to recommend a commission to deal with the whole subject in the
interests of ^ood neighbourhood and intercourse, and that the recommendation of any
measures which the commission might deem necessary to attain those ends would seem to
&11 within its province and such recommendations could not fail to have attentive con-
sideration.

Having thus, not only admitted the proviso of your memo, in your own language, but
gone still further and pointed out that no limits would bt) set, so far as I was concerned, to
the proposals to be brought forward in the suggested commission on behalf of either party,
I do not see how it is possible for me to give any stronger assurance that the understanding
has been reached under circumstances affording a prospect of negotiation for the development
and extension of trade between the United States and British North America.

I have, &c.,

The Honourable,

SiE Lionel S. Sackville West, E.C.M.O.

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

>uld be made to

luieice, I am pre-
a exobango notes

L. WEST.

1 June, 1885.
posed temporary

>ment now mado
ve governmenta,
rmination of the

^eement to the
m the British-
in fishing in the

propositions and
iiall consider the
een u,. as thus
's by the Presi-

. BAYARD.

d June, 1885.

t of my note to
on the fishery
changed ; that
the agreement
)r the develop-
America," that
ed it as amply
subject in th*
lation of any
would seem to
attentive con-

anguage, but
concerned, to
either party,
inderstanding
development

AYARD.

[Bncloiure Ifo. 6 |

Minuter at Waahinglon to Mr. Bayard.

WASiiiN'OTOif, June 22nd, 1885.
Sir,— I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your notes o( the 20th and 22nd
I instant, in regani to the proposed temporary arrangement touching Hslieries, in whioh

you Htute that it is our clear and mutual underatandlH)^ tiiat such arrangement is only tem-
porary, and that it proceed)) from tne mutual good will of our respective governments, and
' solely to avoid all difficulties which migbi otherwise arise from the termination of the fishing
I of 1 885 in the midst of the season.

Also that the same immunity which is accorded by this agreement to the vessels
I belonging to the citizens of the United States engaged in fishing m the British American
I waters will be extended toBritish vessels and subjects engaged in vshing in the waters of the
I United States, and that the agreement has been reached undor circumstances affording a
prospect of negotiation for the development and extension of trade between the Unitod
I states and British North America.

As therefore there exists no substantial difference between our respective propositions

I and the statements as contained in our correspondence on the subject 1 shall consider the

agreement as embodied in our memoranda and the correspondence between us as thus

concluded and shall inform Uer Majesty's Qovernmont and tlie governments of the Dominion

of Canada and Newfoundland accordingly.

I have, &e.,

(Sd.) L. WEST.

The Honourable T. F. Batard.

No. 8.

Qovernor Oeneral to Secretary of State,

Ottawa, 9th July, 1886.

Sib,— -With reference to my dospatoh No 212 of this day, and previoas oorres-

pondenoe relating to the termination of the operation of the fishery olaoses of the

Treaty of Washington, I have the honoar to forward herewith for your

information a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at

Washington, transmitting a copy of a Treasury oiroolar issued to

United States' Collectors of Customs on the subject of the duties to whioh imports

of fish and fish products from Canada are liable after the 1st July of the present year.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LA.NSDOWNB.

The Right Honourable,

Tf^ Secretary of State for the Coloniea.

Vide Enclosuro
No. lofNo. 1.

No. 4.

Minister at Washington to Governor Oeneral.

Wabhinqton, 16th July, 1836.
Mr LoBD, — In connection with the fisheries question I have the honour to
■enclose to Tour Excellency herewith an article from the "Nation" newspaper,
setting forth the advantages which accrued to both countries under the treaties of
1854 and 1871.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

His Excellency,

Thk Marquis of Lansdownb.

[Rncloeare No. 1.]

[Extract from the Nation of July 9tb, 1835 :— ]

The Fishbbibs.

No more apt illustration can be found of the folly of a protective tariff than that wtiit^
the periodical recurrence of the fisheries dispute affords. If Canada, and the United States
were joined together by a political union all commercial and industrial bickering between the

two countries would cease at once. There would be no more cause of irritation than there is
between the fishermen of New York and those of New Jersey. We should never hear of the
shore line, and the headland, and the marine league, and the right to buy bait and to cure
Bab, and the other unpleasant controversies which are now vexing the statesmen of the two
countries. If all these commercial questions could be put at rest as to both, by a political
resolution in which both should unite, why may they not be settled by a treaty ? Simply
because the country has got its head set on the notion that every body who produces anything
that can be imported from abroad must be protected against foreign competition. The Treaty
ofWashington, which admitted fish and fish oil free of duty in return for the privileges accorded
to American fishermen in Canadian waters, was forced upon the Gloucester fishermen against
their protest, and they have never ceased to consider themselves badly used by it— not
because they have any natural right to shut out other people's fish from the market, but
because they see other people's iron, woollen, and cotton goods shut out for the benefit of
American producers and manufacturers . In order to vindicate the " great principle " in
behalf of fish and blubber, wo gave notice of the termination of the fishery clauses of the treaty,
and now we are in hot water again, as we have been half a-dozen times before.

Yet it is witliiu the recollection of n^ost of our readers that for ten years prior to 1 864
there was peace and content between the two countries under the Reciprocity Treaty. The
products of the soil, the mines, the forests and the waters were admitted free of duty into
both countriep, and nobody fancied himself harmed on either side of the border. But the
Morrill tarifl was passed in 1861, and straightway the lumbermen, the fishermen, the co»l
miners, the potato growers, the stone quarriers, and even the ice cutters began to clamour
for protectioru The friends of the Morri'l tariff saw that they must maintain their consis-
tency by abrogating the treaty as soon as its terms permitted. Being all powerful in the
councils of the nation, they gave notice of its termination, and then we had difficulties and
disputes about fishing rights until the Alabama claims came up for settlement. In con-
sidering these claims it was wisely decided to make one chapter of all outstanding differ-
ences between Great Britain and the United States. So the fisheries question and the San
Juan Island question were included in the adjustment. England paid us $ld,000,OUOfor
the rebel cruiser depredations and surrendered San Juan Island to us. We paid her
$5,000,000 for the use of the fisheries during the period which had elapsed since the abro-
gation of the Reciprocity Treaty, and agreed that in consideration of the future use of these
privileges, we would admit Canadian fish and oil free of duty — a grant which would have
been advantageous to the nation at large, even without any corresponding grant on the
other side.

It is too late now— the world has gone forward too far — to make a serious matter of the
old Treaty of 1818, which the Gloucester fishermen denounce as a violation of their rights
and a thing to be abrogated at all costs ant hazards. This treaty conceded to the British
authorities the right to forbid American fishing vessels from entering Canadian ports for
any purpose except for shelter or to procure wood and «,\ter, thus cutting them off from all
commercial privileges, and putting into the hands of t^^ Canadians the power to drive our
vessels to sea, and forbid the purchase of ice or bait or supplies. This extraordinary conces-
sion on our part constitutes the basis of most of the hostile legislation uf the Dominion.
They ought not to insist upon it. The right to sell is equal to the right to buy. If our fisher-
men gain anything by purchasing bait and supplies in their ports, the Canadian vendors
sain as much. On the other hand, the right to buy is equal to the right to sell. If Canadian
fishermen gain anything by selling their mackerel and cod in our markets, the American
consumers gain as much. It is a poor rule which will not work both ways. What is wanted
now is not a collection of ironclads on the fishing grounds to protect m^diioval rights, and
enforce an exploded mercantile idea, but {.n abandonment on both sides of e false principle,
which as£umes that the producers of a given article have a right to be protected, at the
expense of the whole community, against foreign competition.

The abrogution of the Treaty of 1818, which the fishermen now call for, will of course
bring up the question of the tariff, since they insist stoutly upon the enforcement of existing
duties on fish, and even ask that the ridiculous Treasury regulations, Avhich have multiplied
and augmented the restrictions upon trade, shall be enacted into law. One of these regula-
tions declares that " fish, fresh, for consumption," which are free of duty under the general
tariff, must not be frozen, since in order to make them fit for consumption, they must first
be thawed. Frozen fish, therefore, are put in the same category as smoked or salted fish,
and made dutiable at the rate of 50 cents per 1^,0 pounds. Again, if the fish are delivered
fresh and unfrozen in the American market, and are not immediately consumed, but are
salted oi smoked for future use, they become dutiable under the rulings of our wise and
vigilant Treasury expounders. These regulations the fishermen insist upon having enacted
into law at once, lest some present or future Secretary should take it into his head that
fresh fish are all fish not smoked, dried, salted, or pickled. Whatever the most fanatical

pro

to<
of'l
cht
We
thel
or tl
havl
187 f
its I

Mr.

.tion than there is
never hear of the
bait and to cure
iesmon of the two
ith, by a political
treaty ? Simply
roduces anything
ition. The Treaty
rivileges accorded
fishermen against
used by it— not
the market, but
For 4he benefit of
jat principle " in
ises of the treaty,

•6.

irs prior to 1864
ity Treaty. The
•ee of duty into
border. But the
fiermen, the co»I
egan to clamour
tain their consis-
powerful in the
1 difficulties and
lement. In con-
itstanding di^er-
tion and the San
is $15,000,000 for
I. We paid her
d since the abro-
ire use of these
lich would have
ing grant on the

is matter of the

of their rights

to the British

[nadian ports for

lem off from all
er to drive our

rdinary conces-
the Dominion.
. If our fisher-

nadian vendors
If Canadian
the American
hat is wanted
al rights, and
false principle,
tected, at the

pill of course
;nt of existing
ive multiplied
It' these regula-
jer the general
|hey must first
or salted fish,
ire delivered
imed, but are
)ur wise and
hving enacted
)is head that
lost fanatical

protectionists can conceive in the way of restrictions upon commerce they intend to urge
upon the Government, demanding, as they say, " only the same protection that is afforded
to every other producing industry." The corollary of such a demand is either a succession
of " outrages " producing national irritation and leading to armed hostilities, or the pur*
chase on our part of the fishing privileges for which we paid $5,000,000 a few years agow
We do not imagine that Minister Phelps, or Secretary Bayard, or President Cleveland, or
the Congress of the United States will give their sanction to any policy which points to war^
or to an annual appropriation of money from the Tieasury to buy fishing rights, when they
have before them the peaceful and cheap alternative presented by thfe treaties of 1854 and
1871. As to the decaying doctrine of protection, the time has come to hit whenever it shows
its head.

No. 6.

Secretary of State to Govemor-Qeneral.

Downing Stbebt, 2lBt July, 1885.

Mr Lord, — I anderstand that Her Majeeiy's Minister at Washington has ooni:-
I monioated to you copies of the notes which have been exchanged between himself'
; and the Government of the United States recording the arrangement recently arrived
!^ at with that Government upon the subject of the fisheries.

I Her Majesty's Government trust that the terms of the arrangement made betweea
'^ Mr. West and Mr. Bayard are satiafaotory to yoar Government.

I have, &o., (bd.) FRED. STANLEY.

Ilici Excellency

ThB GoYXBNOa-GlNiaAL.

No. 6.

Minister at Washington to Oovemor-General.

WASHiNaTON, 21st July, 1885.

Mt Lord, — I have the honour to enclose to your Excellency herewith copies of
the correspondence on the subject of the agreement between Great Britain and the
United States respecting the Fisheries which has been officially published by the U,.

S. Government.

His Esoellency

The Governor-General.

I have, &c..

(Sd.)

L. WEST.

LBnclosnre No. I]

AOBBBMBNT BETWEEN THE UnITED StATES AXD GuEAT BrITAIH RBSPKOTINO THE FISHERIES..

Concluded June 22nd, 1885.

NOTICE.

By direction of the President, the undersigned. Secretary of State, hereby makes known
to all whom it may concern that a temporary diplomatic agreement has been entered into
between the Government of the United States and the Government of Her Britannic
Majesty in relation to the fishing privileges which were granted by the fishery clauses of the
treaty between the United States and Great Britain of May 8th, 1871, whereby the privilege
of fishing, which would otherwise have terminated with the treaty clauses on the Ist of July
proximo, may continue to be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the two countries
engaged in fishing operations throughout the season of 1 885.

This agreement proceeds from the mutual good-will of the two Governments, and luw
been reached solely to avoid all misunderstanding and difficulties which might otherwise
arise from the abrupt termination of the fishing of 1885 in the midst of the season. Tha

immunity which ie accorded by this agreement to the vessels belonging to citizens of the -S ]oc|

United States engaged in fishing in the British American waters will likewise be extended 9 citi

to British vessels and subjects engaged in fishing in the waters of the United States. M fjg^

The joint resolution of Congress of March 3rd, 1883, providing for the termination of the | fig!

fishing articles of the treaty of M!ay 8th, 1871, having repealed in terms the Act of March 1st, | yed

1873, for the execution of the fishing articles, and that repeal being express and absolute from m of j

the date of the termination of the said fishing articles, under due notification given and pro- 9 the

claimed by the President of the United States, to wit, July 1st, 1885, the present temporary 1 ^et

agreement in no way affects the question of statutory enactment or exemption from custom M xjnl

duties, as to which the abrogation of the fishing articles remains complete. m gesl

As part of this agreement, the President will bring the whole question of the fisheries ]■ mei

before Congress at its next session in December, and recommend the appointment of a joint S con

commission by the Governments of the United States and Great Biitain to consider the 9 anc

matter, in the interest of maintaining good neighborhood and friendly intercourse between |g the]
the two countries, thus affording a prospect of negotiation for the development and extension
of trade between the United States and British North America.

Copies of the memoranda and exchanged notes on which this temporary agreement rests
are appended.

Reference is also made to the President's proclamation of January 31st, 18S5, terminating
the fishing articles of the Tr^at; of Washington.

By direction of the President,

T. F. BAYARD,

Secretary of State.

[EneloBure No. 2]
Mr. Bayard /• Mr. West, April 22nd, 1885.

L Memorandum of April 22nd, 1885.

Depabtment of State,

Washington, April 22nd, 1885,

Dear Mr West,— I have on several occasions lately, in conversation, acquainted you
with my interest in the fisheries memorandum which accompanied your personal letter of
Harch 12th.

Several informal talks I have had with Sir Ambrose Shea have enabled me to formulate
the views of this Government upon the proposition made in behalf of the Dominion and the
Province of Newfoundland, and I take pleasure in banding you herewith a memorandum
embodying the results. If this suits, I shall be happy to confirm the arrangement by an
exchange of notes at your early convenience.

1 am, my dear Mr. West, very sincerely yours,

T. F. BAYARD.
The Hon. L. S. Saokvillb Wbst, &c.

[SncIoBure No. 3.]

JiKHCRANDUM.

The legislation passed by the Congress of the United States, Act of March Ist, 1873, for
the execution of the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington, has been repealed by the
joint resolution of March 3rd, 1883, the repeal to take effect July 1st, 1885. From that date
Hbe effects of the fisheries articles of the Treaty of Washington absolutely determine, so far
•8 their execution within Ihe jurisdiction of the United States is concerned, and without new
legislation by Congress modifying or postponing that repeal the Executive is not constitu-
tionally competent to extend the reciprocal fisheries provisions of the treaty beyond the 1st
of July next, the date fixed by the action of Congress.

Mr. West's memorandum of March 12th, 1885, suggests the mutual practical convenience
that would accrue from allowing the fishing ventures commenced prior to July Ist, 18S5, to
continue until the end of the season for fishing of that year, thus preventing their abrupt
'termination in the midst of fishing operations on the 1st of July. ^

It has been, moreover, suggested on the part of the Province of Newfoundland and of
the Dominion of Canada, that in view of the mutual benefit and convenience of the present

o citizens of the
ise be extended
States.

rmination of the
ict of March 1st,
id absolute from
ti given and pro-
Bsent temporary
ion from custom

n of the fisheries
itment of a joint
to consider the
rcourse between
it and extension

agreement rests

8S5, terminating

RD,

try of State.

local traffic, con'^isting of the purchase of ice, bait, wood, and general ship supplies by the
citizens of the United States engaged in fishing from the inhabitants of the British American
fishing coast, the usual operations of the fishing season of 1885 should be continued by the
fishing vessels belonging to citizens of the United States until the end of the season of that
year, and that the local authorities of Newfoundland and the Dominion of Canada, in a spirit
of amity and good neighbourhood, should abstiin from molesting such fishermen or impeding
their progress or their local traffic with the inhabitants incidental to fishing during the
remainder of the season of 1885, and all this with the understanding that the President of the
United States would bring the whole question of the fisheries before Congress at its next
session in December, and recommend the appointment of a commission in which the Govern-
ments of the United States and of Great Britain should be respectively represented, which
commission should be charged with the consideration and settlement, upon a just, equitable,
and honourable basis, of the entire question of the fishing rights of the two Governments and
their respective citizens on the coasts of the United States and British North America.

The President of the United States would be prepared to recommend the adoption of
such action by Congress with the understanding that in view and in consideration of such
promised recommendation there woulri be no enforcement of restr ctive and penal laws and
regulations by the authorities of the Dominion of Canada or of the Province of Newfoundland,
against the fishermen of the United States resorting to British American waters between the
1st of July next and the close of tbe present year's fishing season ; the mutual object and
intent being to avoid any annoyance to the mdividuals engaged in this business and traffic,
and the irritation or ill-feeling that might be engendered by a harsh or vexatious enforcement
of stringent local regulations on the fishing coast pending an effort to have a, just and amic-
able arrangement of an important and somewhat delicate question between the two nations.

Public knowledge of this understanding and arrangement can be given by an exchange
of notes between Mr. West and myself, which can be given to the press.

I 22nd, 1885.

acquainted you
tersonal letter of

e to formulate

minion and the

a memorandum

Ingement by an

[Enclosure No. 4.1
Mr. Weai'a Memoranda of June \Zth, 1885.
[Memoranda].

It is proposed to state in notes according temporary arrangements respecting fisheries that
an agreement has been arrived at under circumstances affording prospect of negotiation for
development and extension of trade between the United States and British North America.

The Government of Newfoundland do not make refunding of duties a condition of their
Acceptance of the proposed agreement, but they rely on it having due consideration before
the international commission which may be appointed.

BAYARD.

3h Ist, 1873, for
Repealed by the
iFrom that date
]termine, so far

id without new
not constitu-
I beyond the 1st

lal convenience
lily Ist, 18S5,to
Ig their abrupt

indland and of
I of the present

LBaclosure No. 5.]

BT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UXITHD STATUS OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the treaty concluded between the United States of America and Her Mnjesty
the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, conoludad at Washington on the 8th day of May,
x871, contains among other articles the follow. ng, viz :

« Article XVIII."

" It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured to
the United States fishermen by the Convention between the United States and Great Britain
tigned at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish oncer-
tain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, ttie inhabitants of the
United States shall have in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty,
for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIll of this treaty, to take fish of every kind,
except shell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours and creeks of the
Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunsv ick, and the Colony of Prince Edward's
Island, and of the several islands thereunto a(^acen£, without being restricted to any diatanca

from the shore, with permissicn to land up on the said coasts and shores and iBlands, and
also upon the Magdalen Tslands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their iish ;
Provided that in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
Brituh fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the eaid coasts in their occupancy for
the same purpose.

" It is understood that the above mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea fishery, and
that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers
vte hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen."

"Article XIX."

" It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that British subjects shall have, in common
with the citizens of the United States, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned ia
Article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the eastern sea
coasts and shores of the United States north of the thirty ninth parallel of north latitude, and
on the shores of the several islands thereunto adjacent, and in the bays, harbours and creeks
of the said sea coasts and shores of the United States and of the said islands without being
restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission tp land upon the said coasts of
the United States and of the islands aforesaid, for the purpose of drying their nets and cur-
ing their fish ; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private
property, or with the fishermen of the United States ixi the peaceable use of any part of the
said coasts in their occupancy for the eame purpose.

" It is understood that the above mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea fishery, and
Chat salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and mouths of rivers, are
hereby reserved exclusively for fishermen of the United States . "

"Abticlb XX."

" It isagreed that the places designated by the Commissioners appointed under the first
Article of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, concluded at Washington
on the 5th of June, 1854, upon the coasts of tier Britannic Majesty's Dominions and the United
States, as places reserved from the common right of fishing under that Treaty, shall be
regarded as in like manner reserved from the common right of fishing under the preceding
articles. In case any question should arise between the Governments of the United States
and of Her Britannic Majesty as to the common right of fishing in places not thus design-
ated as reserved, it is agreed that a Commission shall be appointed to designate such places,
and shall be constituted in the same manner, and have the same powers, duties and authority
as the Commission appointed under said first Article of the Treaty of the 5th of June, 1854."

"Artiolb XXI."

"It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty,
fii-h oil and fish of all kit ds (except fish of the inland lakes, and of the rivers falling into
them, and except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of tlie fisheries of the United
States, or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward's Island, shall be admitted into
each country, respectively, free of duty."

J —

' -j

sfa

d€

fbi

tic

'i »H

I wiL

i ofl

on I

"Aetiole XXII."

'• Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the
privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this Treaty
are of greater value than those accorded by .articles XIX aua XXI of this Treaty, to the
subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not a^lmitted by the Government of
the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine,
having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the t-ubjects of Her
Britannic MajeFty, as stHted in Articles XIX and XXI of this Treaty, the amount of any
compensation which, in their opinion, oupht to be paid by the Government of the United
Ftates to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in return for the privileges accorded to
the citizens oi the United States under Article XVIII of this Treaty; and that any sum
of money which the said Commissioners may so award shall be paid by the United States
GoveiTunent, in a gross sum, within twelve months after such award shall have been given."

" Aeticle XXIII."

" The Commissioners referred to in the preceding Article shall be appointed in the
following manner, that is to sey : One Commissioner shall be named by the President of

md Ulands, and
uring their tish ;
•roperty, or wita
ir occupancy for

sea fishery, and
Qouths of rivers

liave, in common
B mentioned ia
t the eastern sea
rth latitude, and
ours and creeks
s without being
I said coasts of
irnets and cur-
'ights of private
f any part of the

sea fishery, and
IS of rivers, are

d under the first
d at Washington
i and the United
Treaty, shall be
r the preceding
e United States
ot thus design-
ate such places,
es and authority
lof June, 1854."

of this Treaty,
[ers falling into
is of the United

admitted into

fajesty that the

of this Treaty

] Treaty, to the

I Government of

to determine^

lubjects of Her

\ amount of any

i of the United

IPS accorded to

I that any sum

United States

\e been given."

pointed in the
President of

the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and a third by the President of the
United States and Her Britannic Majesty conjointly; and incase the third Ck>mmi9sioner
sha]l not have been bo named within a period of three months from the date when this
article shall take effect, then the third Commissioner shall be named by the Representative
at London of His Majesty the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. In case of the
deatli, absence, or incapacity of any Commissioner, or in the event of any Commissioner
omitting or ceasing to act, the vacancy shall be filled in the manner hereinbefore provided
for making the original appointment, the period of three months in case of such substitu-
tioD being calculated from the date of the happening of the vacancy.

" The Commissioners so named shall meet in the City of Halifax, in the Province of
Nova Scotia, at the earliest convenient period after they have been respectively named, and
shall, before proceeding to any business, make and subscribe a solemn declaration that they
will impartially and carefully examine and decide the matters referred to them to the best
of their judgment, and according to justice and equity ; and such declaration shall be entered
on the record of their proceedings.

' Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to attend the Com-
mission as its agent, to represent it generally in all matters connected with the Commission."

« Article XXIV."

" The proceedings shall be conducted in such order as the Commissioners appointed
under Articles XXII and XIII of this Treaty shall determine. They shall be bound to receive
such oral or written testimony as either Government may present. If either party shall offer
oral testimony, the other party shall have the right of cross-examination, under such rules as
the Commissioners shall prescribe.

" If in the case submitted to the Commissioners either party shall have specified or
alluded to any report or document in his own exclusive possession, without annexmg a copy,
such Party shall be bound, if the other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that
Party with a copy thereof; and either Party may call upon the other, through the Commis-
sioners, to produce the originals, or certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving
in each instance such reasonable notice as the Commissioners may require.

" The case on either side shall be closed within a period of six months from the date of
the organization of the Commission, and the Commissioners shall bo requested to give their
award as soon as possible thereafter. The aforesaid period of six months may be extended
for three months in case of a vacancy occurring among the Commissioners under the circum-
stances contemplated in Article XXIII of this Treaty."

" Article XXV."

" The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record and correct minutes or notes of all
i their proceedings, with the dates thereof, and may appoint and employ a secretary and any
)^ other necessary officer or oflBcers to assist them in the transaction of the business which may
/ come before them.

! " Each of the High Contracting Parties shall pay its own Commissioner and agent or

counsel ; all other expenses shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal moieties."

Article XXX."

" It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty,
subjects of Her Britannic Majesty may carry in British vessels, without payment of duty,
goods, wares, or merchandise from one port or place within the territory of the United States
upon the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the rivers conneding the same, to another
port or place within the territory of the United States as aforesaid : Provided, that a portion
of such transportation is made through the Dominion of Canada by land carriage and in bond,
under such rules and regulations as may be agreed upon between the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States.

" Citizens of the United States may for the like period carry in United States vessels,
without payment of duty, goods, wares, or merchandise from one port or place within the
Possessions of Her Britannic Mejesty in North America to another port or place within the
said Possessions : Provided, That a portion of such transportation is made through the
territory of the United States by land carriage and in bond, under such rules and regulations
as may be agreed upon between the Government of the United States and the Government
of Her Britannic Majesty.

" The Government of the United States further engages not to impose any export duties
on goods, wares, or merchandise carried under this article through the territory of the United
States 5 and Her Mtyesty's Government engages to urge the Parliament of the Dominion of

Canada and the Legislatures of the other colonies not to impo^io any export duties on goods,
wares, or merchandise carried under tiiis article ; an<l the Government of the United States
may, m case such export duties are imposed by the Dominion of Canada, suspend, during the
period that such duties are imposed, the right of carrying granted under this article in
favour of the subjects of Her Britannic M^esty.

" Tiie Government of the United States mrv suspend the right of carrying granted in
favor of the subjects of Her Britannic M^'esty under this article, in case the Dominion of
Canada should at any time deprive the citizens of the United States of the use of the canals
in the said Dominion on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion, as provided
in Article XXVIl."

" Article XXXH."

" It is further agreed that the provisions and stipulations of Articles XVni to XXV of
this Treaty, inclusive, shall extend to the Colony of Newfoundland, so far as they are
applicable. But if the Imperial Parliament, the Legislature of Newfoundland, or the Congress
of the United States, shall not embrace the Colony of Newfoundland in their laws enacted
for carrying the foregoing articles into effect, then this article shall be of no effect ; but the
omission to make provision by law to give it effect by either of the Legislative bodies afore-
said, shall not in any way impair any other articles of the Treaty."

And, whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Articles XXXIII of said Treaty, due notice
has been given to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty of the intention of the Govern-
ment of the United States of America, to terminate the above recited Articles of the Treaty
in question, on the Ist day of July, 1885 :

And, whereas, pursuant to the terms of said Treaty, and of the notice given thereunder
by the Government of the United States of America to that of Her Britannic Majesty, the
above recited articles of the Treaty of Washington, concluded May 8th, 1871, will expire and
terminate on the 1st day of July, 1885 :

Now, therefore, I, Chester A. Arthur, President of the United States of America, do
hereby give public notice that Articles XVJII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV,
XXX, and XXXII, of the Treaty of Washington, concluded May 8th 1871, will expire and
terminate on the ist day of July, 1885, and all citizens of the United States are hereby
warned that none of the privileges secured by the above recited articles of the Treaty in
-question will exist after the 1st day of July next ; all American fishermen should govern
themselves accordingly.

Done at the City of Washington, this 31st day of January, in the year of Our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of
America the one hundred and ninth.

[SKAL]

By the Piesident :

Fkkdk. T. Frelijtohdysbn,

Secretary of State.

CHESTER A. ARTHUR.

No. 7.

Colonel Stanley to Lord Lansdowne.

(Telegraphic message).
, Ist August, 1885.

To Lord Lansdownk, — Hor Majesty's Governmoat think desirable steps phould
ho taken by the Canadiun Governmunt in concert with the Government of Newfound-
land, to decide definitely on the exact nature of propositions deisirabie to bo made
the United iStatos Goveinmeot la anticipation of negotiation on the termination of
a temporary arrangement of the fishery question.

All points involved should be carefully considered and information respecting

!pr9''\\y.:i 1 go jd time; similar telegram sent Newfoundland ; despatch foUowd by

(Sd) STANLEY.

p duties on goods,
he United States
ipend, during the
r this article in

rying granted in

the Dominion of

use of the canals

nion, as provided

XVIII to XXV of
far as they are
d, or the Congress
heir laws enacted
o effect ; but the
live bodies afore-

Creaty, due notice
in of iihe Govem-
oles of che Treaty ^

given thereunder
innic Majesty, the
1, will expire and

s of America, do
:ill, XXIV, XXV,
, will expire and
itates are hereby
!s of the Treaty in
)n should govern

of Our Lord one
United States of

A. ARTHUR.

Uon
toh

Stanley.

Lugast, 1885.

be stops phould
pt of Newfound-
lie to bo mado
I termination of

respecting
followd by

SlB,-

No. 8.

Qwemor-Oeneral to Secretary of State.

Toronto, tth Aagost, 1885.
-I have the honoar to forward herewith for yonr information a copy of a

i deflpatoh which I have received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington enclos-

I ing copies of the correspondence on the subject of the agreement b&

No. 6 and i^qqq Great Britain and the United States, respecting tiie fisheries,

which has been officially published by the United States Government..

EncIOBures.

I have, &c.,

The Bight Honourable

Thb Sicretart of Statk fob the Colonies.

No. 9.

(Sd) LANSDOWNB.

Colonel Stanley to the Governor General.

Downing Street, 11th Angnst, 1885.

Mt Lord, — On the 1st instant I sent yoa a telegram in which I informed yon
that Her Majesty's Government deemed it desirable that steps shoald be taken by ^oar
Government, in concert with the Government of Newfoundland, to decide definitely
on the eract nature of the proposals to be made to the Government of the United
States in anticipation of the negotiations, which are contemplated in view of the ter-
mination of the temporary arrangement lately made between Her Majesty's Minister
at Washington and the United States Government, arising out of the termination of
the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington on the 1st of last month. I in-
formed you to the effect that, all points likely to be involved in the coming negotia-
tions should be carefully considered and information respecting them prepared in
good time.

[ now enclose a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office on which my
So. 10. telegram was founded.

I should be glad if you will apprize me of the result of the communications
which may pass between your Government and that of Newfoundland upon this
subject.

I have, &c.,

(Sd) FRED. STANLEY.
Governor-General,
The Most Honourable
The Marqttis of Lanssownb, G.CM.G.

i No. 10.

I The Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

FoREiaN Offioe, 18th July, 1885.

Sir, — With reference to my letter of the 11th instant on the subject of the tem-
porary arrangement with the United States, relative to the fisheries, I am directed
by the Marquis of Salisbury to snggest for Colonel Stanley's consideration, that it
would be desirable to call the attention of the Governments of Canada and Newfound-
land to the cecessify of arriving at a conclusion as to the course to be adopted in.

antioipation of the coming negotiations, for tho saooessfal condaot which it will be
necesaary not only to be prepared with accurate information on all the points likely
to be raised, bat also to decide in advance on the exact natare of the proposal which
it will be desirable to make in the interest of both colonies.

I am at the same time to inqaire whether Colonel Stanley is of opinion that any
farther, and if so, what, action should be taken at present,

I am, &o.,

(Sd.) J. PAUNOEPOTB.
Thi TJndir Sbobitabt or State,
Colonial Office, London.

No. 11.

Governor General to Minister at Washington.

Ottawa, 20th Aagast, 1885.

Sir, — With reference to yoar despatch No. 82 of [the 22nd Jane last, transmit-
ting the correspondence between yoarself and Mr. fiayard, in which the agreement
respecting the fisheries was embodied, I have the honour to enclose herewith a copy
of an approved report of a Committee of the Privy Council expressing the satisfoo-
tion of my Government with the agreement referred to and their high appreciation
of the ability with which you have oondaoted the negotiations in the matter.

I have sent a copy of this Minute of Council to the Secretary of State for the
<:!oIonieB.

I have, &o.,
' (3d.) LANSDOWNB.

The Honourable

Sir LioNSL S. Saokville Wist, E.C.M.G.

bonl

Enj
ol

iostj

[Enclosare No. 1.]

Repout of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the
Governor-Oeneral in Council on the lith August, 18S5.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated 2l3t
July, 1885, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, expressing tho
hope that the terms of the arrangement made between the British Ambassador at Washing-
ton and Mr. Bayard on the subject of the fisheries would be satisfactory to the Canadian
Government.

The Committee desire to state to Your Excellency that such arrangement is perfectly
satisfactory, and they further beg to express their high appreciation of the able manner in
which Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, Sir Sackville West, conducted the negotiations.

The Committee advise that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this
Minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to the British
Ambassador at Washington.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN .T. MoGEB,

Clerk Prwy Council,

hioh it will be
le points likely
proposal which

>iDion that any

rOEPOTB.

;aBt, 1885.

last, transmit-
the agreement
ere with a copy
ng the satiafac-
;h appreciation
matter,
f State for the

3D0WNB.

pt is perfectly

ible manner in

^e negotiations.

copy of this

to the British

1^'

vy CouneiU

No. 12.

Governor General to Secretary of State.

Ottawa, 2lBt August, 1885;

i Sir, — With reference to your despatch (No. 160) of the 21st ultimo, I have the
lonor to enclose herewith a copy of an approved report of a Committee of the Privy
Ck)nnoil expressing the satisfaction of ray Government with the arrange-
'( N^Ti^ ment respecting the fisheries which has been concluded with the United
° °' ' States, and their high appreciation of the ability- with which Her Mir
jjesty's Minister at Washing ton has conducted the negotiations.
' I have forwarded a copy of this Minute of Council to Sir L. S. Sackville West.

I have, &Ci,

Excellency the i

^atch dated 21 st

expressing the

lor at Wasbing-

lo the Canadian

The Right Hononrable

The Seobetaby of State fob the Colonies.

No. 13.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

Governor General to Secretary of State.

Ottawa, 4th September, 1885.

Sib, — With reference to your despatch No. 167, of the 11th ultimo, expres8in|r
he desire of Her Majesty's Government that my Government and that of Newfound-
land shouM take steps toward defining the exact proposals to be made to the Govern-
lent of the United States in anticipation of the negotiations which are anticipated
in view of the termination of the temporary arr.'in>reiuent recently conclnded res-
tecting the fisheries, I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved
'oportof Committee of the Privy Council, from which it will be seen that communi-
laiions will at once be opened with the Government of Newfoundland in order to
lecure a discussion of the whole question between the two Governments.

I have to-day communicated by cable with the Government of Newfoundland on
!)his matter.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
The Bight Honorable,

The Seobetabt of State fob the Colonies.

[Enclosure Ns. 1.]

jEiixiFiED Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honorable the Privy Council for Canada,
j approved by Hia Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 3rd September, 1835.

j The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated llih
•t)f August, 188;'), from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies advising
Jliat ller Majesty's Government deemed it desirable that steps should be taken by the Cana-
jclian Government in concert with the Govcinment of Newfoundland to decide definitely on
■the exact nature of the proposals to be made to the Government of the United States in an-
ticipation of the negotiations which are contemplated in view of the termination of the tem-
borary arrangement lately made between Her Majesty's Minister at Washington and the
XTnited States Government, arising out of the termination of the Fishery Articles of the
•Treaty of Washington on the 1st July last.

, The Right Hon. the President of the Council, to whom the despatch was referred, recom-
■luends that communication should be had both by cable and letter inviting the Government
of Newfoundland either to send a representative to Ottawa to discuss the whole questioa, or,
if that be inconvenient, to communicate the views of the Island Government.

The Cojamittee concur in the recommendation of the President of the Council and they
•ivise that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of thii Minute, if approved, to ITib
Bxoellency the Governor of Newfoundland and also to the Right Hon. the Heoretary of
Rtate for the Colonies, ao as to inform him of the action taken by the Canadian Qovernment
on his despatch of the 11th August ult.

All of which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk Privy Councik

No. 14.
Governor General to Governor of Newfoundland.

Ottawa, 4th September, 1885.

Sib, — I had the honour to send yoa to^lay a telegraj^hio message as follows : —
" Iq antioipatiOD of negotiations approaehing terminatioa of arrangement rea*
peoting fishery question, Dominion Government invite representative from
cl Ns^i'a^ Newfoundland to visit Ottawa to fnlly discuss whole question ; if inoon>
venient, request views of your Ministers. Despatch follows by mail."
I have now the honour to forward a copy of an approved report of a Oommittee
of the Privy Council dated the Srd inst., on which my telegram was based.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

His Bxoellency

Tbi Gotsrnob of Nswfoundland.

No. 15.

Copy of telegram from Mr. Carter, of Newfoundland, to Governor Geaeral.

St. John's, 7th September; 1885.

Your telegram of 4lh September submitted to Bxecutive Council who wait for ^
despatch.

(Sd.) CAKTER.

No. 16.

The Administrator of Newfoundland to Governor General.

Newjcounoland, 21st September, 1886.

Mr Lord,— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordship's
despatch of the 4th instant, addressed to Sir John Glover, with a copy of your tele-
graphic message of the same date, also a copy of an approved report of a Committee
of the Privy Council, on which the telegram was based, having reference to proposals
to be made to the Government of the United States in anticipation of the negotiatiouB
contemplated in view of the expiration of the temporary arrangement lately made
between Her Majesty's Minister at Washington and the United States Government,
arising out of the articles of the Treaty of Washington, terminated on the 1st oi
July last, and suggesting that a delegate should proceed from this country to confer
with the Government of the Dominion, or that the views of the Newfoundland Gov-
ernment be communicated respecting a new Fisheries arrangement between the
United States, Canala and Newfoundland.

e Council and they
if approved, to I Ha
1. the Secretary of
ladian Government

MoGEE,

rk Privy Council,

tember, 1885.

:« as follows :—
arrangement res-
presentative from
aestioD ; if inoon-
>wfl by mail."
t of a Oommittee
9 based.

NSDOWNB.

r Geaeral.
ember; 1885.
noil who wait for

CABTER.

imber, 1885.

Toar Lordship's
>y of your tele-
of a Committee
noe to proposal
the negotiatiooe
BDt lately made
es Government,

on the 1st oi
antry to confer
vfoandland Gov-

t between the

The Council request mo to oomraanicate to Your Lordship that the number of
their body being now only four mombern, and a general election being appointed to
take place on the 3 let of October next, they do not feel themselves at present in a
position to send a delegate to Canada or to offer any definite expression of tho
views of tho C>iony on the important Bubjoct in question, and at their suggestion I
have refipeotfully to request that any further proceeding on the part of this Govern-
ment be deferred until the result of tho approaching election shall have been asoer*
tained.

The Council would be glad in the meantime to bo favoured with the views of the
Dominion Government in relation to thiii subject.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) M. T. CARTER,

Administrator,
His Excellency

The Governor General.

No. 17.
Minister at Washnjton to Deputy Governor.

Wabiunoton, 10th October, 1885.

Sir, — I have the honor to enclose herewith copies of a circular issued by tho
Committee oi the Boston Fie h Bureau, iind to inform yon that I have called the utten-
tion of the Secretary of State thereto.

I have &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

The Deputy Governor,
OUawa.

[Baclosure No. 1 ]

Boston, September, 1885.

Dear Sir,— The Boston Fish Bureau, an organization composed of the principal wholesale
dealers and commission merchants in fish of ttiis city, has passed the following resolution :

Rtaolved, That tiie Boston Fish Bureau earnestly favors such an arrangement between the
United States, the D iminion of Canada, and the Province of Newfoundland as shall include
the reciprocal admission, free of duties, of the pr jducta of the fisheries of these countries.

We desire to present the reasons for this resolution, and to appeal to the dealers in and
consumers of fish throughout the country, to aid us in impressing upon Congress the impor-
tance of free iniporvation of fish from the British Provinces. It is well known that the New
England Fisheries do not produce certain varieties of fish which the trade requires, and of
certain other kinds the supply obtained on our coast is entirely inadequate to our needs. We
are obliged to rely entirely upon the Provinces for our stock of fat herring and for the larger
part of the che'aper grades of herring, both pickled and smoked, of alewives, salmon, trout
and shad. We need the hard dried codfish of Newfoundland and the choice slack-salted
codfish and pollock of Nova Scotia For several years past the mackerel caught in American
waters have been mostly of small size, and we have needed the larger fish caught in Canadian
•waters. During the past two winters we could not have filled orders for large fat mackerel
except for the supply obtained from Nova Scotia an I Prince Edward' Island. Present indi-
cations point to a repetition of this condition during the coming winter. Whatever we need
from Canada must be obtained at the additional expense of the duties, which the consumer
must piiy. The duties, being specific, boar very heavily on the cheaper grades of fish,
amounting in many cases to from fifty to one hundred per cent, on the original cost, and
resulting in a prohibition of imports or a very la gely enhanced cost to the cansumer.

The i)eople who will gain anything by tho exaction of duties are a few hundred vessel
owners in New England. The pretence that protective duties on fish is an encouragement to
American fishermen, and tho argument lliat the fisheries furnish a training school for ou'(
iiavy, were long since exploded by the fact that a very large proportion of the men who fish.
lt)6-ki

in Amerioan veasols are oiti/.en8 of the Britiah Frovinoes. Hordes of them come here ererv
spring, man our vessels for the tiihing Hoason, and return home when it is over. It is esti-
mated that from fifty to seventy-tive per cent, of the men in the Qloucestor mackerel fleet
are citizens of the Dominion of Canada, and the same is true to a greater or less extent of
other fishing ports. It Ih acknowledged that without them we wouM be unable to man our
fleet. These men have no interest in our country and its institutions, and in the event of
war with England would be found in the enemy's fleet. Is it fair that we should be taxed
for their support, or that a few owners of fishing vessels should reap an advantage obtained
at the expense of the groat body of consumers ot fish in all parts of the tountry ?

As dealers in fisb, handling large quantities of the products of the sea, we feel that our
intereHts are identical with yours in demanding that there should be no duties on articles of
food which are consumed so largely by peopV of moderate means. Questions of a larger
nature, involving matters of international importance, make it probable that the subject of
reciptocity with Canada will come before Congress at its next session. We ask of you that
you will use your best efforts *o impress ui)on your Senators and Representatives that they
should vote upon this question in accordance with your interests and with the interests of a
large majority of the people of the country.

Respectfullv yours,

WILLIAM F. JONES,
C. W. WRIGHTINGTON,!
EDWARD T. RUSSELL,
L. PICKEUT,
B. F. DkBUTTS,

Committee

of the

Boston I-'ish Bureau.

No. 16.

No. 18.
I>ej)uty Governor to Secretary of State.

Ottawa, 16th October, 1885.

Sir, — With reforonce to previous correspondence touching the negotiations oon-
tomplatod in view of the expiration of the temporary arrangement with the United
States respecting the tisbories, I have the honour to forward herewith
for your information a copy of a despatch from the officer administrating
the Government of Newfoundland, in reply to a suggestiott made by the Governor
General that a delegate from that Government should visit Canada for the purpose
of conferring with the Government of the Dominion regarding the proposals to be
made in councction with the anticipated negotiations referred to, or that, failing the
visit of a delegate, '^tho Newfoundland Government should communicate its views
upon the matter.

I have caused a copy of this despatch to be communicated to the Privy Council
for their consideration.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) W. J. EITOHIB.

The Right Honourable

The Seoretary of State for the Colonies.

No. 19.
Deputy Governor to Secretary of State.

Ottawa, 16th October, 1885.

Sir, — I have the honour to forward herewith for your information a copy of a

despatch which I have received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington enclos- i

ing copies of a circular issued by the Committee of the Boston Fish ||

Bureau which embodies a resolution of that body in favour of reoipro. ^

No. 17.

1 come here erery
s over. It ia esti-
tor mackerel fleet
r or logs extent of
inable to nian our
1(1 in the event of

should be taxed
Ivantage obtained
ntry '!
%, we feel that our
ities on articles of
lestions of a larger
^biit the subject of
iTe oak of you that
ntatives that they

1 the interests of a

Committeo
of the
iston Fish Bureau.

oity between the United States, Canada and Newfoundland, in respoot of the pro^
daots of the iiBhorieH of those cuantrioH.

I bavo oansod a oopy of this despatch and encloHuros to bo oommanioatod to tho
Privy Council for their information.

I have, ^c,

(Sd.) W. J. RITCHIE.

Tbe Right Honourable

Thi Skobxtart of Statu fob the Coloniks.

No. 20. '

Colonial Office to Governor General.

Downing Stbeet, 4th November, 18SS.

My Lord, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Deputy Gov<
emor's despatch No. 36, of tho Ifith ultimo, enclosing copy of one addriniiod to you
by the OfBcer administering the Government of Newfoundland, relating to tho nego-
tiations contemplHted in view of tho expiration of the temporary arrangement with
the United States Qovernmont respecting the fisheries.

I bave, &c.,

(Sd.) FRED. STANLEY.

His Excel leroy

The Governor Ginxbal.

tober, 1885.

legotiationH oon-'
with the United
)rward herewith
r administrating
y the Governor
for the purpose
proposals to be
that, failing tbe
licate its views

le Privy Council

RITCHIE.

No. 21.
Governor General to Administrator , Neirfoundland.

Ottawa, 2Qih November, 1886.

Sib, — ^Witb reference to your despatch of the 21st September last, and previoa-
correspondence relative to the suggestion of my Government that tbe Government of
Newfoundland should send a delegate to Ottawa to confer with tbom upon the sub-
ject of a new fithories arrangement between tbe United States, Canada and New
fonndland.

I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved report of a Com-
mittee of the Privy Council embodying the opinion of my Ministers, '* that the views
of tbe respective Governments can be much more satiisfaoloriiy exchanged by tbe
GK>vernmont of Newfoundland sending a delegation to Ottawa for that purpose, than
by correspondence," and expressing the hope that it may be found convenient to
send such a delegation at an early date.

I bave, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

The Officer

Administbrino the Government of Newfoundland.

tober, 1885.

ion a copy of a |
sbington enclos-
be Boston Fish
rour of reciprou

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Bbfobt of a Commitiet of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency thi
Oovemor General in Council on the 11th November, 1885.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated 2lBt
September, 1885, from the Administrator of the Government of Newfoundland on the subject
of that Colony sending a delegate to confer with the Government of the Dominion respecting
166- 2i

u.;i

ii '

A new fisheries arrangement between the United States, Canada and Newfoundland, and set-
*ting forth that in view of the number of the Executive Couucil of Newfoundland being
reduced to four members and the early approach of a general election, that Qovernment did
not ieel itself in a position to i<end a delegate to Canada or to offer any definite expression of
the views of the Colony on the important subject m question, and requesting that any further
proceedmgs on the part of the Dominion Government be deferred until the result of the
approaching election be determined, and intimating its desire to be favoured with the views
of the Dominion Government.

The Minister of Afarine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch was x'eferred, recommends
that in view of the important question to be considered, and the wide ri^nge any discussion
with reference theieto may take, the Government of Newfoundland be informed that the
Dominion Government is of the opinion that the views of the respective Governments can be
much more satisfactorily exchanged by the Government of Newfoundland sending a delega-
tion to Ottawa for that purpose than by correspondence, and to express the hope that it may
be convenient for that Government to send such delegation at an early day to confer with
Your Excellency's Government on the subject to which the despatch under consideration
refers.

Tlie Committee concur in the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries
and they advise that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this Minute, if
approved, to the Administrator of the Government of Newfoundland.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEB,

Clerk, Privy CkmneU,

No. 22.

Governor General to Secretary of State.

Ottawa, 23rd November, 1885.

Sir, — With reference to previous correspondence relating to the antiVipatod
negotiatioDB on the termiaatioa of the temporary arraugament with the United
States as to the fishories, 1 have the honour to forward herewith for your
ofNo/2/ information a copy of an approved report of a Committee of the Privy
' * ' Council ezprosaing the desire of my Ministers that the Government of
Newfoundland shoald send a delegation to Oltiiwa at an early day for the purpose uf
conferring with the Government of the Dominion on the subjaot in question.

I have sent a Cf>py of this minute of Council to the officer administering the
Government of Newfoundland,

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Bight Honourable

'1 HE tiECRXTARY OJB* StATE FOR IHS CoLONIBS^

No. 23.

Minister at Washington to Governor General

Washington, 16th January, 188ff.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Excellency b.erewith copies of
a joint resolution introduced into the House of Representatives for a renewal of
commercial relations with the British possessions in North America which has been
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as copies of a joint resolution
relating to reciprocal privileges under the Act of 19th June, 1&78, regarding 00m-

bundland, and sei-
wfoundland being
b Government (m
inite expression of
ig that any further
il the result of the
red with the views

rred, recommends
ge any disoussion
informed that the
ivernments can be
sending a delega-
e hope that it may
day to confer with
ider consideratioD

.rine and Fisheries
[>f this Minute, if

GEE,

i, Privy CouneU.

smber, 1885.

the antfoipfitod

vith the Unittd

erewith foryoar

of the Privy

Government of

the purpose uf

iiostion.

miniatering the

rSDOWNB.

leroial relations with the Dominion of Canada, also referred to the Oommittoe on.
Tbreign Affaire.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

His Excellency

Thb Govcbnok Gbniral.

[Enolosare No. 1 ]
49th CONGRBSS, Ist SESSION, H. BES. 39.

IN THC HOUSV OF BXPRIt^KNTATIVKS.

January 6, 18i:6.

Bead twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign Afiairs, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Matbubt introduced the following joint resolution :

JOINT RESOLUTIONI

Bequesting the Secretary of State to report to Congress the action of the Governmen
lunder the provisions of an Act approved June nineteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy
[«ight. relative to commercial relations with the Dominion of < anada.

I 'Whereas under laws and regulations now in force in the Dominion of Canada all Tnited
■ States vessels are prohibited &om rendering aid to wrecked or disabled vessels in Canadiaii'
(waters; and

Whereas by an Act of Congress approved June nineteenth, eighteen hundred and sr-venty*
lei^t, Canadian vessels of all descriptions were to be permitted to render aid to Canadian or
jouer vessels wrecked or disabled in the waters of the United States contiguous to the pom-
linion of Canada, said Act to take effect by its terms when by proclamation of the Fresid^f .
lit was declared that reciprocal privileges had been extended by the Dominion of Canada to
Ivessels of the United States wrecked in Canadian waters ; and

Whereas no proclamation of the President as contemplated in the Act aforesfud has yet
been promulgated, and the commerce of the United States, especially upon the lakes and
rivers of the North- West, suffers great an<( irreparable injury by the refusal or neglect of the
J Government of the Dominion of Canada to extend the reasonable comity of privileges sought
in the Act aforesaid : Therefore,

Seaolvedhy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the Secretary of State be, and he is hereby, requested to report to
Congress at his earliest convenience what action, if any, has been taken by the Government
of the United Stat«>s to acquaint the Gtovernment of the Dominion aforesaid with its desire
iw the friendly and equitable relations sought under the Act aforesaid, and what action if any,
luts been taken by the Dominion Gtoveirnment in the premises.

Sec. 2. That should it appear that the (Government of the Dominion of Canada has .
ne^ected or refused to extend to vessels of the United States the privileges sought to be
conferred on vessels of the Dominion under the Act, the Secretary of State be requested to
report to Cmgress what further legislation, if any, is necessary or desirable, retaliatory or
otherwise, to the end that our commerce may be released from its grievous burdens.

lary, 188ff.

ewith copies of
a renewal of
hich has been
oint resolation
■egarding oom-

[ Enolosare No. 3.]
49«H CONGRESS, 1st SESSION, H. BBS. 40,

Ur TBI HOUSK or BBPnSENTATIVBS.

January &, 1886.

Bead twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and otdered to be printed.
ICr. Matbusv iniroduoed the following joint resolution :~

JOINT RESOLUTION

For renewal of oommmeroial relations with the British Possessions in North America.
Wheeeas the reciprocity treaty with Great Britain regulating commerce and navigation
between the United States and We British Colonies of North America was terminated on

Mil'.'

I iM
' ii'ii

.i Vi!

I i '

''liili

March the seventeenth, anno Domini eighteen hundred and sixty-six, in virtue of previous
notice given by the U nited States ; and

Wliereas the prov'sions of said treaty providing for mutual rights in certain Bea-fisherie%
and for the free navigation of the Great Laices, the River Saint Lawrence, and the canals con-
nected therewith, were restored in eighteen hundred and seventy one, by the treaty of
Washington, so called ; and

Whereas the circumstances under which the notice of the abrogation of said treaty of
reciprocity was made have been changed and modified by time, and unfettered trade and
'Commerce between the British Possessions in North America and the United States would
now be reciprocally beneficial, advantageous and satisfactory : Therefore,

Besoloed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America im
Congress assembled, That this Congress would look with favour and approval upon any actioa
taken by the executive department of the Government tending to a renewal of commercial
relations with the British Possessions in North America by compact or treaty, having in view
the reciprocal interests of both nations.

Na24,

Governor General to Colonel Stanley.

Ottawa, 26th Jaaaary, 1886.

Sir, — I have ihe honour to forward herewith for yoar information a oopy of a

despatch which I have received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, enolos*

)Na 23 '"^ copies of joint resolations introduced into the United States House of

^ ' BepreHentatives relating to commeroia' relations and reciprocal privileges

between Canada and that ooantry.

I have communioatei a copy of Sir L. S. S. West's despatch and of the joint
resolations to my Government.

' I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Bight Honoarable
F. A. Stanlmy.

No. 25.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir L, West,

6th February, 1886.

I Hhonld be glad to have any information yoa can give me as to the oonae-
qaences of the report on reciprocity of the Senate Foreign Belatio..' : Committee.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

No. 26.
Sir L, West to Lord Lansdowne,

No commission will be issaed.

8th February, If'Se.
(Si.) WEST.

No. 27.

The Qooemor Oeneral to Earl OranviUe,

Ottawa, 3rd March. 1886.

Mt LoBD, — With reference to my despatch of the !8th ultimo in which I pointed
out that effectual measures would be taken by my Government to protect CanadiMi

virtue of proviooB

trtaiii sea-fisheries,
kod the canals oon-
I by the treaty of

m of said treaty of
fettered trade and
lited States would

ates of America Ht
il upon any action
wal of commercial
>ty, baring in view

shermen in tho exercise of their rights within the turritorial waters of the Domin-

>n, and to prevent trespass within the limits of those waters by foreign fishermen, I
^ave to acquaint Yonr Lordship that authority has now been requested by my

linister of Marine and Fisheries to establish a sufficient marine police force for the
ftarpose of affording efficient protection to the intereuts of the Dominion within its

srritorial waters.

2 With this object my Government have determined, besides making use of the
)vernmont steamers already available for that purpo-ie, to charter and equip six
kwift sailing fore and aft schooners between 60 :ind 90 tons measurement, for uee aa
isheries poliae vessels. For this purpose 850,000 will be plauoi in tho supplement-

lentary estimates to be submitted to Parliament for tho current fiscal year, and a
Idrther sum of $100,000 f^r the fiscal year ending 30lh June, 1837.

1 have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

Earl Gbanville.

anary, 1886.

ion a copy of a
jhiogton, enoloa*
[ States Hoaae of
prooal privileget

nd of the joint

fSDOWNB.

nary, 188S.

as to the oonaa-
committee.

3D0WNB.

lary, 1P86.
WEST.

rch. 1886.

Iiich I pointed
teot Oaaadian

No. 28.

Minister at Washington, to Governor General.

Washinqtox, 19th March, 1886.

Ht Lord, — I have the honour to report to Your Excellency that at an inter«

jiew which I had this day with the Secretary of State, I placed in his hands a

lemorandum, copy of which is enclosed, embodying the view taken by Your

Szcellency's Gh>vernmont as expressed to mo of tho actual position of tho Dominion

vovernment under the Treaty of 1818 with regard to the exclusive right of fishery

Canadian waters I called Mr. Bayard's attention to the fact, as stated in the

In the memorandum, that the British North American Act, which came into operation

p 1867, and in which the legislative authority of tho Federal and Provincial Legisla-

' ires is defined, gives to the Parliament of the Dominion exclusive legislative

authority over sea coast and inland fisheries, and also to the power taken under the

let 31 Vic, chap. 61, to grant to foreign vessels license to fish for, take, dry or

sure fish of any kind within the three-mile limit in British waters ; suggesting to

iim at the same time that all danger of " friction " might perhaps be avoided it it

ras clearly understood that no American vessel Wjuld be allowed to fish in Canadian

raters within the throe mile limit without a license as provided for under this Act.

Lt Mr. Bayard's request I sent him tho volumes of the State Papers containing

lie Act in question as well as the amending Acts of 1870 and 1871.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLB WEST.

His Excellency

The Ma«quis of Landbdowni, G.C.M.G.

[Baclosare No. I.} - .
Jiftmorandutn.

Hie exclusive right of fishing in the territorial waters of the British possessions in North
America now reverts as it did on the termination of the treaty of 1854 to the British Crown.

Ihe consequences which were then to be anticipated from the denunciation of that
'Dreaty must now arise from the abrogation of the Fishery clauses of the Treaty of 1871.

Her Majesty's Government have, however, the satisfaction of feeling that they have done
(heir utmost to prevent these couBequekOpes.

They have declared their readineFs to meet the suggestion made by the Pro'^idont in his
message to Congress for the appointment of a Fishery Commission, and even tu otUt-r into
new engagements by nhioh the privileges hitherto enjoyed by American citizens uiijiht still
be sectired to them, but Congress has declined their overtures and the Dominion Government
is therefore bound to take effective measures for the protection of the fishery interests
within the territorial waters of Canada.

The British North American Act came into operation in 1867 and gives to the Parliament
of the Dominion exclusive legislative, authority over the sea coast and inland fisheries, and
aocordingly an Act was passed by the Dominion Government in 1 868 which deals with foreign
vessels fishing in the waters of the Dominion and upon the provisions of which the Dominion
Government will now act in regard to them.

I ,1

•1 'I

^!;i:i!.

1 I ' I':

I'M;

No. 21».

JUiniiter at Washington, to Governor General.

Washington, 'iOtb March, 1886.

Mt Lord,— I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that I received on the
18th instant, a telegram from the Earl ot Hoaebory, iuHtructing mo to ascertain
whether it is intended to iseae a rotico that American fishermen are vow precluded
from fishing in British North Au;ori09n territorial watot b, in view of the issue of
a similar notice with regard to Br/Jijii debormen in American watern on the part of
Her Majesty's Government.

After having spoken to Mr. Bayaru ■.: the subject, I addressed a note to him at
his request, copy of which is encloEod, iu the sense of Lord Bosobory's telegram, to
whiohne promised me a speedy answer.

In the meanwhile a notice, which I enclose, has appeared in a Washington
evening paper, stating that the Department of Fisheriea has already issaed such
notice.

I have, &c.,

(Sd .^ L. S. SACKVILLB WEST.
Bis Bxoeilenoy

Thc Mabquis of Lansdowne, 6. C. M. 6.

!'V".

[Enclosure No. 1 ]

IVom Minister at Washington to Mr. Bayard.

Waseiinotox, 19th March, 1886.

Sib, I have the honour to inform you that the Earl of Bosebery has requested me to

asoertain whether it is intended to give notice to the United States' fishermen that they are
precluded from fishing in British North American territorial waters, as Her Majesty's Govern-
ment are considering the expediency of issuing a reciprocal notice with regard to British
fiahermen in American waters.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. 8. WEST.

[Bndoaure No. a ]

Stttractfrom Washington "Evening Star," 20th March, 1886.

"a oaxaoiam btiauib's uobit mission."

St. Jobk, N.B., 20th March.

" Captain Scott, commander of the Government steamer < Lansdowne ' received sailing
orders yesterday and^will sfdl from here this morning. The destination of the steamer and
the jplui of action are carefully concealed. She has a month's supplies and full armament.

a direction of the Department of Fisheries, Captain Scott has issued a warning to American
ermen to observe Uie provisions of the Treaty of 1818."

bhe Pro^idont in his

even to ontu- iiito

citizens uii^'ht still

minion Government

le fishery interests

8 to the Parliament
iland fisheries, and
I deals with foreign
vhich the Dominion

March, 1886.

I received on the
; mo to ascertain
re row precluded
iw of the iesne of
itc on the part of

a note to him at
7*8 telegram, to

n a WaBhington
iady issued saoh

iLB WEST.

March, 1886.

requested me to
len that they are
Majesty's Govern-
regard to Britiah

S. WEST.

lOth March.

received sailintf^^
le steamer and
full armament.
Dg to American

No. 30.

From Minister at Washingtr-n to Govrnor General.

Washington, 24th March, 1886.

Mr Lord, — With reference to my deppatoh No. 23 of the 20th instant T have
hononr to enclose to Your Lordship, herewith, the copy of a note which I have
beived from the Secretary of State informing me that as fall and formal publiC'
tification in the premiscR has already been given by the president's Proclamation
|tho Slat of January, 18H5, it is not deemed necessary to repeat it.

I have, &c.,

L. S. SAOKVILLE WEST, ...
[is Exoellwncy

The Gotebnob Gensbal.

[lincloBure No. 1 ]

From Mr. Bayard to Sir Lionel Saekville West.

Dbi'artmbnt of State,

Wasbinoton, 28th March, 1886.

Sir,— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1 9th instant,,
^ereby you inform me that you hpve been requested by the Earl of Rosebery to ascer-
m "whether it is intended to give notice to the United States' fishermen that they are now
^eluded from fishing in British North American territorial waters," and to inform you in
|>ly that as full and formal public notification in the premises has already been given by

President's proclamation of Sist January, 1885, it is not deemed necessary now to repeat'

The temporary arrangement made between us on the 22nd of June, 1885, whereby cer-
h fishing operations on the respective coasts were not to be inteifered with during the
iing season of 1885, notwithstandmg the abrogation of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty
Washington came to an end under its own expressed limitations on the 31st of December ;
|t, and the fisheries question is now understood to rest on existing treaties precisely as
jugh no fishery articles had been incorporated in the Treaty of Washington.

In view of the enduring nature and important extent of the right secured to American
bermen in British North American territorial waters under the provisions of the Treaty of,
18, to take fish within the three-mile limit on certain defined parts of the British North
tlerican coasts and to dry and cure fish there under certain conditions, this Government
1 not found it necessary to give to United States' fishermen any notification that '• they are-
precluded from fishing in British North American territorial waters."

I have, &o.,

(Sd) T. F. BAYARD.

f L S. Saokvillb Wbst, K.C.M.G.,
&o., &c., &c.

No. 31.

GovemoT'General to Minister at fVashington.

Ottawa, 24th Maroh, 188(i.

Sib, — I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your despatch No. 20, of tha
|th inst. enclosing a memorandum, recently handed by yon to the Secretary of State,.
}n the subject of the position of the Donbinion Government under the Treaty of
lis in regard to the ezolusive right of fishing in Canadian waters.

The memorandum is in aooordanoe with the views of my Government apon thi»
bject.

I have, &o ,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.
le Honourable
Sib L. S. Sackvilli Wisi.

:.|l

No. 33.

Governor General to Earl Granville.

Canada, Government House,

Ottawa, 24th March, 1886.

Mv LoBD, — With reference to provious correspondence relating to the position

created by the expiration of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington, I have

the honour to forward herewith for your Lordship's information a copy

Noilofko^w! of a cIcHpatch which I have received from Sir Lionel Sackville West,

enulosingacopy of a memorandum on this subject which he placed in

the hands of the United States' SecTctary on the 19th inst.

I also enclose a copy of the reply which I have sent to Sir L. Sack-
No. 31. vilUWest.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LA.NSDOWNB.
The Bight Honourable,

Eabl Granvilli, K,G., &o.

No. 33.

Govern, itieral to Earl Granville.

Ottawa, 26th March, 1886.

My Lobd, — I have the lonovtrto forwirl for your information a copy ofthel
instructions which have been isbUi.. by .--^y nfiuigter of Marine and Fisheries for thef
guidance of fishery officers and ex officio magistrates in command of the vessels which|
will bo employed for the protection of the inshore fisheries of the Dominion.

These instructions are substantially the same as those which were issued under |
similar oircunnstanoes in 1870.

Your Lordship will observe that while the officers in command of the fioheriesi
police vessels are required to take the necessary steps for etriotiy upholding the"'
Treaty rights of the Dominion they are specially enjoined to carry out their instruct
tions in a conciliatory spirit and with forbearance and discrimination. f

I also enclose copy of a warning notice which was published in reference to tha|
same subject by the Department of Fisheries.

1 have, &3,,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Right Honorable,

Earl Granville. E.G., &a.

., . [EacloBure No. 1.]

Special Instbuotions to Fishery Officers, ex-officio Magistrates, in command of Government
Steamers and Vessels, engaged as Fisheries Police Vessels, in protecting the Insho
Fisheries of Canada.

Ottawa, 16th March, 1886.

, Sir,— In the performance of the special and important service to which you have beei^
appointed you will be guided by the following confidential instructions.

For oonvenienoe of reference, these have been divided under the different headings (
Powers, Jurisdiction, Duties and General Directions,

POWBBB.

The Powers with which you are invested, are dorived from, and to be exercised
accordance with the following statutes, among others : — " The Fisheries Act" (31 , Vic, cap. ( ,
of Canada); "An Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," (31 Vic. cap. 61, ofCanadt)'

t to Sir L. Sack.

roferenoe to thei

find the subsequent statute entitled : " An Act to amend the Act respecting Fishing by
Foreign Vessels," made and passed the 12th May, 1870 (33 Vic.,cap. 15, of Cana<:la) | also an
'Act to furthe/ amend the said Act" (34 Vic, cap. 23, of Cftnada).

" Chapter 94 of the Revised Statutes (third series) of Nova Scotia " (of the " C!oast and

p Sea Fisheries"), amended by the Act entitled: "An Act to amend Cap. 94 of th«t
avised Statutes of Nova Scotia " (29 Vic, cap. 35).

An Act pa'jsed by the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick entitled : " An Act
elating to the Coast Fisheries, and for the prevention of Illicit Trade" (IG Vic, cap. 69).

Also an Act pa«sed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island (6 Vic. cap 14) entitled :
'An Act relating to the Fisheries, and for the prevention of Illicit Trade in Prince Edward
sland, and the coasts and harVjors thereof."

Also liom such regulations as have been parsed or may be passed by the Governor General
> Council, or from instructions from the Department of Fisheries, under '' Tiie Fisheries Act,"
hereinbefore cited.

As Fi:>hery Utticer you have full authority to compel the observance of the requirements

'the Fisheries Acta and regulations by foreign fishing vessels and fishermen in those parts

^f the coHSt!) of Canada to which, by the Convention of 18 18, they are admitted to privileges

' taking or drying and curing fish concurrent with those enjoyed by British fishing vessels and

shermen.

You will receive instructions from the Customs Department authorizing you to act as an
icer of the Customs, and in that capacity you are to see that the Revenue Laws and Kegu
litions are duly observed.

JDHISDIOTIOV.

Your jurisdiction with respect to any action you may take against foreign fishing Teasels
1 citizens engaged in fishing is to be exercised only within the limits of " three marina
ies " of any of " the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours,'' of Canada.
With regard to the Magdalen Islands, although the liberty to land and to dry and care
sh there is not expressly given by the terms of the convention to United States tishermeny
I is not at present intended to exclude them from these islands.

DUTIES.

It win be your duty to protect the inshore fisheries of Canada in accordance with the
bnditions laid down by the Convention of the 20th October, 1818, the first Article of which
fovides: —

" Whereas difierences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the I inited States*
kr the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish, on certain coastst bays, harbours, and
peeks, of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the High Con-
acting Parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have, forever, in common
th the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, on that part
[the Southern Coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray to the riimenu Islands,
V the Western and Northern Ck)ast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape liay to the Quirpoa
llands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands,' and also on the coasts, buys, harbours, and
aeks from Mount Joly, on the Southern Coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of
feUe Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however,
1 any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and that the American fisher-
fen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bay.->, har^
kurs and creeks, of the Southern part of the Coast of Newfoundland, hereabove described.
Id of the Coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled,
Isball not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled,
|thout previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or poisessois
. the ground."

"And the United States h«ieby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or
kiried by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine milaa
[ any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in Am>
a^, not included within the above-mentioned limits j provided, however, that the Americaa
tiermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours, for the purpose of shelter
repairing of damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no
iier purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to
event their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing
"I privileges hereby reserved to them."

By this you will observe. United States fishermen are secured the liberty of taking fiab
I the Southern Coasts of Labrador, and around the Magdalen Islands and of drying and
^ing fish along certain of the Southern Shores of Labrador, where this coast is unsettled,
it settled, after previous agreement with the settlers or owners of the ground.

I '

Tn all ntfaer pnrts tho exclusion of foreign vessels and boats is absolute, so far as fishing
is conoerned, and is to bo enforced within the limits laid down by the Convention of 1818,
they being allowed to enter bays and harbours for four purposes only, viz.,— /or ahelter, ih»
repairing of damages, the pureliaaing of icooil, and to obtain water.

You are to compel, if necessary, the maintenance of peace and good order by foreign
fishermen pursuing their calling and enjoyini; concurrent privileges of fishing or curing ash
with KritLsh lishermpn, in those parts to which they are admitted by tho Treaty of 1818.

You are to see that they obey the laws of the country, that they do not molest British
fisUormen in the pursuit of their calling and that they observe the regulations of the fi^^hery
laws in every resjiect.

You are to prevent foreign fishing ve?s»h and boats which enter bays and harbours for
the four legal purpo'^es above mentioned, from taking advantage thereof, to take, dry, or
cure fish theri'in, lo purchase bait, ice, or supplies, or to tranship cargoes, or from transact-
ing anv business m connection with their fishing operations.

It is not desired that you should put a narrow construction on the term " unsettled."
Places containing a few isolated houses might not, in some instances, be susceptible of being
oon<idered as "settled" within the meaning .ind purpose of the Convention. Something
would, however, depend upon the facts of the situation and circumstances of the settlement.
Private and proprietary rights form an elemeT)t in the consideration of this point. The gen-
trolly eonciliatorji spirit in which it ia tleairable that you should carry out these insiructiont.
and the wish oj Her Majesty's Government that the rights of exclusion should not be strained,
must influence you in making as fair and liberal an application of the term as shall consist
with the just claims of all parties.

Should interference with the pursuits of British fishermen or the property of Can-
adians appear to be inseparable from the exercise of such indulgence, you will withhold it
and insist upon entire exclusion.

United States fishermen phould be maile aware that, in addition to being obliged, in
common with those subjects of Her Majesty with whom they exercise concurrent privileges
of fishing ia Coloni<il waters, to obey the laws of the country, and particularly such Acts and
Begulatioiia as exist ts ensure the peaceable and profitable enjoyment of the fisheriej by all
persons entitle>l thereto, they are peculiarly hound to preserve peace and order in the quasi
settled places to which, by the liberal disposition of Canad'an authorities, they may be ad-
mitted.

Wliere-^oever foreigners may fish in Canadian waters, you will compel them to observe
the Fishery Laws. Particular attention should be directed to the injury which results from
cleaning fish on board their vessels while afloat, and the throwing ovei board of ofials, thus
foaling the fishing, fcpding and breeding grounds. "The Fisheries Act " ,(Section 14) pro-
vides a heavy penalty for this offence.

Take occasion to enquire into and report upon any modes of fishing, or any practices
adopted by foreign fishermen, which appear to be injurious to the fisheries.

GENERAL DIRGOTIONS.

You will accos't every foreign fishing vessel within the limits described, and if that
vessel should be either fishing, preparing to fish, or should obviously have been fishing
within the prohibited limits, you will, by virtue of the authority conferred upon you by your
Commission, and under the provisions of the Acts above recited, seize at once (resort to
foice in doing to being only justifiable after every other effort has failed) any vessel deteo*
ted in violating thn law and send her or take her into port for condemnation.

(Jopies of the Acts of Parliament subjecting to seizure and forfeiture any foreign ship,
vessel or boat which should be either fishing, preparing to fish or should obviously have
been fishing within the pirohibite 1 limits, and pr viding for carrying out the seizure and for-
feiture are furnished herewith for your information and distribution.

Should you have the occasion to compel any foreign fishing vessels or fi8herm<^n to
conform to the requirements of the '• Fishs»ries Act and Kegulations," as regards the modes
and incidents of fishing, at those places to which they are admitted under the Convention of
1818, particularly in relation to ballast, fish offal!<, setting of nets, hauling of seinei, and use
of" trawls " or •• bultows," more especially at and around the Magdalen Island, your power
and authority under such cases will be similar to that of any other fishery officer appointed
to enforce the Hishery Laws in Canadian waters ( Vide Fisheries Act).

If a foreign ship, vessel, or boat be found violating the Convention or resisting consequent
seizure, and momentarily effects her escaoe from the vicinity of her capture or elsewhere,
she remains always liable to seizure and detention if met by yourself in Canadian waters, ana
in British waters ever\ where if brought to account by Her Majesty's cruisers. But great care
must be taken to make certain of the iadentify of any offending vessel to be so dealt with.

I so far as fishing
ivention of 1818,
—for shelter, the

order by foreign
ng or curing Qaih
atyof 1818.
}t molest British
ins of the fishery

and harbours for

to take, dry, or

OT from transact-

rm " unsettled."
ceptible of being
tion. Something
f the settlement,
point. Ihe gen-
hese inatructionSf
d not be atrained,
n as shall consist

property of Can-
I will withhold it

being obliged, in
jurrent privileges
ly such Acts and
he fisherie j by all
rder in the quasi
they may be ad-

I them to observe
hich results irom
rd of offals, thus
(Section 14) pro-

or any practices

ibed, and if that
ive been fishing
poa you by your
once (resort to
any vessel deteo*
1.

iny foreign ship,
obviously have
sei/.ure and for-

or fisherman to
igards the modes
le Convention of {
if seinei, and use
and, your power
fficer appointed

sting consequent
re or elsewhere,
tdian waters, and
But great care
so dealt with.

All vessels seized must be placed, as soon m possible, in the custody of the nearest
Customs Collector, and information, with a Mtatement of the facts, and the depositions of
your sailing master, clerk, lieutenant, or mate, and of two at least of the most reliable of
your crew, be despatched with all possible diligence to the Oovernment. Be careful to
describe the exact locality where the violation of the law took place, and the ship, vessel or
boat was Rfized. Also corroborate the bearings taken, by soundings, and by buoying the
place (if possible) with a view to actual m^'asurcment, and make such incidental reference to
conspicuous points and land marks as shall place beyond doubt the illegal position of the
seized ship, vessel or boat.

Omit no precaution to establish on the spot that the trespass was or is being committed
within three miles of land.

As it is possible that foreign fishing craft may be driven into Canadian waters by violent
or contrary winds, by strong tides, through misail venture, or some other cause independent
of the will of the master and crow, you will consiler these circumstances, and satisfy yourself
with regard thereto before taking the extreme step of seizing or detaining any vessel.

On capture, it will be desirable to take part of the foreign crew aboard the vessel under
your command, and place some of your own ei-ew, as a measure of precaution, on board the
seized vessel ; first lowering the foreign flag borne at the time of capture. If your ordinary,
complement of men does not admit of this being dune, or if becau«o of several seizures the
number of your hands might be too much reduced, you will in such omergency endeavour to
engage a few trustworthy men . The portion of foreign crew taken on board the Oovemmeni
Vessel you will land at the nearest place where a Consul of the United States is situated,or
where the readiest conveyance to any American Consulate in Canada may be reached, and
leave them there.

When any of Her Majesty's vessels about the fishing stations or in port are met with,
you should, if circumstances permit, go on board and confer with the Naval Commander, and
receive any suggestions he may feel disposed to give, which do not conflict with these ins-
tructions, and afford him any information you may possess about the movements of foreign
craft ; also inform him what vessels you have accosted and where.

Do not fail to make a full entry of all circumstances connected with foreign fishing
vessels, noting their names, tonnage, ownership, crew, port, place of fishing, cargo, voyage,
and destination, and (if ascertainable) their catch. Report your proceedings as often as
possible, and keep the Department fully advised Dn every opportimity, where instructions
would most probably reach you at stated intervals.

Directions as to the stations and limits on which you are to cmise, and any further
instructions that may be deemed necessary, wilt from time to time be Qonveyed to you.

Considerable inconvenience is caused by Canadian fishing vessels neglecting to show
itheir colours. You will draw the attention of masters to this fact, and request them to hoist
[their colours without requmng to be hailo>l and boarded.

It cannot be too strongly urged upon you, nor can yr.u too earnestly impress upon the
fficers and crew under your command, that the service in which you and they are engaged
bould bo performed with forbearance and discrimination.

The Government relies on your prudence, discretion and firmness in the performance a€
e special duties entrusted to you.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sd.) GEOKGE E. FOSTER,

Ministir of Marine and Fisheries.

[Eacloiure No; 2,]
WARNING.— TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

The Government of the United States having by notice terminated Articles 18 to 25^
oth inclusive, and Article 30, known as the fishery Articles of the Washington Treaty,
littention is called to the followihg provision of the Convention between the United States
pd Great Britain, signed at London, on the 20th October, 1818 : —

Article 1st. "Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the
tJnited States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays,
larbours and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, it is agreed between
the high contracting parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have, forever,
[n common with the subjects of His'Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on.
that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Kay to the Rameaa

1,1

Islanda, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Rav to thd
Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and iiUo on the coasts, bays, harbou
and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the StraitJ
of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, howeverl
to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and that the American tisherl
men shall also have liberty, forevet, to dry and cure Ksh m any of the unsettled bays, harbourl
and creeks of the southern part of'tho coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and ol
the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, il
shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, with!
out previous agreement for such purpose, with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors ol
the ground." f

"And the United Stat'^s hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed oij
claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or cure fikh, on or within three marine mile
of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in Amcricaj
not included within the above mentioned limits; provided, however, that the America
fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and i
repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other puij
pose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevenl
their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any manner whatever abusing the privilegei
hereby reserved to them."

Attention is also called to the following provisions of the Act of the Parliament of Cana
Cap. 61, of the Acts of 1868, intituled : " An Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels."

2nd. " Any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's Navy, serving on board of any vesse]
of Her Majesty's Navy, cruising and being in the waters of Canada for purpose of atfordir
protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries, or any commissioned officer (
Her Mtyesty's Navy, Fishery Officer, or Stipendiary Magistrate on board of any vessel belong!
ing to or in the service of the Government of Canada and employed in the service of protect]
ing the fisheries or any officer of the Customs of Canada, She rifif", Magistrate orrtherperso
duly commissioned tor that purpose, may go on board oi any i'hip, vessel or boat, within anJ
harbour in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of th
coasts, bays, creek or harbours in Canada, and stay on board so long as she may rema
within such place or distance."

3rd. " If such ship, vessel or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within shcI
harbour, or so hovering for twenty-four hours after the Master shall have been required I
depart, any one of such officers or persons as are above montioned may bring such shiji
vessel or boat into port an search her cargo, and may also examine the Master upon oati!
touching the cargo and voyage ; and if the Master or person in command shall not trull
answer the questions put to him in such examination, he shall forfeit four hundred dollars!
and if such ship, vessel or boat be foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of th
United Kingdom or of Canada, and have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to hayj
been fishing (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creek
or harbours of Canada, not included within the above mentioned limits, without a license, (
after the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to such ship, vessel c
boat, under the first section of this Act. such ship, vessel or boat, and the tackle, riggii
apparel, furniture, stores and cargo thereof shall be forfeited."

4th. " All goods, ships, vessels and boats, and the tackln, rigging, apparel, furnitu
stores and cargo liable to forfeiture under this Act. may be seized and secured by anl
officers or persons mentioned in the second section of this Act ; and every person opposinl
any officer or person in the execution of his duty under this Act, or aiding or abetting an]
oilier person in any opposition, shall forfeit eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of I
misdemeanor, and upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding tn
years."

Therefore be it known, that by virtue of the Treaty Provisions and Act of Parliamenj
above recited, all foreign vessels, or boats, are forbidden from fishing or taking fish by ;
means whatever within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks and harbors i
Canada, or to enter such bays, harbors and creeks, except for the purpose of shelter and i
repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other pil
pose whatever j of all of which you will take notice and govern yourself accordingly.

DbPABTMRNT 01' FiSaBRIES,

Ottawa, 5th March, 1886.

(Sd.) GEOR(JE E. FOSTER,

Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

■Circular No. 371.

[GncloBure No. 3.]
Cd.stoms Departmknt,

Ottawa, 7th May, 1S86.

Sir,— The Government of tho United States having by notice terminated Articles IS to
T), both inclusive, and Arficlo 30, known as the Fishery Articles of the Washington Treaty,
Attention is cai.ad to the following provision of the Convention between the United States
(and Great Britain, siijned at London, on the "iUth October, 181H ; —

Article Ist. " VVhereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the
lited States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry and cure lish, on certain coasts, bays,
harbours and creeks, of His Britannic MHJesty's Domini m, in America, it is agreed between the
[ligh Contracting Parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States stiall have, forever,
, common with tho sub.jects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take tish of every kind
Ion that part of tho Southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Bay to the
IRamcau Island, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape
iRay to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
Ibays, harbours and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through
Ithe Straits of Belie Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without preju-
[dice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and that the
I Aiiierican fishermen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unset-
Itled bays, harbours and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland here above
I described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof,
Ishall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fi»<h at such por-
Ition so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose, with the inhabitants, pro-
Iprietors, or possessors of the ground."

"And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or
Iclnimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry or cure fish, on or within three marine miles,
lof any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America,
■not included within the above mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American
■fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours, for the purpose of shelter and of
Irepaiiing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water and for no other pur-
I pose whatever. But fhey shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent
Itheir taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any manner whatever abusing the privileges
I hereby reserved to them."

Attention is also called to the following provisions of the Act of the Parliament of
ICanada. Cap. 61, of the Acts of 18G8, intituled: "An Act respecting fishing by foreign
1 vessels."

2nd. " Any commissioned officer of Her Ma,jesty's Navy, serving on board of any vessel
lof Her Majesty's Navy, cruising and being in the waters of Canada for the purpose of affording
Iprotection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries, or any commissioned officer of
I Her Majesty's Navy, Fishery Officer, or Stipendiary Magistrate on board of any vessel
I belonging to or in the service of the Government of Canada and employed in the service ol
[protecting the fisheries or any officer of tho Customs of Canada, Sheriff, Magistrate or other
1 person duly commissioned for that purpose, may goon board of any ship, vessel or boat,
I within any harbour in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within thr^e marine miles of any
lof tho coasts, bays, creek or harbours in Canada, and stay on board so long as she may remain
|within such place or distance."

3rd. "If such ship, vessel or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such
I harbour, or so hovering for twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to
Idepart, any one of such officers or persons as are above mentioned may bring such ship,
Ivessel or boat into port and search her cargo, and may also examine the master upon oath
Itouching the cargo and voyage ; and if the master or person in command shall not truly
ianswer the questions put to him iu such examination, he shall forfeit four hundred dollars ;
land if such ship, vessel or boat be foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the
lUnited Kingdom or of Canada, and have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have
|been fishing (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or
aarbours of Canada, not included within the above mentioned limits, without a license, or after
the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to such ship, vessel or boat
inder the first section of this Act, such ship, vessel or boat, and the tackle, rigging, apparel,
furniture, stores and cargo thereof shall be forfeited."

4th. " All goods, ships, vessels and boats, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture,
ptores and cargo liable to forfeiture under this Act, may be seized and secured by any officers^
or persona mentioned in the second section of this Act; and every person opposing any officer
or person in the execution of his duty under this Act, or aiding or abetting any other person
in any opposition, shall forfeit eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
und upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

Having reference to thn above, you are requested to furnish any foreign fishing veBseliJ
bouts or fishermen found within three marine miles of the shore, within your <hstrict, forothel
purpoix^s than thoseof shelter and of repairing damages, of purch<sing wood and ofobtainin|
water, with a printed copy of the warning encloaecl herewith. Jf such vessel or boal
is found fishing, preparing to fish, or violating the provisions of the Convention (
ISIS, by shipping men or supplies or trading, or if hovering within the three-miij
limit, does not depart within twenty-four hours after receiving such warning, ya
will place an otHoer on board of such vessel, aud at onco telegraph the iaots to thtj
Fisheries Department at Ottawa, and await instructions.

(Sd.) J. JOHNSON,

Commissioner of Cu stoma.

Enrloeare
No. 'J 1 f
No. 33.'

[Encloiure No. 4-]

APPENDIX TO CIRCULAR NO. 371.

Customs Dkpautmkxt, Ottawa, July 12th, 1886.

Sir, — In order to avoid any misinterpretation of the concluding paragriiph of my ciroula
No. 371, dated 7th May last, you will substitute the following therelor : —

If any fishing vessel or boatof the United States is found fishing, or to have been fishind
■or (o be preparing to fiih, within three marine miles of the shore within your district, yoij
will please place an officer in charge thereof, and at onco telegraph the facts to the Fisheriei
Department at Ottawa and await instructions. I

To any ioieign fishing vessels, boats or fishermen who may come within three marini
miles of the shore of your district (but not fishing, preparing to fish, or having fished withii
such limit) you are requested to furnish a copy of the " VVaming," and if any su'jh vessel o
boat shall not depart, withm twenty-four hours after receiving such " Warning," even thouji
such vessel or boat is not engaged in fishing, preparing to fish, or having fished within tlf
three-mile limit, you will place an cfficer in charge thereof, and at once telegraph the facts i
before mentioned ; or if it be ascertained, subsequently to serving the " Warning," that anil
vei>sel or boat served therewith, has been fishing or preparing to tish before or after sucl|
service, you are not to allow the twenty-four hours to expire, but put an officer on board
once and act as directed.

(Sd.) J. JOHNSON,

Commisdioner of Oustoma.

No. 34.

SlB,-

Enc No. 2
of No. 29.

Governor General to Minister at Washington.

Ottawa, 25 .h March, 188S.

-I bavo the honoar to aoknowledgo the receii)t of your dospatoh No. 23 ol

the 20th March, relating to the i-<euing of notieeB to American and CaniT

dian fidhermen an to their exolasioa from fishing in the territorial waten

now olosod to them by the expiration of the Fishery Artiolea ol the Treatjj

of WaBfaington.

The warning of which reference is made in the newspaper extract enclo<ied \i

that despatch is no doabt that of which I now forward a copy herewith for your h

formation. j

It will be within yoar knowledge that in 1870, a oircalar dated May 16, of thij

year, calling the attention of Amorican fishermen to the restrictions imposed bl

Article I of the Convention of 18 IS, and to the Canadian Statates affdotingthJ

inshore fisheries of the Dominion, was issued by the United States Goveramant, anl

I am glai to learn fr3m your despatch that the Secretary of State has now ander hi

consideration the propriety of iasaing a similar notice. f

I take this opportunity of acqaainting yon that the Fisheries Department hM

issaed instractions, of which a copy is also enclosed for the goidance i

of No. 33! ^^ officers employed ia the protection of the inshore fisheries of thij

coantry.

Ill

;n fishing venselij
ir district, for otiiel
(I and of obtainini
Hiicli vogaei or boij^
tho Convention (
ihin the three-milj
aiicti warning, yo
oil the iaots to the|

INSON,

er of Oualoma,

Tou will obsnrva that these oflSoors while direotod 1o tnho till neceHsaiy stepn for
Imnintiiining the Treaty rights of the Domiaion are Hpooially instructed to perform
Itbo tiutiod ontruiitud to tbom with forbearance and di8orimin:itioo.

I have, &o.

Sib Lionel S. SAoicviLtu Wkbt, K.O.M.G.

(Sd.)

LANSDOWN.B.

jly 12th, 1886.
aph of my ciroulti

liave been fiahiiifl^
your distriot, yoJ
its to the Fisheria

[thin three marinJ
hving fished withif
any swih vessel o
ing," even thoug
fished within tb
'graph the facts i
Earning," that anJ
I fore or after suctf
ifficer on board

)IINSON,

er of Ouatoma.

farch, 1886.
spatoh No. 23 ol
irioan and CaniT
erritorial wat
ties of the Treat!

raot enclosed \\
nih. for your iii[

May 16, of thij
ions imposed b|
to) affdoting tiiij
overamaat, an
3 now ander hij

Department

the gaidance i

fisheries of thf

No. 35.
Qovernor General to Minister at Washington.

I [No. 29.] Ottawa, 27th March, 1886.

Sir,— 1 had tho honour of receiving from you a despatch No. 20, dated 19th
March, I8^f), onclobing cojiy of u memo, handed by you to tho Secretary of State.
I and describing the position of my Goveriiment under the Treaty of 1818, in regard
to the inshoie fisheries of tho Dominion, and I had tho honour, on the 24th instant, of
acknowledging receipt of that despatch and of informing you that the memorandum
was in accordance with tho views of my Government.

I urderstand from your despatch above referred to that after calling Mr.
Baynrd's attention to tho Canadian statutes affecting this question, and more
especially to the Act 31 Vic, cap. 61, under which the Governor is empowered to
grant licenses to foreign vcpsoIs for a period not exceeding one year to fish within
three marine railos of tho coastp, bays, creeks or harbours of Canada not included in
the limits oified in Article I of the Convention of 1818, you suggested to Mr.
Bayard 1 all danger of friction might perhaps be avoided if it was clearly under-

stood th.. uLmerican vessel would be allowed to fish in Canadian waters within
the three mile limit without a licenee."

A statement to the above effect might possibly bo interpreted 'm a suggestion
on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the system of granting licenses which
obtained between the expiration of tho Beciprocity Treaty of 1854 and tho beginning '
of tho year 1870 should bo again resorted to, and I therefore take this opportunity of
making you aware that in tho opinio, of my Government it would not be desirable
that any such suggestion should be made.

It will be within your knowledge that while these licenses were taken out by a
considerable number of American fishermen in tho first two years during which the
system of issuing licenses was in existence the practice of applying for them was
almost entirely discontinued by American fishermen, although it was notorious that
largo numbers of their vessels frequented Canadian waters. The failure of the sys-
tem was so complete and tho embarrassmer t which it occasioned so serious that it
was terminated by an Order in Council of the Dominion Government, dated 8th
January, 1870, under which it was decided "that the system of granting licenses to
foreign vessels under tho Act 31 Vic, cap. 61, be discontinued and that henceforth
foreign fishermen be not permitted to fish in the waters of Canada."

It was in consequence of this decision on tho part of the Dominion Government
that Mr. Boulwell's circular dated 16th May, 1870, was issued for the purpose of
notifying to American fishermen the effect in regard to the inshore fisheries of tho
Dominion of the Convention of 1818 and tho Canadian Act of 1868 respecting fishing
by foreign vessels.

It would under the above circumstances clearly be undesirable that anything
should be said which might produce on Mr. Bayard's mind the impression that it was
now open to American fiahormen to avail themselves of fishing licenses similar ta
166-3

tho^e issaed botwoon IStiii and 1861*, or that a renewal of the system in force between
those yoarH would bo acceptable to my Government.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
The Hononrab'e mN

Sir Lionel S. Saokvillb West, K.O.M.G.,

&o., &e., Sk. ;^Ves

No. 36.
Governor General to Earl Granville.

Ottawa, 29th March, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — In reference to my despatch of the 24th March, for-
warding a copy of Sir Lionel West's despatch So. 20, of the 19lh instant, I
have the hononr to enclose herewith copy of a further doHpatch, No. 29,
No. 35. which I addressed on the 27th to Sir Lionel West, defining with moro
precision the position of my Government in regard to Clause I of the Act
of 1868, .SI Yio., cap. 61, under which power is taken to grant licenses to
foreign fishing vessels frequenting the territorial waters of the Dominion.
Although the terms of the memorandum handed to Mr. Bayard by Sir L. West,
and enclosed to me in his despatch above referred to, were strictly in accordance
with the views of my Government, it appeared to me that the concluding portion of |
the despatch enclosing the memorandum was so worded as to leave the impression i
that in Sir Lionel West's belief it was still open to American fishermen, at any j
moment, to apply for and obtain licenses to use the inshore fisheries of the Dominion.
Your Lordship is fully aware of the circumstances under which the issue off
these licenses was discontinued by the Dominion Government in 18V0, and I thought^
it desir.ible to explain to Sir L. West that, at the present time, my Government -:
would not be disposed to depart from the decision at which it then arrived, or as at i
present advised, to regard with favour any suggestion for a return to the practice of|
granting licenses.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

The Bight Honourable

Earl Granville, K.G.

No. ST.
From Minister at Washington to Governor General.
[No. 30.1 Washington, 29th March, 1886.

My Loud, — I have the honour to inform Tour Excellency that the American!
Consul General at Halifax is reported to have argued that there is nothing in thei
treaty of 1818 to prevent Americans having caught fish in deep water and cured!
Ihcm from landing them in a mai*ketablo condition at any Canadian port and tran-j
shipping them in bond to the United States, either by rail or vessel, and that more-l
over a reiugal to permit the transportation would be a violation to the generali
bonding arrangement between the two countries.

I have, Ac.,

(Sd.) L. S. SAOKVILLB WEST.

His Excellency

The Governor Ginsbal.

in force between <

No. 38. '

JiSini&ter at Washington to Governor General.

[No. 32.] Washington, 30th March, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Toar Ezoelleacy's
lespatch No. 28, of the 25th instant, forwarding to me a copy of the " Warning"
pd of the in^truotions iasaed by the Department ot Fisheries in conseqaence of the
armination of the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLB WEST.

His Excellency

The Goternor General.

No. 39.

Governor General to Earl Granville.

Canada, Government House,
[No. 33.] Ottawa, 30lh March, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose herewith a certified copy of a report of
3C Committee of the Privy Council approved by me to-day recommending that a
opy of the Order in Council passed on the 3rd instant, authorizing the establishment
"" a Fisheries Police Force, together with a copy of the special instructions approved
the Order in Council of the 25th instant, should be forwarded to Your Lordship
Dr the information of Her Majesty's Government.

2. The special instructions above mentioned have already been forwarded by
le for Your Lordship's information, and a copy of Order in Council of the 3rd
astant is enclosed herewith. I have now only to call your attention to the conclud-
bg passage of the Order of this day's date, in which I am requested to submit to
ter Majesty's Government the propriety of taking " such steps as are deemed neces-
fty to sustain the Canadian Fisheries Police Vessels in the full enforcement of the
revisions of the Convention of 1818."

3. I may state in explanation of the wishes of my Government, that while it
klly recognizes that the duty of enforcing police regulations affecting the fisheries
I one which belongs to the Canadian authorities, it believes that those regulations
fcn be more eflfectually enforced and will command greater respect at the hands of
koee against whom they are directed if they are supported by the presence of one

more of Her Majesty's ships.

4. The mere fact of that presence would certainly bo calculated to create the
ipression that in insisting upon its treaty rights the Dominion had the approval,
|id would, if occasion arose, command the assistance of Her Majesty'^ Government.

5. This consideration would deserve additional weight if, as is possible, the Gov-
^nment of the United States should send a ship or ships of war to cruise off the
anadian coast for the protection ot American vessels fishing in these waters.

6. I have only to add that I believed it was the case that after the expiration of
IQ Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 a similar request was made on -the part of the

sminion Government and acceded to by that ot Her Majesty.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

Che Bight Honourable
Earl Granville.

166 -3 J

[Enclosure No. 1.1
P. C. No. 506.

BiFORT of a Committee of the Honorable the Privy Council approved by His Excellency the
Governor Oeneral in Council on the 30th March, 1866.

The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries advise that for the information of Her Majesty's Government, a copy of the
Order in Council passed on the 3rd instant authorizing the establishment of a Fisheries
Police Force for the protection of the Canadian Inshore Fisheries, be transmitted'to the
Colonial Secretary, as also a copy of the special instructions, &o., approved by Order in
Council of 25th instant, to the end that having been advised of the action of the Canadian
Government, Her Majesty's Government may take such steps as are deemed necessary to sus-
tain the Canadian Fisheries Police Vessels in the full enforcement of the provisions of the
Convention of 1818.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council.

No. 40.
Governor General to Earl Granville.

[No. 92.] Ottawa, 3lBt March, 1886.

Mt Loed, — I have tl e hononr to forward herewith for your Lordehip's inform-
ation, copidB of two despatohes which I have received from Her Majesty's Minister
at Washington, relating to the issuing oi notices to American and Canadian fishermen
aatoiheir ezcluBion from fishing in the territorial waters, respectively clo&ed to
them by the expiration of ^Ka Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.

2. Your Lordehip will observe that in view of the formal notification in this
connection, given in the President's proclamation of the 3 let January, 1885, no
further action is deemed necessary by the United States Government.

3. I also forward a copy of a despatch which I have addressed to
Sir Lionel West, enclosing for his information a copy of the confidential
instructions issued by the Fisheries Department to the officers employed
in the protection of the Canadian inshore fisheries, and of the " warning "
published by the Minister in consequence of the termination of the Fishery
Articles of the Treaty of 1871. I have alreaiy sent Your Lordship copies
of these papers in my despatch of tho 25th in^ttant.

I have, &c.,
(Sd.)
The Bight Honourable

Earl Gbanyilli, E.G.,
&c., &c,, &c.

No. 34.

Bnc. No. 2
of 33.

LANSDOWNE.

No. 4i.

Mim'gter at Washington to Governor General.

[No. 33.] Washington, Slst March, 1886.

Mt Lobd,— T have the honour to acknowledge tho receipt of Your Excellency's
despatch No. 29, cf the 27th instant, informing me that any suggestion for the re-
newal of the licensing system for American Teesels fishing in Canadian waters, under
the Treaty of 1818, and which was discontinued by the Order in Council of the 8th
January, 1870, would not be acceptable to Your Excellency's Government, and that
it was clearly undesirable that anything should be said which might produce upon
Mr. Bayard's mind tho impression that it is now open to American fishermen to avail
themselves of fishing licenses similar to those issued between 1866 and 1869.

Hia Excellency the

linister of Marine
aent, a copy of the
aent of a Fisheries
transmitted'to the
roved by Order in
in of the Canadian
d necessary to sus-
> provisions of the

'. MoGEE,
Privy Council.

tfarch, 1886.

ordship's inform-
tajesty's Minister
Qadian fisbermen
itively cloeed to
hington.

;ificatioD in this
inuary, 1885, no
it.
kve addressed to

;he confidential
ffioers employed
tho "warning"
)n of the Fishery

Lordship copies

fSDOWNE.

In order therefore to prevent any misanderstanding of the position taken by the

Government of the Dominion as doaoribed in Your Ezcollenoy's above-mentioned des-

jpatch, and which your Excellency seems to think may arise from the language I

[used in conversation with Mr. Bayard, I sent to him a memorandum, copy of which

[l have the honour to enclose, based upon it and embodying the views expressed therein.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLB WEST.
His Excellency

ThB GrOVKBNOR GiNKBAL.

[BDolosare Na 1.]

mUORANDUM.

In connection with the Dominion Fisheries Act, 1868 (31 Vic, cap. 61), and the issue of
[fishery licenses under it, communication was maide to the United States Governipent in
[April, 1870, of an Order in Council of the Governor General to the followin? effect: —

*'That the system of granting licenses to foreign vessels, under the At 31 Vic, cap. 61,
be discontinued, and that henceforth all foreign fishermen be prevented from fishing in the
[waters of Canada."

In consequence of this decision the Secretary of the Treasury issued the circular of the
j 16th May, 1870, notifying to American fishevmen the effect, in regard to the inshore fisheries
[of the Dominion, of the Convention of 1818, and of the Canadian Act of 1868, respecting
1 fishing by foreign vessels. The failure of the system of licenses was so complete, and the
[embarrassment which it occasioned so serious, that the Dominion Government are, under
[present circumstances, opposed to any suggestion for its renewal, and they point out that the
[Order in Council above referred to makes it clear that it is not now open to American fisher-
men to avail themselves of fishing licenses similar to those issued between the years 1866 and
1 1869.

Washington, Slst March, 1886.

No.. 42. ; ,^

Minister at Washington to Governor General,

I [No. 34.] ' Washinqton, Slst March, 1886.

My Lobd— With reference to Mr. Boutwell's circular of iO'th May, 1870, alladed
[to in Your ExoelleDcy,8 Despatch Ne. 29 of the 27ih instant, I have the honour to
[request Your Excellency to inform mo whether Mr. Mitchell's report, dated Ottawa,
|31st May, 1870, pointing out cortain errors therein, is maintained by Your Excel>
[lency's Government.

I have, &o.,
(Sd.>
His Excellency

The GoV£RNOb General. t

L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

arch, 1886.

ar Excellency's
stion for the re-
D waters, under
ncil of the 8th
ment, and that
t produce upon
lermen to avail
1869.

No. 43.

Governor General to Earl Granville.

|[No. 107 ] Ottawa, 6lh April, 1886.

Mr Lord, — I have tho honour to enclose herewith copy of an
approved Report of the Privy Council upon a despatch which I received'
No. 37. 00 the 2nd instant, from Her (Majesty's Minister at Washington (and
of which a copy is herewith enclosed) informing mo that the United
States Consul General at Halifax, was reported to have argued that
under the Convention of 1818 it was open to American fishermen to land,

cured in a marketable oondition fish, which had been caught outside the three-mile
limit, at any Canadian port, and to tranship the same in bood to the United States
by rail or vessel, and that any refusal to permit such transhipment would be a viola-
tion of the general bonding arrangement between the two countries.

It does not appear from Sir L. West's despatch that this statement was mad«i
officially, or that it has been supported by the Government of the United States. Aaf
however, the matter is one to which farther reference may be made, it is desirable!
that the views of my Government in regard to it should be placed on record.

The report of the Privy Council contains an explanation of the reasons for which,!
it is believed that under the terms of the Convention, American fishermen are abso-
lutely excluded from admission to Canadian bays or harbours, except for the purposes
of shelter and repairing damages therein, or of purchasing wood and obtaining water,

The arrangements in force between the two countries for the transhipment of
goods in bond, arrangements which depend in the main upon the Customs laws of
of the two countries cannot therefore oe regarded as in any sense restricting the
operation of the Convention. It should, moreover, be remembered that these bonding
arrangements are the same as those which obtained between the two countries
after the expiration of the Beciprocity Treaty of 185i, and I am not aware that
between that date and the date of the Treaty of l&Tl, any claims such as those now
made by the Consul General at Halifax, were preferred on the part of the United
States Government.

Your Lordship will, however, clearly understand that although it is thought
necessary to enforce strictly against American fishing vessels, a restriction which
was framed with the express purpose of aflfording protection to the fisheries of the
British Colonies, that restriction would not be applicable to vessels not themselves
engaged in fiahing, buti visiting Canadian ports in the ordinary coarse of trade.

, I have, &c.,

The Eight Honourable
Earl Gbanville.

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNE.

[Bnclosnre So. 1,]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council Jor Canada, approved by His
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the &th Apr.il, Jfe86.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch, dated the i
£9th March, 1886, from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, informing Your Excellency '5
that the United States' Consul General at Halifax was reported to have argued that there is
nothing in the Convention of 1818 to prevent .Americans, having caught fish in deep water
and cured them, from landing them in a marketable condition at any Canadian port and tran-
shipping them in bond to the Uniteil States either by rail or vessel, and that any refusal to
permit such transhipment would be a violation of the general bonding arrangement between
the two countries. ; "T"

The Sub-Committee to whom the despatch in question was referred report that if the
contention of the United States' Consul at Halifax is made in relation to American fishing-
vessels, it is inconsistent with the Convention of 1818.

That they are of opinion, from the language of that Convention — " Provided, however,
that the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbours for the
purposes of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining
water and for no other purpose whatever " — that, under the terms of the Convention, United
States' fishermen may properly be precluded from entering any harbour of the Dominion for
the purpose of transhipping cargoes, and that it is not material to the question tiiot su3h
fishermen may have been engaged in fishing outside of the " 3-mile limit " exclusively, or
that the fish which they may desire to have transhipped have been taken outside of such
limit.

That to deny the right '^' '-. anshipment would not be ' a violation of the general bonding
arrangement between the t\ ^ jountries.

tside the three-mile
the United States :
nt would be a violaf^
pies. ■

itatement was madei

United States. Aa >
lade, it is desirable]
id on record,
tie reasons for which, ^
fishermen are abso-?
cept for the purposes
and obtaining water,
he transhipment of
te Cnstoms laws of ]
enso restricting the
)d that tbese bonding

1 the two countries
am not aware that
I such as those noir
part of the United

ough it is thought
a restriction which
the fiaheries of the
sels not themselves
mrse of trade.

[jANSDOWNE.

ida, approved by His
il, Jb86.

despatch, dated the
ng Your Excellency '
argued that there is
it fish in deep water
adian port and tran- .
that any refusal to
•rangement between

report that if the
to American fishing-

I Provided, however,
3r harbours for the
1, and of obtaining
Convention, United
J)f the Dominion for
I question tuot sush
lit " exclusively, or
outside of such

le general bonding

IK-That no bonding arrangement has been made which, to any extent, limits the operation
'the Convention of 1818, and, inasmuch as the right to hare access to the ports of what is
)w the Dominion of Canada for rll other purposes than those named, is explicitly renounced
J the Convention, it cannot with propriety be contended that the enforcement of the
tipulation above cited is contrary to the general provisions upon which intercourse ia con-
lucted between the two countries.

Such exclusion could not, of course, be enforced against United States' vessels not
igaged in fishing.

The Sub-Committee in stating this opinion are not immindful of the fact that the
Bponsibility of determining what is the true interpretation of a Trfiaty or Convention mad&
'Her Majesty must remain with Her Majesty's Government, but in view of the necessity of
otecting to the fullest extent the inshore fisheries of the Dominion according to the strict
^rms of the Convention of 1818. and in view of the failure of the United States' Government
accede to any arrangements for the mutual use of the insore fisheries, theSub-Committee
^commend that the claim which is reported to have been set up by the United States'
[)nsul-(j(?n«ral at Halifax be resisted

The Committee concur in the foregoing Beport and Recommendation, and they respect-
klly submit the same for your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council for Canada,

No. 44.
Minister at Waihiagtm to Governor General.

Washington, 6th April, 1886.

-I have the honour to enclose Your Excellency herewith a pr^cii of a de-
ate in the Senate on the fisheries question. The resolutions in the House of Represent-
lives will be found in the Oongtessional Record (ITo. 83, pp. 3134 and debate 3157.)

I have, &c.,
(Sd.-) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST,

tis Bxcelloncy

The Govbrnor Genebal.

<o. ST.]
My Lord,-

[Bnclosure No. 1.]
LOOKING TO WAR.

|kitisii Ckuiseus to Prey Upon American Fishing Vessels — ^Gravh Questions op Inter

NATIONAL Law.

During the debate in the Senate yesterday upon the Logan Bill to increase the efficiency

■ the array, Mr. Frye disgressed to the subject of his resolution in relation to the fisheries.

le regarded it as very important that that matter should be discussed and settled. It

polved a matter, he said, that looked to war. He read resolutions of a fishing association, at

Jrtland, Me , praying that the American Government send armed vessels to the fishing

aunds to protect our fishing vessels, inasmuch as the Canadian government had forbidden

lerican fishing vessels to enter Canadian ports, for any purpose except the merest purposes

shelter.

The minister of marine of Canada. Mr. Frye said, had issued a proclamation that no
lerican vj'ssel should be permitted to enter Canadian ports for the purpose of buying bait
shipping crews or landing fish for transportation across Canadian territory to places in
ke United States, and he understood that the Canadian government had fitted out their
ruisers to prevent A>uerican fishing vessels from entering Canadian waters. Mr. Frye read
Vo recent telegrams from the Slate Department, one asserting this right of Cana<lian vessels,
ad the other, dated the same day, saying the Department was just informed that American
^hing vessels could only enter Canadian ports for shelter, or to repair damages. &c.

The State Department, Mr. Frye said, needed fui :her education. Fie declared that we
id a perfect right to enter Canadian ports for any purpose we pleased, except piracy. We

■ MM

were not relegated to the Treaty of 1818, but were operating under the Treaty of 1849, and
the proolamations issued thereunder. Our ships ooold go into Canadian ports to buy bail^ or
ship orewd, or get ice, or flour just as Canadian vessels were to-day doing that very thing in
Portland and Glouoeater harbours, yet British oruiaers were to prey on American fishing veaselk
as they had been preying on them for fifty years. Mr. Frye was only waiting for a single
American vessel to be seized, then he proposed to introduoe a Bill of lesa than ten lines I
closing the ports of the United States against all British colonial fishing, fireighting and I
passenger vessels all along the line of the great lakes and the Atlantio ooaat, and we would I
then see how long Canada would carry on this operation that she had now entered oa |
To<lay, Mr. Frye said, he will move to take up his naheries resolution.

Mr. Morgan expressed his surprise that a discussion of the fisheries should be interjected i
into a discusainn of the military Bill. He supposed Mr. Frye thought this a good opportunity |
to express hip, belligerent views. The question involved, Mr. Morgan said, was one of oom-r
meroe and was capable of being handled without the intervention of an army or navy either. I
It involved grave questions of international law. He (Mr. Morgan) would avail himself of [
every power within the reach of theOovemment to maintain the slightest right of any I
American citizen against foreign interference. His views on the general topic coincided I
with those of Mr. Frye, but what was wanted was serious consideration after full information,]
which we did not have now. Mr. Morgan said he would endeavour to inform himself as to I
the position of the question, to ascertain whether there were any new facts of so alarming a j
character as to warrant the prognostications regarding the seizure of vessels indulged in by |
the Se&auor from Maine.

IN THE HOUSB.

Mr. Dingley, of Maine, introduced a resolution requ()sting the President to furnish thel
House with any information in his possession relative to the exclusion of American fishingl
vessels from the right to enter ports of entry of the Dominion of Canada for the purpose oil
trading, purchasing supplies, or loading fish caught in deep water for shipment in bond to thel
United States, or doing other acts which Canadian and other British vessels are freelyl
permitted to do in ports of the United States, and also to inform the House what atepa havel
been taken or are proposed to bring such unwarrantable acts of the Dominion authorities to|
the attention of the British Government.

Mo. 45.
Governor General to Minis' er at Washington.

[No. 43.] Ottawa, 7th April, 1886.

Sir,— I caused to bo referred to my Government your despatch No. 30, of thel
29tb March, in which you informed me that the United Statea Consul General atl
Halifax was reported to have agued that there was nothing io the Convention ofl
1818 to prevent American fiahermen from landing at any Canadian port, cured andl
in a marketable condition, fish which bad been caught by them outside the territorf
ial waters of this country and transhipping the same in bond to the United Slatesi
by rail or otherwise, and that any refusal to permit each transportation would be il
violation of the general bonding arrangements existing between the two countrieflj
1 have now the honour to forward herewith fur your informationl
copies of an approved report of a Commitle of the Privy Council setting
forth the views of my Government upon the point raised by the GonBa
General and of a despatch which Ibave sent to Earl Granville on the samil
subject.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Honourable

Sib Saokvillk Wkst,
Washington.

No. 43 and
Snc. No. I
of No. 43.

No. 46.
Governor General to Earl Granville.

Ottawa, 7th April, 188«.

Mr Lord, — Id continnatioD of my despatch of the 29th altimo, rolatin^; to the
I matter of lioenses to foreign vessels to fish ia Canadian territorial waters, I have the
honour to forward herewith for Your Lordship's information, a

i Ni*iofNS!4i?''°°Pyo^*<*®**P*to**^'»io'» ^ J^*^® received from Sir L. 8. West,
enclosing a memorandum upon the subject referred to whioh he
I has banded to Mr. Bayard.

I have, &c.,

The Bight Honourable

Earl Grantilli.

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNB.

li(Or 47.

Governor General to Earl Grmville, K.G.

|(No. 109] Ottawa, 7th April, 1886.

Mr Lord,— I have the honour to for«7ard herewith for Your Lordship's informa-
. tion, extracts from the debates of the Dominion House of Gonmons

iut A^i^isas,' containing a report of a debate on a motion of the Honorable Peter Mit-
|p»ge 481. ' ohell in reference to the Fisheries Police Force of Canada.

It (fill be within your knowledge .that Mr. Mitchell was Dominion Minister of
iHariue and Fisheries between the years 1867 and 1874.

Dhe Right Honourable
Earl Granvillb.

I have, &o.,
(Sd.)

lansdownb.

No. 48.
Governor General to Earl Granville, K.G.

[No. 115.] Ottawa, 10th April, 1886.

Mr Lord, — I have the honour to forvrard herewith for Your Lordship's informa>
No. 44. tion, a copy of a despatch which I have received from Her Majesty's
Ponal Record!" Minister at Washington, enclosing a Precis of a Debate in the idenato
on the Fisheries question.
I also enclose, for convenience of reference, extracts from the Congressional
{ecurd containing the Resolutions mentioaol in Sir L. West's despatch.

I have communicated Sir L. West's despatch an^l its enclosure to my Ministers
|for their information.

I have, &o.,

rho Right Honourable
Earl Gbanvillb.

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNB.

No. 49.

From Minister at Washington to Oovernor General,

[No. 39.] Washington, 13th April, 1886.

Mr LoRD,--I have the honor to enolosa to Your Exoellonoy, herewith, copy of I
a resolution submitted to the Hoaee of Bepresentatives on the Canadian Fishing
regalations.

I have, &o,,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKYILLB WBSr.
His Ezcollenoy

The Govcrnor General .

rBncloBure No. 1;]
CANADIAN FISHING REGULATIONS.

Aprils, 1886. — Beferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed.]

Mr. DiNOLEY submitted the following
RESOLUTION :

Whereas the Minister of Marine of the Dominion of Canada has issued a proclamation!
directing the enforcement of an Act of the Dominion Parliament which prohibits any fishing!
vessels of the United States from entering any Dominion harbour except for the purpose of|
shelter, repairing damages, and purchasing wood.and obtaining water ; and

Whereas press despatches announcie that, imder this proclamation. Dominion o£Scera havel
denied to fishing vessels of the United States the right to enter ports of entry in said I
Dominion for the purpose of purchasing supplies, or landing fish caught in deep water fori
shipment in bond to the United States, or doing other acts which Canadian and other!
British vessels are freely permitted to do in ports of the United States ; and I

Whereas these acts of the authorities of the Dominion of Canada are in contravention ofl
the principles which regulate the intercourse of friendly civilized nations, and in direct
conflict with a legislative arrangement between the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain, which went into effect the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty, by
which Great Britain in view of similar privileges conditionally conceded to her vessels by tlww
United States, placed the vessels of the United States on the same footing in British portsJ
including British colonies, as that on which British vessels are placed in the ports of the|
United !?tate8, the coasting trade only excepted : Therefore,

Resolved, 'I'hat the President be requested to furnish the House, if compatible with thej
public interests, with any information in his possession relative to the exclusion of American!
fishing vessels Jrom the right to enter ports of entry of the Dominion of Canada for the pur-l

Kse of trading, purchasing supplies, or landing fish caught in deep water for shipment isl
nd to the United States, or doing other acts which Canadian and other British vessels are!
freely permitted to do in ports of the United States; and also to inform the House what!
steps have been taken or are proposed to bring such unwarrantable and unfriendly acts ofj
the Dominion anthorities to the attention of the British Government.

No. 50.

Governor General to Minister at Washington.

[No. 43.] Ottavta, 20th April, 1886.

Pia,— In reply to your despatch No. ri4, of tho 31st March last, apking to be
informed whether Mr. Mitchell's report of the Slst May, 1870, pointing out coituio
erroiH in Mr. Boutwell's circular of 16th May, 1870, is maintained by my Govern
luent, 1 have the honour to enclose herewith for your information a copy of an

ed to be printed.

approved report of a Committee of the Privy Ooanoil containing the views of my
Government upon the point referred to.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LA.NSDOWNB.

rhe HoDOorable

Sir L. S. Saokvillk West, E.C.M.G.,
&o.f &o., &o.

C. No. 132 O.

[Bnolosare No. 1.]

Jepobt of a CommiUee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by Hia Excellency ih$
Oovemor Oeneral in Council on the \bth April, 1886.

The Conunittee of the Privy Council have had under coneideration a despatch dated
tlst March, 1886, from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington requesting information as to
whether Mr. Mitchell's report dated Ottawa, Slst May, 1870, pointing out certain errors in Mr.
~ Dutwell's circular of 16th May, 1870, is maintained by Your Excellency's Qovernment.

The Minister of Marino and Fisheries to whom the despatch was referred submits that
Ihe above mentioned report of Mr. Mitchell was approved by His Excellency in Council, 7 th
Tune, 1870, and that a further memorandum upon the same subject and to the same effecty
kas, on the 14th June, 1870, submitted and approved by Ills Excellency in Council on lat
ruly,1870.

I The Committee recommend that Tour Excellency bo moved to inform Sir Lionel Sack-
jille West that the views expressed in the Orders in Council referred to, are those still held
Vy the Canadian Government, and the assurance is repeated that this Government has no ■
Qtention of interfering in any way with the rights guaranteed to United States ilihermen
rithin the limits laid down by the Convention of 1818.

The Committee respe'Hfully submit the same for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

derlt, Privy Council.

No. ftl.

Governor Qentral to Earl Granville, K. G.

0. 130.] Ottawa, 20th April, I856.

My Lobd, — I have the honour to foi'ward for Tour Lordship's information a copy

, a despatch which I have received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washiugion,

king to bo informed whether my Government maintained Mr. Mitchell's report of

•le Slst May, 1870, on Mr. Boutwell'a circular of 16th May of the same year reiaung

the £sheries.

I caused Sir L. West's despatch to be referred to my Ministers for consideration
id I have the honour to enclose a copy of a despatch which 1 have addressed to Sir
J N°' 42. L. West, iorwarding for his information a copy of an approved report of
,50.°' ° * Committe of the Privy Council, embodying tiio views ot my Govern-
ment upon the point in question.

I have, &c.,

Eight Honourable

Earl Granville, K. G.

LANSDOWNE.

No. 62.

From Governor General to Sari Granville.

[No. 139.] Ottawa, 24th April, 1886.

Mt Lobd, — 1 have the hoDoar to forward herewith for your Lordship's inforraatl
lion a copy ot a despatch which I have received from Her Majesty's Mini
'*"' *^' ister at WashiDgton, enclosing copies of a Benolation sobtnitted to tht[
House of Bepresentatives on the Canadian fishing regulations.

I have caased a copy of Sir L. West's despatch and its enolosare to be oommnni<|
oated to my Ministers tor their information.

I have, &&,

(3d.) LANSDOWNB.

The Bi(;ht Honourable

BaBL GaANTILLB., K. G.

No. M:

From Miniitarat Waahington'to Governor Generah

£No. 49.] Washinoton, 29th April, 1885.

Mr Lord;— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Ezcellency'J
despatch No. 43, of the 20th instant, conveying to me the views of Your Ezceilency'i|
Government, as ezpreesed in the report of a Oommittee of the Privy CSouncil whio
accompanied it, on Mr. Mitchell's report of Slat Mfky, 1870.

I have, &o.f

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLK WEST.
His Excellency

Thi Gotibnob Gbnibal.

No. 64.

F^om Govemoi General to Earl Granville.

[No. 145.] Ottawa, Ist May, 1886.

Mt Lobd, — As I observed that some comments have been made in the Londoi^
press upon the alleged detention of an Anpierioan schooaer at Baddeck, • B., fa
violation of the fishery laws of the Dominion, it may be as well that I should sub
mit to you the following statement of the facts of the case, with which I have beeij
aapplied by my Minister of Marine and Fisheries: —

On the evening of the 22nd of April the American schooner " Joseph Storey,']
Captain J. L. Anderson, of Gloucester, Mass., anchored off the harbour of Baddeck
■On the following morning the Captain came ashore, bought some supplies, engage
a man, took him on boaiS, and sailed without reporting to the Customs' authoritie
The Collector at Baddeck, Mr. L. G. Campbell, upon this, telegraphed to the Sab
Collector at Bras d'Or, instructing him to detain the vessel, ani at the same timil
reported his own action in the matter by telegram to the Minister of Customs.

In compliance with these instructions, the Sub-Collector 'at Bras d'Or dctaine
the vessel, which proved to have clearance from St. Peter's to Aspy Bay on a tradiD||
voyage.

On the 24th of April the Minister of Castoms telegraphed to Mr. Campbell
that the vessel should oe allowed to proceed on condition that the man illegal!^
shipped should be pat on shore, the Captain being formally warned by the Collect
not to repeat the offence.

■iSi>«V<-««i'» 'V'* ' ■^"

4»

April, 1886.

rdship'a inforraa.!
ir Majesty's Mini
submitted to thif

Q to bo oommanil
NSDOWNB.

Tour Lordship vvill observe that this yessel being an American schooner had
Rendered herself liable to seiaure for violation of the Customs' law, by not reporting
rhen she touched at Baddeck, as well as of the coasting laws, by plying for trade
olweon Canadian ports. The Collector's first telegram to the Minister of Customs
ktated that she was a fiahing schooner, and on that information the telegram above
^ferred to was Eent, ordering her not to be longer detained, provided the conditions
attached were complied with. If it had been known that the case was one of trad-
jng illegally, the vessel would, without doubt, have been held for violation of the
Unstoms' law. By the time, however, when the Minister of Customs had been made
fiware of the actual facts of the case, ehe had already been released and permitted to
proceed on her voyage.

I have, &o..

rhe Bight Honourable

Earl GaANViLLs, E.G.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

I April, 1888.

oar Bzoellenoy'J
four Ezoelleooy'i|
vy CSooQcii whio'

[LLK WEST.

{Telegram.)

It May, 1886.

le in the Londoi^

addeok, • B,, foi

at I should sub

ioh I have hotd

Joseph Storey,]
lOur of Baddeck
jupplies, engage
loms' authoritie
bed to the Sub
t the same tim^
>f Customs,
as d'Or dttaine

Bay on a tradiD||

Mr. Campbell
Bie man illegally
by the CoUeob

No. 65.
Earl Granville to Lord Lansdoune.

10th May, 1886.

Telegraph as early as possible the full particulars respecting the seizure of the
' David J. Adams."

(Sd.) GRANVILLE.

No. 56.
[Telegram.)

Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville,

10th May, 1886.

The schooner " David J. Adams " was buying bait at Digby. Did not report as
i-equired by law to Collector, and concealed her name and port of registry. Is now
detained at Digby in charge of Collector, and will be tried before Yice- Admiralty
" 3urt, at Halifax, for violation of Dominion Fishery Law of 1868, for contravention
J)f Convention of 1818, and for violation of Customs Law by not reporting to Col-
lector. Question of limits oi territorial waters not raised.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

No. 61.
Jopy of teUgramfrom Sir Lionel West to Governor General,

11th May, 1886.

The conduct of Captain Scott in declining to give reasons for the seizure of the
' David J. Adams," is much deprecated by the Secretary of State. The United States
!<on8ul has been referred to your Government

(Sd.) WEST.

4»

, No. 68.

From OwemorOeneral to Earl Qranville.

Ottawa, 11th May, 1886.

Mt Lord,— 1 had the honour to eend Your Lordship yesterday a tologram giving
particulars of the detention on the 7th inst., at Digby, N S., of the United States
schooner " David J. Adams " for a breach of the Customs and Fishery Laws.

2. Your Lordship will observe that the case was one in which ihere was no
doubt that the vessel bad knowingly entered a Canadian port for an illegal purpose,
her captain having endeavoured to conceal her name and port of registry. The
evidence on this point and also the proof that she had bought bait in largo quantities
was, 1 understand, ample.

S. She had, in addition to this, violated SectionH 25 and 29 of the Customs Act
•of 1883 (46 Vic, cap. 12) having boon fully twenty-four hours in port without
reporting to the Collector of Customs.

4. In consequence of the above occurrence, Captain Scott, R. N., in command
of the Fiuhory Police Steamer •* Lansdowne," took possession of the eohoonor and
towed her to St. John, N.B. Instructions had, in the meantime, been sent to him
by tolograph. as soon as the Fishc'qs Department had been advised of the seizure, to
detain the '« David J. Adams " at Digby, it being thought best that the vessel should
bo libelled and the case tried in the Vice- Admiralty Court of the Province in which
the ofTenco had been committed. In compliance with those instructions Captain
Scott took the " David J. Adams " back to Digby, where she now remains in charge
of the Collector of Customs.

5. Proceedings will bo taken against her (1) for violation of the Customs Act 31
above referred to ; (2) for violation of the Dominion Fishevy Act 1868, 31 Vic, cap.
61 ; (3) for contravention of the piovisions of the Convention of 1818 as enacted in
the Imperial Act of 1819 (69 Geo. Ill, cap. 38).

6. No question has, in this case, arisen with regard lo the limits of the territorial
waters of the Dominion.

7. Ah yoor Lordbhip is, no doubt, aware American fishing vessels frequenting
the co&st of Canada have been in the habit of depending, to a great extent, upon
Canadian fii<hermen for their supplies of bait. It has been usual for such vessels
hailing from New England ports as soon as the supplies with which they had pro-
vided themselves on starting for their trip have become exhausted, to renew it in
Canadian waters. Such vessels, if compelled, as soon as they ran short of bnit, to
return from the Canadian banks to an American port, would lose a great part of their
fishing season and be put to considerable expense and inconvenience. Some idea of the
importance of this point may be formed from the fact that Mr. Joncas, Commissioner
to the London Fisheries Exhibition and a high authority on all matters connooled
with the fisheries of the Dominion, in a paper read before the British Association of
Jfontreal in 1884, estimates the cost of the bait used by each vessel engaged in the
ood fishing at one-fourth of the value of her catch of cod.

8. There can, however, be no doubt that under the terms of the Convention of
1818 foreign fishing vessels are absolutely precluded from resorting to Canadian
waters for the purpose uf obtaining supplies of bait, and in view of the injury which
would result to the fishing interests of the Dominion which the Convention of 1818
was manifestly intended to protect, if any facilities not expressly authorized by that
Convention were conceded to foreign fishermen, my Government will, so long as the
relations of the Dominion with the United States are regulated by the Convention,
be disposed to insist upon a strict observance of its provisions in this respect.

9. I will keep Your Lordship informed of any further ocourronca which may
take place in connection with this question.

I have, kc.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

The Eight Honourable

EABii Granville, K G., ka.

No. 59.

Copy of telegram fronx Sir L. West to Governor Otniral,

12th May, 1886.

Referring to my tolegram toyoaof yesterday, I am informed by the Secretary
of State that Captain Scott Btill deolineH to state the roaeonB why the '* David J.
Adams " was seized or held. This information is maintained by the United States
Consal to be necessary for the defence of the case.

(Sd.) WEST.

No. 60.
Copy of telegram from Governor General to Sir L, We&t,

12th May, 1886.

The " David J. Adams " will bo proocedod against on aocoant of the violation
of the Customs Law of 1833, also of the Dominion Fishery Act of 1863 and of the
Convention of 1818. Instructions to state roasous of seizure, in all oases, have been
sent to Captain Scott.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

ho territorial

No. 61.
Minister at Washington to the Governor General.

[No. 57.1 Wasuinqton, 12th May, 1886.

Ml Lord, — I havo tho honour to enclose herewith for Your Excellency's infor-
mation, copy of a note which I have received from the Secretary of State relative to
the seizure of the American iidhing vessel " David J. Adams," -and to questions
resulting therefrom.

I have, etc.,

(Sd.) L. S* SACKVILLB WEST.

His Excellency

The Marquis of Lansdowne, K.C.M.G.,
&c,, &o., &c.

LEncIosure No. 1.]
Mr. Bayard to the Minister at Washington.

Depatment of Statb,

Washinoton, 10th May, 1886.

diR, — On the 'i instant, I received from the Ckjnsul General of the United States, at
ilifax, a staten i of the seizure of an American schooner, the "Joseph Story," of Glou-
' ester, Massachusetts, by the authorities at Baddeck, Cape Breton, and her discharge after a
'"tenti' a of twenty-four hours.

Oi Saturday, the 8th instant, I received a telegram from the same official, announcing
the seizure of the American schooner " David J. Adams," of Gloucester, Massachusetts, in tBe
Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia, b 1 that the vessel had been placed in tne custody of an offioer
I ot the Canadian steamer " Lan^ viawne," and sent to St. John, New Brunswick, for trial.

As both of these seizures took place in closely land-locked harbours, no invasion of the

[territorial waters of the British PiXJvinoes, with the view of fishing there, could w"?ll be

imagined. And yet the arrests appear *.o have been based upon the act or intent of fishing

within waters as to which, under the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, between Great Britaim

and tlie Ignited States of America, the liberty of the inhabitants of the United States to fish
has been renounced.

It would be superfluous for me to dwell upon the desire which, I am sure, controlfj those
respectively charger with the administration of the Governments of Great Britain atkd the
United States to prevent occurrences tending to create exasperation and unneighbourly feel-
ing, or collision between the inhabuants of the two countries ; but animated with this senti-
ment the time seems opportune for me to submit some views for your consideration, which I
confidently hope will lead to such administration of the laws regulating the commercial
interests and the mercantile marine of the two countries as may promote good feeling and
mutual advantage, and preven'; hostiliy to commerce under the guise of protection to inshore
fisheries.

The Treaty of 1818 is between two nations, the United States of America and Gtreat
Britain, who, as the contracting parties, can alone apply authoritative interpretation thereto,
or enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation.

The discussion prior to the conclusion gf the Treaty of Washington, in 1871, was pro-
ductive of a substantial agreement between the two countries as to the existence and limit
of the three marine miles, within the line of which, upon the regions defined in the Treaty of
1818, it should not be lawful for American fishermen to take, dry or cure fish. There is no
hesitancy upon the part of the Government of the United States to proclaim such inhibition
and warn their citizens against the infraction of the treaty in thp.t regard, so that such inshore
fishing cannou lawfully be enjoyed by an American vessel being within three marine miles
of the land.

But since the date of the Treaty of ISIS, a series of laws and regulations importantly
afifecting the trade between the North American Provinces of Great Britain and the United
States have been, respectively, adopted by the two countries, a d have led to amicable and
mutually benefici il relations between their respective inhabitants.

This independent, and yet concurrent, action by the two Governments, has eflFected a
gradual extension, from time to time, of the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention of |
3rd July, 1815, providing for reciprocal liberty of commerce between the United States and
the territories of Great Britain in Europe, 30 as gradually to include the Colonial possessions
of Great Britain in North America and the West Indies, witliii' the results of that treaty.

President Jackson's Proclamation of 5th October, 1830, created a reciprocal commercial
intercourse, on terms of perfect equality of flag between this country and the British Ameri
can dp^^endencies, by repealing th? Navigation Acts of 18th April. lSi8, 15th May, 1820, and
Ist March, 1823, and admitting British vessels and their cargoes " to an entry in the ports of
the United States, from the islands, provinces and colonies of Great Britain, on or near tho
American continent, and north or east of the United States." These commercial privileges
have since received a large extension, in the interests of propinquity, and, in some cases,
favours have been granted by the United States without equivalent concession. Of tho
latter class, is the exemption granted by the Shipping Act of l.'6th June, 1SS4, amounting to
one-half of the regular tonnage dues on all vessels from the British North American and
West Indian possessions entering ports of the United States. Of the reciprocal class are
the arrangements for transit of goods and the remission by proclamation, as to certain British
porte and places, of the remainder of the tonnage tax, on evidence of equal treatment being
shown to our vessels.

On the other side, British and Colonial legislation, as notably in the case of the Imperial
Shipping and Navigation Act of 2f)th June, 1849, has contributed its share toward building up
an intimate intercourse and beneficial traffic between the two countries, founded on mutual
interest and convenience. These arrangements, so far as the United States are concerned,
denend upon municipal statute and upon the discretionary powers of the executive there-
ur.der.

The seizure of the vessels I have mentioned, and certain published warnings purporting
Uy have been issued by the colonial authorities, would appear to have been made under a
supposed delegation of jurisdiction by tho hnperi.al Government of (jreat Britain, and to be
intended to include authority to interpret and enforce the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, 1
to which, as I have remarked, the United States and Great Britain are the contracting |
parties, who can alone deal responsibly with questions arising thereunder.

The effect of this Colonial legislation and executive interinetation, if executed according i
to the letter, would be not only to exi)aiui the restrictions and renunciations of the Treaty
Of 1818, which related solely to inshore fishing within the three-mile limit, so as to ali'ect the
deep sea fisheries, the right to which remained unquestioned and unimpaired for the enjoy-
ment of the citizens of the United States, but further to diminish and practically destroy the
privileges expressly secured to American fishing vessels to visit those inshore waters for the
objects of shelter, repair of damages and purchasing wood and obtaining water.

MAi^MMHM

d States to fish

controlfi those
Britain aiid the
eiglibourly feel-
with this senti-
'ration, which I
he commercial
ood feeling and
stion to inshore

erica and G^reat
station thereto,

1871, was pre-
tence and limit
in tho Treaty of j
1. There is no
such inhibition
lat such inshore
ie marine miles

jns importantly
and the United

auiicabie and

has effected a
Convention of
ited States and
Qial possessions
that treaty.
)cal commercial
i British Ameri-

1 May, 1820, and

in the ports ot
or near tho
cial piivileges
in some cases,

ession. Of the
amounting to
American and
rocal class are

certain British

reatment being

of the Imperial
aril building up
ed on mutual
fire concerned,
cecutive there-

igs purporting
made under a
tain, and to bo
'reaty of Us 18,
le contracting

uted accordiii'-'
of the Treaty
IS to aliect the
for the enjoy-
,Uy destroy the
waters for the

Since 1818 certain important changes have taken place in fishing in tht regions in
question, which have materially modified the conditions under which the business of inshore
fishing is conducted and which must have great weight in any present administration of the
Treaty.

Drying and curing fish, for which a use of the adjacent shores was at one time requisite,

; now no longi-r Ibllowed, and modern invention of processes of artificial freezing, and the

mployment of vessels of a larger size, permit the catch and direct transportation of fish to

tho markets of the United fctates without recourse to the shores contiguous to the fishing

grounds.

The mode of taking fish inshore has also been wholly changed, and from the highest
authority on such subjects I learn that bait is no longer needed for such fishing, that purse-
seines have been substituted for the other methods of taking mackerel, and that by their
employment these fish are now readily caught in deeper waters entirely exterior to the three-
mile line.

As it is admitted that the deep-sea fishing was not under consideration in the negotia-
tion of tho Treaty of 1818, nor wa-* affected thereby, and as the use of bait for inshore fishing
has passed wholly into disuse, the reasons which may have formerly existed for refusing to
permit American fishermen to catch or procure bait within the line of a marine league from
the shore, lest they should also u se it in the same inhibited waters for the purpose of catch-
iag other fish, no k.i'jer exist.

For it will, I belitve, be conceded as a fact that bait is no longer needed to catch
herring or mackerel, which are the objects of inshore fishing, but is used, and only used, in
deep-sea fishing, and, therefore, to prevent the purchase of bait or any other supply needed
in deep-sea fishing, under colour of executing tie provisions of the Trenty d 1818, would be
to expand that convention t'> objects wholly beyond its purview, scope and intent, and give
to it an efl'ect never contemi^lated by either party, accompanied by results unjust and injuri-
ous to the citizens of the United States. As, therefore, there is no longer any inducement
for American fishermen to dry and cure fish on the interdicted coasts of the Canadian
Provincer , and as bait is no longer used or needed by them (for the prosecution of in«ihore
fishing'' in order to take fish in the inshore waters to which the Treaty of 1818 alone relates,
1 ask you to consider the results of excluding American vessels duly possessed of permits
from their own Government to touch and trade at Canadian ports, as well as to engage in
deep-sea fishing from exercising freely the same custoniaty and reasonable rights and
privileges of trade in the ports of the British Colonies as are freely allowed to British vessels
in all the j)ort3 of the United States under the laws and regulations to vhich I have
adverted.

Among these custonmry rights and privileges may he cm merated the purchase of ship
supplies of every nature, maki'jg repairs, the shipment cf crews in whole or i)art, :nid the
purchase of ice and bait for use in deep sea fishing.

Concurrently, these usual rational and convenient privileges are freely extended to and
are fully enjoyed by the Canadian merchant marine of all occupations, including fishermen,
in the ports of the United States

'ihe question therefore arises i;hether such a construction is admissible as would convert
the Treaty of 1818, from being an instrumentality for the protection of the inshore fisheries
along the described parts of the British American coast, into a pretext or means of obstruct-
ing the business of deep sea fishing by citizens of the United States, and of interrupting and
destroying the commercial intercourse that, since the Treaty of 1818 and independent of any
treaty whatever, has grown up rmd now exists under the concuirent and friendly laws and
mercantile regulations of the respective countries?

I may recall to your attention the fact that a proposition to exclude the ve^^els of the
United States engaged in fishing from carrying also merchandize was made by tUtJ British
negotiators of the Treaty of 1818, but being resisted by th<i American negotiators was
aban<loned. This fact would seem clearly to indicate that the business of fishing did not
then and does not now disqualify a vessel from also trading in tho regular ports of entry.

1 have been led to oiler those considerations by the recent seizures of American vessels
towliii-'^ 1 have adverted and by indicatii ns of a local spirit of inteipi elation in the Pipv-
inces, nft< rnng friendly intercourse, which is, I firmly believe, not warranted by the terms of
the stii)ulai.ons on which i'; professes to rest. It is not my purpose to prejudge the facts of
the oa.ses, nor have I any desire to shield any American vessel from the conso(]uence3 of
violation of iiiteinaticnal obligation. The views 1 advanced may prove not to be applicable
in every feature to those particular cases, and I should be glad if no case whatever were to
arise calling in question the good understanding of the two countries in this regard in order
to be free from the grave apprehenaions which, otherwise, I am unable to dismiss.

It would be most unfortunate and, I cannot refrain from saying, most unworthy, if tho
two nations who contracted the Treaty of 1818, should peimit any questions of mutual right
16&— 4

3 m

and duty under that cpnvention to become obscured by partisan advocacy or distorted
the beat of local interests. It cannot but be the common aim to conduct all discussion iil
this regard with dignity and in a self-respecting spirit, that will show itself intent up
securing equal justice rather than unequal advantage. Comity, courtesy and justice cannot,!
I am sure, fail to be the ruling motives and objects of discussion.

I shall be most happy to come to a distinct .ind friendly understanding with you, as tb
representative of Her £ritannic Majesty's Government, which will result in such a dennitioiS
of the rights of American fishing vessels under the Treaty of 18 18, as shall eifectually prevenil
any encroachment by them upon the territorial waters of the British Provinces, for the puil
pose of fishing within those waters, or trespassing in any way upon the littoral or marinJ
rights of the inhabitants, and at the same time prevent that convention from being impnl
perly expanded into an instrument of discord, by affecting interests and accomplishing resulin
wholly outside of and contrary to its object and intent, by allowing it to become an agenql
to interfere with, and perhaps destroy, these reciprocal commercial privileges and faciUtia
between neighbouring communities, which contribute so importantly to their peace
happiness.

It is obviously essential that the administration of the laws regulating the Canadiai
inshore fishing should not be conducted in a punitive and hostile spirit, which can only too
to induce acts of a retaliatory nature.

Everything will be done by the United States to cause their citizens, engaged in fishiDjI
to conform to the obligations of the treaty, and prevent an infraction ot the fishing laws if
the British Provinces ; but it is equally necessary that ordinary commercial interoouni|
should not be interrupted by harsh measures and unfriendly administration.

I have the honour, therefore, to invite a frank expression of your views upon the su^l
ject, believing that, should any ditterences of opinion or disagreement as to facts exist^ th«||
will be found to be so minimized that an accord can be established for the fall protection it|
the inshore fishing of the British Provinces, without obstructing the open sea fishing operatio
of the citizens of the United States, or disturbing the trade regulations now subsistial
between the countries.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 62.

Governor General to Earl Granville,

[No. 153.] Ottawa, ITth May, 1886.

My LoHD, — I have the honour to encloso herewith copies of the following pap
relating to the recent seizure of the United States Schooner " David J. Adams," foj
alleged violation of the Customs and Fishery laws.

(I.) Captain Scott's report addressed to the Minister of Fisheries.
(2.) Statement by the first officer of the Dominion cruiser "Lansdowne."
(3.) Five statements sworn before Captain Scott. (Also memo.)
I take this opportunity of observing that on tho Utb and 12th inst., I receivej
from lier Majesty's Minister at Washington telegrams informing me that it had b
made a subject of complaint by the United States Consul at Halifax that he '
unable to obtain at once from Captain, Scott in command of the Government steaDnl
" Lansdowne " a statement of the reasons for which the '♦ David J. Adams" n
detained, and that the Secretary of State deprecated Captain Scott's conduct in ti
matter. To these telegrams i sent a reply stating that the vessel in question woolf
be proceeded against for violation of the Customs Act of 1883, of tho BominiJ
Fishery Act of 1868 and of the Convention of 1818. 1 added that Captain Scott hi)
been instructed to state his reason for any subsequent seizure which he might dodj
necessary to make.

It id 1 think fair to point out in referense to this complaint that the seizure beii
the first which had taken place and the legal questions involved being somowh
intricate Captain Scott may be presumed to have been not unnaturally reluctantj
commit himself to the extent of supplying the United States Gonsal with a fonn
definition of the charges which would be made against the "David J. Adam^," andj

fti

ly or distorted
, all discussion ii|
itself intent up
and justice oaanot||

ing with you, as tb
in such a definition!
effectually prevenJ
(vinces, for the purl
e littoral or marinil
1 from being impnl
complishing resuliii
I become an agenc;!
rileges and facilitieil
to their peace anf

lating the Canadia
rhich can only tenil

, engaged in fishiDU
[ the fishing laws tl
imercial intercouni|
ion.

views upon the subl
) to facts exist^ the|l
lie fall protection «:|
sa fishing operatioul
tions now subsistin;|

r. F. BAYARD.

rtb May, 1886.

16 following pap
Ivid J. Adams," f

ios.
lansdowne."

inst., I receiv«|
le that it had
ill fax that he
Ivercment Bteamij
lid J. Adams"
bt's conduot in tlj
[in question won
I, ot tho Domini(j
I Captain ScoU I
|h he might tindj

; the seizure beii
being somowbi
iraliy reluctantj
lisul with a form
r. Adams," and^

the groands upon which he h>>d taadc the ueizare, althongh he evidently felt no doabt
that they were suffioient to 77 arrant his action, and although as Yonr Lordship will
perceive on reference to the enclopjres herewith he made an informal statement of
those grounds at the outset to tba master of the seized vessel.

I may add that as soon p^ the matter had been enquired into by ray Ministers
Captain Scott was authorizeji to supply the master of the " David J. Adams" with a
written statement of the reasousi for which that vessel was seized.

I have, &c,,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

The Right Honourable

E&hl Gbanvilt.i:, K.G.,
&c., &c., &c.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

TlupoRT from Officer commanding Cruiser ^^ Lansdowne'' to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries

re seizure of " D. J. Adams."

DiGBY, 11th May, 1886.

GOVBRNMBNT StEAMBR " LaNSDOWNE,"

Sir,— I have to inform you that on the 6th instant, while in St. John, I received a des-
patch from the Collector of Customs at Digby, to the following effect : " Fishing schooner,
" name and port of registry covered, new in harbour buying bait." I wired you for instruc-
tions, but not receiving any, I concluded to come here as soon as possible. We left at 7.30
p.m., and anchored off Digby at 11.45, when the boats were lowered and boarded several
Bcliooners, but did not find the right one.

As the day broke on the 7th a schooner was seen ott Bear Island making the attempt to
get out, but as the wind was light and the tide against her she did not succeed. About 4.30
a.m. the First Officer boarde her and ascertained that she was the "David J. Adams," of
Gloucester, Mass. The Captt n stated that he had not come in for bait, and the boat returned
on board. At 10 a.m., not being satisfied with the above report, I ordered Captain Dakin and
the First Officer to search her thoroughly, when they discovered a quantity of fresh herring
packed in ice in the main hold close to the hatchway. When the boat returned I ordered
the schooner to run in and anchor off Digby ; we followed and anchored at 11.15 a.m. I then
called upon several parties in the neighbourhood for evidence as to tho purchase of the bait.
In the afternoon I proceeded to Victoria Beach, Granville, Annapolis County, accompanied
by tlie Collector of Customs and the fishery officer at Digby, having heard that somj bait-
had been aold to the Master of that schooner by a man of the name of Ellis.

I took his evidence, which went to prove that had sold him four barrels of bait on the
previous morning for !?l.2.j a barrel. It appears thai, 'da was notwilling to sell ittohim fear-
ing that he was an American, but the master informed bim that he was not, but belonged to
Deer Island. At 4 p.m., with the pier of Digby bearing S. W. by S., distant three-quarters of
a mile. Captain Scott boarded "D. J. Adams" and seized her for violating the Dominion
Fishery Act, and placed a guard on board.

At 4.30 on the 8th instant Die crew of the " D. J. Adams," with tho exception of three
mon, came on board for passage to St. John. At. 6 a.m. we took the schooner in tow and
took her there for safetj. At 10.30 we lashed to the wharf and hauled the schooner alongside.
The Master and crew then lanied.

Sunday, the 9th, having received a despatch to take theschooner back to Digby, the master
.nd crew were offered a passage if they liked to go, they declined doing so and they then
removed all their personal effects.

At 1 1 we east off and proceeded. The first officer and five men took charge of tho
schooner and sailed her over to the "Gut," where we took her in tow and both anchored at 4
p.m. off' the llaquette.

Monday, 10th May, at o.SO, tho Colle.itor having been directed to take charge of tho
schooner she was handed over to him.

11th. Mr. Wallace Graham having directed me to atill hold the schooner, I sent the
First Ufiicer and one man back to her to remain on board until further orders.

I am, Sir, &c..

lC6-4i

(Sd.)

P. A. SCOTT.

[Enclosure No. 3.]

Affidavit of Chief Officer SS. " Lans.hwne."

DiGBY, Nova Scotia, 10th, May 1886.
Before Capt. Scott, E. N., Fishery Officer :—

I, James Beattie Hill %st officer of the Government steamer ''Lani^clovvne," being duly
sworn, testify as follows : —

1 boarded the American fishing schoontr " David J. Adams," of Gloucester, Mass., United
Stntes of America, at five o'clock on the morning of the 7th May, she being under way, head-
ing to the northward and westward, trying to get out of Annapolis Basin, Digby pier bearing
about S. W. at a distance of about 2^ miles. I did not see her stern, therefore did not see
the name of the vessel, and getting upon her deck I asked the master where his vessel hailed
from. He replied, Gloucester. I asked what he had come in for. He said to see his
people, as he tormerly belonged here. I asked if he bad any fresh bait on board. He said
he had not. I asked where he was from. He replied, from the Banks. I asked where he
was bound to. He said, to Eastport. T told him he had no business here, and that I sup-
posed he knew the law, to which he replied, yes. I then returned to the " Lansdowne," after
boarding another vessel, whose name was, I think, the " Lizzie Magee," of St. Andrews, New
Brunswick. One of her crew told me that the "David J. Adams" had bought bait for one
dollar and twenty-five cents which he had engaged for himself at seventy-five cents per
barrel.

At about ten in the forenoon I was again ordered to return to the " David J. Adams " and
search her thoroughly for bait. At this time she was in the " Gut," about one mile south of
Victoria Beach. I told the captain I had come on board to make an examination. He said,
very well. I then told him that a person on shore had stated that he had bought bait here.
Be replied that I might bring that person on board and that he would call that person a liar,
if that would do any good. Upon searching the hold I found fresh herring upon ice which
appeared to be perfectly fresh. Upon u.y stating my opinion, he said it was about ten days
old.

I told him I would have to report to Capt. bcott that I was of opinion that it was fresh
I then returned to the " lansdowne."

Captain Scott having directed Capt. Dakin to return with me to the " David J. Adams,"
we went upon her deck and had some of her bait handed up for inspection. Both Captain
Dakin and I agreed that it was fresh. We then returned to the "Lansdowne." I was imme-
diately ordered to return to the " David J. Adams " and direct her master to return to Digby
and anchor near the " Lansdowne."

(Sd.) JAMES BEATTIE H ILL,

First Officer Govemvient SS. " Lansdowne."
Witness :

(Sd.) Mani'ked J. L. Sawveu.

[Enclosare No. 3.]

Affidavit of Samuel D. Ellis.

Victoria Beach, Granvillk, N. S., 7th May 1886.

Before Captain Scott, B. N., Fishery Officer :

I, Samuel Dennis Ellis, fishermen, being duly sworn, state that on the morning of the
sixth instant the Master of the " David J. Adams," professing to be under English register,
applied to me for bait, and 1 therefore sold him four barrels of herring which I saw him take
on board his own vessel. I know nothing further of this matter, but am certain as to the
vessel, having noticed she had a broken main topmast.

his
(Sd.) SAMUEL D. 4- ELLIS,
mark.
Witnessed by

(Sd.) Wm. Hanmcv,

Fishery Ovjrseer.

•rr«gg=sr

■i^,'r"™,v-",':'.',"!Hyr3

ae," being duly

[BncIoBare No. 4.]

Affidavit of Charles T. Dakin. ^

DiGBY, Nova Scotia, 11th May, 1886.
Before Captain Scott, R. N., FiBhery OflScer :

I, Charles T. Dakin, being duly sworn, do testify as follows : —

That on the 7 th day of May t boarded the American schoaner "David J. Adams," of
Gloucester, Mass. I went into the hold and examined the bait I saw packed in ice, and I do
solemnly declare that it was fresh. I asked the Captain if it was true that he had bouj;ht
uny b.<iit from a man named Ellis.

He replied that he did not think this was true.

(Sd.) CHARLES T. DAKIN,
Master of the Government Steamer " Lansdowne."

Witness :

(Sd.) Manfred Sawyer.

at it was fresh

[Enclosure Xo. 6.]

Affidavit oj Edwin C. Dodge.

DiGBY, Nova Scotia, May 7th, 1886.
Before Captain Scott, K. N., Fishery Officer :

I, Edwin C. Dodge, Master Mechanic, being duly sworn, state that —

While standing on Digby Pier, about 9 o'clock in the morning, on the 6th May, I observed

a fishing schooner which proved to be the " David J. Adams," of Gloucester, Mass., standing

to the southward under her four lower sails, and observed her to tack in close to the whar^

I observed when her stern was towards me that her name could not be made out, ifc

being hidden by canvas, and which, in my opinion, was done with the object of screening it.

(Sd.) EDWIN C. DODGE.

lansdoione."

[Baclcsare No. 6.]
Affidavit of Owen Riley.

Before Captain Scott, R.N., Fishery Officer;

Digby, Nova Scotia, 7th May, 1886.

I, Owen Riley, a fisherman, being duly sworn, states that —

While standing on Digby Pier at about 9 o'clock in the morning of the 6th May, I
observed a fishing schooner which proved to be the " David J. Adams," of Gloucester, Mass.,
.standing to the southward under her four lower sails, and observed her to tack close into the
wharf. I observed when her stern was towards me that her name could not be made out, it
being hidden by canvas, and which, in my opinion, was done with the object of screening it.

(Sd.) OWEN RILEY.

[Eaclosare No. 7.]

Affidavit of Frederick Allen.

Digby, Nova Scotia, 11th May, 1886.
Before Captain Scott, R.N :

I, Frederick Allen, seaman on board the Dominion steamer " Lansdowne," being duly
sworn, testify as follows : —

That I being one of the boat's crew of the above ship which boarded the Amerioaa
schooner "David J. Adams," on the 7th May, while in the basin of Annapolis, went into tho
hold of that vessel and examined the bait, and do solemnly declare that it was fresh.

(Sd.) FREDERICK ALLEN.

Witness :

(Sd.) Manfred J. L. Sawyer.

IBncloaure No. 8.]
iMemorandum.)

Befeiring to the alleged refusal of Captain Soott to inform the United States Consul
General of tne causes for which the " David J. Adams " was seized and held, it seems that
the Captain of the seized vessel was made aware of the causes of seizure and detention. It is
the desire of the Oovernment, and in accordance with its instructions, that full information
shall be given in all such cases, and that there shall be no vindictiveness evinced in any of
the proceedings against foreign vessels, nor any hostility beyond what is necessary for the
peaceful enforcement of the laws of the country.

It is supgested that the answer of Captain !?cott to the United States Consul General,
dated llth May instant, should not be taken as evidence of any hostility or discourtesy.

The captain, and others interested in the vessel, being aware of the offences charged, the
letter of the United States Consul General of 11th May is understood here (and probably
was understood by Captain Scott) as calling for a statement of those charges in a full and
specific foim.

As there appears to have been ground for two or three charges for infraction both of the
statutes relating to fishing vessels and those relating to Customs, and the whole matter had,
before the date of the Consul General's letter, been placed by the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries in the hands of his counsel, it was not surprising that Captain Scott should have
hesitated to state the caused ot seizure and detention " fully and specificall ." and should have
preferred that the enquiry sbculd be tnade of his superiors.

Instructions have been gr/en thr 1, '^a sucn cases the captain of any ve? el seized shall, as
Booa as possible, be informed of the cause of seizure.

With reference to the statement that Cuptain Scott had relinquisheu possession of the
"David J. Adams," and bad afterwards resumed possession, the fact appears to be, that when
he relinquished the possession he only did so co the extent of handing her over to the Col-
lector of Customs ot the Port of Digby. It seems to have been considered desirable by counsel
advising Captain Scott that the vessel sI'-oiMd be detained by him as the ofScerwho, in the
first instance, had made the arrest.

Ko. 63.

Governor General to Afim'ster at Washington,

[No. 54.] Ottawa, ITth May, 1886.

SiB, — I had the honour of receiving your letter of the 12th instant, enoloBing a
copy of Mr. Bayard's note of the lOlb, upon the queetions raised by the recent de-
tention oi the United States schooner " David J. Adams," at Digby, Nova Scotia, for
alleged violation of tho Customs and Fishery laws.

You have, I understood, been good enough to supply mo with a copy of that
letter in order that tho Dominion Government may, without loss of time, be placed
in pos'session of the views of the United Sta'.es, in regard to these questions
and not with the object of eliciting from mo at present any comments upon the
arguments advanced by Mr. Bayard.

I am, however, glad to take the earliest opportunity of expressing the pleasure
with which the Government of the Dominion has observed the temper in which Mr.
Bayard has discussed the matters referred to, and its entire concurreoco with him in
desiring to import into that discussion nothing that could affect the friendly relations
of the two countries. •

I have, &3.,

The Honourable
Sir Lionel

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

S. Sackville West, K.C.M G.

States Consul
Id, it seems that
letention. It is
full information
vinced in any of
ecessary for the

Consul General,
iscourtesy.
ces charged, the
e (and probably
!s in a full and

ttion both of the
lole matter had,
of Marine and
iott should have
and should have

L seized shall, as

>ossession of the
to be, that when
over to the Col-
lable by counsel
Beer who, in the

lay, 1886.

it, enoloBinpr a
the recent de.
ova Scotia, for

: copy of that
me, be placed
lese questions
ontB npoa the

J the pleasure
in which Mr.
with him in
jndly relations

DOWNB.

No. 64.
Governor General to Earl Granville.

[No. 160.] Ottawa, 18th May, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — I have the honoar to forward herewith for Year Lordehip'H inform
ation a copy of a despatch which I have received from Her
No. 61. Majesty's Minister at Waf-bington, enclosing copy of a note dated 10th
of same month, from the United States Secretary of State, in which are set forth the
iriews of that Government npon the seizure of the fishing schooner " David J. Adams/'
itnd the questiocr. arising therefrom.

I have the honour also to enclose a copy of the reply, which I have sent to
No. 6). Sir L. West.

I have communicated a copy of Sir L. West's despatch and of Mr. Bayard's note
[to my Ministers for their information.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
The Right Honourable

Earl Granville, E.G.

No. 65.

Governor General to Earl Granville.

|[No. 161.] Ottawa, 19th May, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — I have the honor to inform you that the American fishing schooner

I" Ella M. Doughty " was seized at St. Ann's, Nova Scotia, by Sub-Collector McAulay,

who is reported by the Collector of Customs at Baddeck, Mr. L. G. Campbell, to havo

proof that the captain bought bait at St. Ann's without reporting to the Customs*

I authorities.

Mr. Campbell further telegraphs that the captain acknowledged the facte and
I showed the bait bought, but claimed that he held a permit or license, signed by tho
'Collector of Customs at Portland, Maine, to touch and trade at any foreign port.

The •' T?lla M. Doughty " has neen held for not reporting, and an enquiry is
I now proceeding in oider to ascertain whether there has or has not been an infraction
of the Fishery Law of the Dominion.

I have, &c. ,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Bight Honourable

Eabl Gbanville, E.g.,
&o., &c.,

&c.

No. 66.
The Marqu's of Zansdowne to Earl Granville.

[No. 162.] Ottawa, 19th May, 18oo.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclope herewith a copy of a Bill recently intro>
duced in the Dominion House of Commons by my Minister of Marine and Fisheries
for the purpose of amending ihe Act 31 Vic, chap. 61, respecting fishing by foreign
vessels in the territorial waters of the Dominion.

That Act was fs Your Lordship is aware passed with the ohject of giving eflfeot
to the Convention cf 18)8 by rendering liable to certain petalties all foreign fishing

^ ■

voBBols entering the territorial waters of the Dominion for any purpose not authorized
by thai Convention. It is provided under the third section of the Act referred to '
that the penalty oi forfeiture shall attach to any foreign vessel which *' has been
found fishing or preparing to fish or to have been fishing " without a license within I
the three-mile limit. These words which follow closely those of sec. II of the Imperial
Act of 1819 (69 George III, chap. 38) appear to my Government to be insufficient for
the purpose of giving effect to the intentions of the framers of the Ojnvention of I
1618, inasmuch m while the penalty of forfeiture is attached to foreign vessels found
fishing, or preparing to fibh, or having been fishing wiihin the three-mile limit, ic i»
not clear tnat under them the same penalty would attach to vessels entering the
territorial watern in contravention of the stipulations of the Convention, for a purpose
other than those of sheltering, repairing damages, purchasing wood and obtaining
water for which purposett alone under the terms of Article I, of the Convention and '
of sec. 3 of the Imperial Act of 1819, above referred to, foreign fishing vessels are{
permitted to enter the bays and harbours of the Dominion.

Your Lordship is no doubt aware that the decisions of the Canadian courts leave
it open to question whether the purchase of bait in Canadian waters does or does not
constitute a preparation to fish within the meaning of the Imperial Act of 1819, and
the Canadian Statute which it is now sought to amend. The decision of Chief |
Justice Sir W. Young in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Nova Scotia given in Novem-
ber, 1871, in the case of the fishing schooner " Nickorson ", was to the effect that the |
purchase of bait constituted such a preparation to fish within Canadian waters. The
eamo point had, however, previously arisen in February, 1871, in the Vice-Admiralty
CJourt at St. John, N.B., in the case of the American fishing vessel " White Fawn,"
when Mr. Justice Hazen decided that the purchase of bait within the three-mile limit
wasnotof itself a proof that the vessel was preparing to fish illegally within that limit.

There being therefore some doubt whether the intention of the Convention ofj
1818 is effectually carried out either by the Imperial or the Canadian Acts referred
to, it has been thought desirable by my Government to have recourse to legislation
removing all doubt as to the liability to forfeiture of all foreign fishing vessels resort-
ing to Canadian waters for purposes not permitted by law or by treaty.

As the law now stands, if it should prove that the purchase of bait is not held by
the courts to constitute a preparation to fish illegally there would be no remedy
against foreign fishing vessels frequenting the waters of the Dominion for purposes
not permitted by the Convention of 1818 except

(I.) That provided by Section IV of the Act of 1819, namely, a penalty of £200
Tecoverable in the Superior Courts from the persons violating the provisions of the
Act. This penalty, however, only attaches to a refusal to depart from the bay or
harbour which the vessel has illegally entered, or to a refusal or neglect to conform
to any regulations or directions made under the Act, and as the purpose for which
the vessel has entered will, in most cases, have been accomplished before an order
can have been given for her departure, it will bo obvious that this penalty has very
iittle practical utility.

(2 ) The common law penalties attaching to a violation of the Imperial Statutes j
abovo referred to in respect of illegally entering the bays and harbours of the Djmin- 1
ion. If, however, it were sought to enforce these penalties, their onforcement
personally against the master of the vessel, would result in his having ultimately to
take his trial for a misdemeanour while he would, in the first instance, bo required to
find bail to a considerable amount, a result which would, in the opinion of my
Goverment, be regarded as more oppesssive than the detention of the offdnding vessel
fiubjoct to the investigation of her case by the Vice-Admiralty Courts.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LAN3D0WNB.

The Eight Honourable,

EABii Gbanville, K.G.,

&c., &0., &c.

[BncUaare No. 1.]

AN ACT FURTHER TO AMEND TUB ACT RESPECTING FISHIN'a BY

FOREIGN VESSELS.

Whereas it is expedient for the more effectual protection of the inshore fisheries of
Canada, against intrusion by foreigners, to further amend the Act intituled : " An Act
respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," passed in the thirty-first year of Her Majesty's reign,
and chaptered sixty one ; Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows : —

1. The section substituted by the iirst section of the Act thirty- third Victoria, chapter
fifteen, intituled " An Act to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," for the
third section of the her-jinbefore recited Act, is hereby repealed, and the following section
substituted in lieu thereof :

" 3. Any one of the officers or persons hereinbefore mentioned may bring any ship,
1 vessel or boat, being within any harbour in Canada, or hovering in British waters within three
marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours in Canada, into port, and search
her cargo, and may also examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage ; and
if tlie master or person in command does not truly answer the questions put to him in such
examination, he shall incur a penalty of four hundred dollars ; and if such ship, vessel op
boat is foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the United King loin or of Canada,
and (a) has been found fishing or preparing to fish, or to have been fiihing in British waters
within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays,creeks or harbours of Canada,not included
within the above mentioned limits, without a license, or after the expiration of the term
named in the last license granted to such ship, vessel or boat, under the first section of thia
Act, or (6) has entered such waters for any purpose not permitted by the law of nations, or
by treaty or convention, or by any law of the United Kingdom or of Canada for the time being
iu force, or (c) having entered such waters has failed to comply with any such law of the
United Kingdom or of Canada, such ship, vessel or boat and the tackle, rigging, apparel,
I furniture, stores and cargo thereof shall be forfeited.

2. The Acts mentioned in the schedule hereto are hereby repealed.

3. This Act shall be construed as one with the said ' 'Act respecting Fishing by Foreign
Vessels " and the amendments thereto.

SCHEDULE.
Acts op tub Lrgislature op the Province op Nova Scotia.

Year,
ReigD, and Chapter.

iRoviaed Statutes, 3rd Ser-

I iea, c. 94.

l29 Vic. (1866) c, 36

Title of Act.

Of the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries

An Act to amend Chapter 94 of the Reviaed Statutes " Of
the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries."

Extent
of Repeal.

The whole.

Act of the Leoislatuee of the Provixos of Nbw^Brunswick.

26 Vic. (1853) c. 69.

An Act relating to the Coast Fisheries, and for the preven-
tion of illicit trade

The whole.

Act of the LEoisuATaRB op the Provisce op Prince Edward Island.

i Vic. (1843) c. 14..

An Act relating to the Fisheries, and for the prevention of
illicit trade in Prince Edward Island and the Coasts
and Harbors thereof .—

The whole.

fi3

No. 67.

Minister at Wa$hington to Governor General,

Bbitish Lkoation,
[No. 69] WAfaHiNOTON, 2l8t May, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Yoar Exoellencj'd
deepatob, No. 64, of the 17th ioHtant, and to inform Your Lordship that I took an
opportunity of communicating it to the Secretary of State, who expressed great
satisfaotioD at the oonoiliatory language used by Your Excellency.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.
His Excellency

The GovERNoa General.

No. 68.

Sir Lionel S. Sackoille West to Marquis of Lansdowne,

Bbitish Legation,
[No. 60.] WAaBiNQTON, 2lBt May, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose herewith, for Your Excellency's infor-
mation,' copy of a further note, which I have received from the Secretary of State,
reapecting the seizure of American fishing vessels in Canadian waters.

I have, A''.,

rsd.) l. s. sackvillb west.

To the &IARQDIS OF Lansdowne, E.C.M.G.,
&c., &c., &c.

LEncIosure Ko- l.J

Depahtmbnt op State,

Wasijixotos, 20th May, 1886.

Sir, — Although without reply to the note 1 had the honour to address to you on the 10th I
instant in relation to the Canadian fisheries, and the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818,]
between the United States and Great Britain as to the rights and duties of the American |
citizene engaged in maritime trade and intercourse with the Provinces of British North j
America, in view of the unrestrained, and as it appears to me unwarranted, irregular and |
severe action of the Canadian officials toward American vessels in those waters. Yet I feel S
it to be my duty to bring impressively to your attention information more recently receivedl
by me from the United States Consul General at Halifax, Nova Scotia, in relation to thej
seizure and continued detention of the American schooner "David J. Adams" already j
referred to in my previous note, and the apparent disposition of the local officials to use thei
most extreme and technical reasons for interference with vessels not engaged in or intended|
for inshore fishing on that coast.

The report received by me yesterday evening alleges such action in relation to the vesselfi
mentioned as renders it difficult to imagine it to be that orderly proceeding and "duel
process of law," so well known and customarily experienced in Great Britain and the Unitedj
States, and which dignifies the two Goveinments, and gives to private rights of property iindS
the liberty of the individual their essential safeguards.

By the information thus derived it would appear that after four several and distinct!
visitations by boats' crews from the " Lansdowne " in Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia, thel
"David J. Adams " was summarily taken into custody by the Canadian steamer " Lansdowne'!
and carried out of the Province of Nova Scotia across the Bay of Fundy and into the port olT
8t. John, New Brunswick, and, without explanation or hearing, on the following MondayJ

■-■'^- .MummmvmMm

[ay, 1S86.

[• Excellency's
that 1 took an
pressed great

S. WEST.

tfay, 1886.

ellency's infor-
itary of State,

jE west.

May, 18cS6.

) you on the 10th I
le Treaty of 1818,
)f the American I
)f British North |
,ed, irregular and j
iters. Yet I feell
ecently received!
relation to thej
Adams" alreadyl
tHcials to use the!
3d in or intended|

tion to the vessel!

eding and "duel

and the United!

of property iindS

jral and distincti
Nova Scotia, thei
ler " Lansdowne'l
d into the port of
jUowing Monday]

6»

kutb May, taken back again by an armed crew to Digby in Nova Scotia. That in Digby the
Laper alleged to be the legal precept for the capture and detenfion of the vessel was nailed
fooer mast in Buoh manner aa to prevent its contents being read, and the request of the
laptain of the " David J. Adama " and of the U. S. Consul General to be allowed to detach the
vrit from the mast for the purpose of learning its contents was positively refused by the
provincial officials in charge. Nor was the U. S. Consul General able to learn from the com-
Diander of the " Lansdowne " the nature of the complaint against the vessel, and his respect-
111 application to that effect was fruitless.

In no extraordinary, confused and irresponsible a condition of affairs, it is not possible
I ascertain with that accuracy which is needful in matters of Huch grave importance the
brecise grounds for this harsh and peremptory arrest and detention of a vessel the property
■f citizens of a nation with whom relations of peace and amity were supposed to exist.
I From the best information, however, which the U. S. Consul General was enabled to
Lbtain after application to the prosecuting officials, he reports that the " David J. Adams "
Iras seized and is now held : —

Ist. For alleged violation of the Treaty of 1818 ;
2nd. For alleged violation of the Act 59 Jeorge HI ;
.3rd. For alleged violation of the Colonial Act of Nova Scotia of 1818 ; and
4th. For alleged violation of the Act of 1870, and also of 18S3 — both Canadian Statutes.
Of these allegations there is but one which at present I press upon your consideration,
ad that is the alleged infraction of the Treaty of 1818.

1 beg to rail to your attention the correspondence and action of those respectively
khargcd with the administration and government of Great Britain and the United States in
the year 1870, when the same international questions were under consideration, and the
Itatus of law was not essentially different from what it is at present.

I This correspondence discloses the intention of the Canadian authorities of that day to
prevent encroachment upon their inshore fishing grounds, and their preparations, in tlie way
^f a marine police force, very much as we now witness.

The Statutes of Great Britain and of her Canadian Provinces, which are now su])posed to
I invoked as authority for the action against the schooner " David J. Adams," were then
eported as the basis of their proceedings.

In his note of 26th May, 1 870 Mr. (afterwards Sir Edward) Thornton, the British Minister
|t this Capital, conveyed to Mr. Fish, then iSecretary of State, copies of the orders of the
loyal Admiralty to the Admiral Wellesley, in command of the naval forces " employed in
aaintaining order at the fisheries in the neighbourhood of the coasts of Canada."

All of these orders directed the protection of Canadian fishermen, and cordial co-opera-
lion and concert with the United States force sent on the same service, with respect to
American fishermen in those waters. Great caution in the arrest of American vessels cnarged
vith violation of the Canadian Fishing laws was scrupulously enjoined upon the British
jiuthorities, and the extreme importance of the commanding officers of ships selected to pro-
«ct the fisheries exercising the utmost discretion in paying especial attention to Lord
Sranville's observation, that no vessel should be seized unless it were evident and could be
tilearly proved that the offence of fishing had been committed and the vessel captured within
iiree miles of land.

This caution was still more explicibly announced when Mr. Thornton, on the 11th of
June, 1870, wrote to Mr. Fish :—

"You are, however, quite right in not doubting that Admiral Wellesley, on the receipt
f the later instructions addressed to him on the 5th ultimo, will have modified tlie directions
• the officers under his command, so that they maybe in conformity with the views of the
^dmiralty.

" In confirmation of this, I have since received a letter from Vice-Admiral Wellesley,
ated the 30th ultimo, informing me that ho h.id received instructions to the effect that
liicers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the protection of the fisheries should not seize
ay vessel, unless it were evident and could be clearly proved that the offence of fishing har*
een committed, and the vessel itself captured within three miles of land."

This understanding between the two Governments wisely and efficiently guarded against
he manifest danger of entrusting the execution of powers so important and involving so high
Bid delicate a discretion to any but wise and responsible officials, whose prudence and care
Bould be commensurate with the magnitude and national importance of the interest
ttvolved, and 1 should fail in my duty if 1 did not endeavour to impress you with my sense
f the absolute and instant necessity that now exists for a restriction of the seizure of Amer-
^an vessels charged with violations of the Treaty of 1818, to the conditions announced by Sir
idward Thornton to this Government, in June, 1870.

The charges of violating the local laws and commercial regulations of the ports of tlie
Iritish Provinces (to which I am desirous that due and full observance should be paid by the

'ti

citizoDR of the United States^ I do not consider in this note, and I will only take ibis occatio
lo ask you to give me full information of the otiioial action of tlie Canadian authorities in i
regard, and wliat laws and regulationH having the force of law, in relation to llie protection J
their inshore ilsiierics and preventing onoroachments thereon, are now held by them to l)e|
force.

liut T trust you will join with me in realizing the urgent and essential importance!
restricting all arrests of American iiiihing vessels for supposed or alleged violations of tli|
Convention of 1818, within the limitations and conditions laid down hy the authorities i
Oreat Britain in I ^7L) ; to wit, that no vessel shall be seized unless it is evident and can
clearly proved that the odunco of fishing has been committed and the vessel itself captu
within three miles of land.

In regard to the necessity for the instant imposition of siioh restrictions upon the am
of vessels, you will, I believe, agree with me, and I will therefore ask you to procure mi
steps to be taknn as shall cause such orders to be forthwith put in force under the authori
of rier Majesty's & 'vernmont.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD.

No. 69.

Sir L, S SickviUe West to the Marqw's of Lansdowne.

Ebitish Legation,
[No. 61.] Washington, 2l8t May, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — I havo the boooar to encloao to Tour Esoellenoy herevrith copy o(|
note which I have rocoivod from Mr. Bayard, asking fi)r information aa to <
alleged proGoedingd of the Canadian aathorities at Digby, N. S., in the oaso of
American Bchooaer " Jennie and Julia."

I have, Ac,

(Sd.) L. S. SACK7ILLB WEST.
To THE Marquis of Lansdow.'^e, K. 0. M. G.,

&o,, Sio., &o.

[BacloBure No. 1.]

Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. S. West.

Depautmknt op State,

WASHtNaTON, 20th May, 1886,

My Dear Mr. West, — Since writing you my last note of today's date, my attention 1
been called to a statemeat that the American schooner *< Jennie and Julia," of Eattf
Maine, having cleared from that port for Digby, N.S., made due entry at the latter poit, i
upon attempting to purchase a lot of herring for smoking, was warned that the vessel wooj
be seized if herring were purchased for any purpose whatever, whereupon the vessel 1
without taking in cargo.

If, as it is to be inferred from the fact of the regular clearance and entry, the " Jen
and Julia " was documented for a trading voyage, the reported action of the Digby CoUe
should be looked into very sharply.

It would certainly not help an amicable adjustment of the present difiScuIties, if I
Provincial authorities were to initiate a policy of commercial non-intercourse by refu3ing|
permit exportation of fish in American bottoms.

The report is attracting much attention, and I have telegraphed to our Consular Ag
at Digby for a statement ot the facts.

1 should be glad to receive from you any information you may have in relation to l|
Collector's action.

Very truly yours,

To the Honorable

Sir Lionel S. S. West,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

&o.

T. F. BAYARD.

rdegram )

•1

No. 10.
Earl Oranville to Lord Lanadowne.

22Dd May, 1886.

The United States Government is making representations ro^^peoting seizure
.^TCPHoiei. Her MajoMty's Government deniroto be furnished with detailed particulars
Larding facts and legal position of Canadian Government. Desirable that yoa
lould lose no time in sending reply.

(8d.) GBANVILLE.

Telegram.)

No. 71.

Lord Larisdowne to Eajl Granville.

22nd May, 1S86.
Yours 22Dd May, have sent dospatcbes respecting seizure of vessols.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

^ILLB WEST.

No. 12.
rdegram.)

Earl Granville to Lord Lansdcwne.

25th May, 1886.

On the 22nd May Mr. Phelps enquired of the Secretary of State for Foreign
[ffairs whether the action of the Canadian Govornmbnt in suizing tishing vesnols in
[rritorial waters could not be discontinued and without prejudice and upon an
pdortaking to surrender them if required to do so, the seized vessels restored to their
f ners. Mr. Phelps having as to the interpretation of the treaty from an American
ftint of view and Lord Kosobery having upheld the view taken by the Dominion the
bcretaiy of State informed the Amiuican Minister that while desirous of maintaining
lost friendly relations Her Majesty's Government oonld hardly ask Canada to
Bspend her legal rights without adequate equivalent. Lord Eosebery then enquired
I to the readiness of the United States Goveinment to negotiate on the question,

(Sd.) GRANVILLE.

our Consular Ag
ave in relation tod

T. F. BAYARD.

No. 73.
Governor General to Earl Granville.
h. 73.] Ottawa, 26th May, 1886.

My Lord,— With reference to my despatch, No. 160, of the 18th instant,^! have
I No. 63.

the honout

ur to forward to Your Lordship, herewith, a copy of a further
deepatch from Sir Lionel West, in connection with Mr. Bayard's note on
ko question arit-in^ from the seizures of American fishing vessels in Canadian waters.

Yours, &c ,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

be Right Honourable '" '

Eabl Gbanville, K.G.

No. 74.
, Governor General to Earl Granville.

[No. 167.J Ottawa, 26th May, 2886.

My Lord, — With reference to the concluding paragraph of my despatch, ]
161, of the 19th instant, respecting the seiuure of the American fishing schoond
" Ella M. Doughty," I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that the veasb! ii
question is being proceeded against in the same way as the " David J. Adams," vii
for violation of the Castoms' Act of 1883, of the Dominion Fishery Act of 1868, ani
for contravention of the Treaty of 1818.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB,
The Kighi Honourable

Earl Granville, K.6.

No. 75.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville,

27th May, 1886.

My Lord, — With reference to Your Lordship's telegram of the 25th instant, I
Government of the Dominion desires to reach a friendly settlement of the fisheri
qaeslion. With this object it suspended all legal action for the protection of til
tisheries last year, notwithstanding the fact that the Government of the Unit?
States retained the duties imposed by it on Canadian fish. Congress, howevij
declined to take action on the recommendation of the President. It would be imp
Hible< for the Dominion to abandon its rights again vnthont a better assurance
satisfactory result than the suggestion which has been made by the United StalJ
Minister. Private prosecutions for breach of the fishery law, which would certiinlj
be resorted to by Canadian fishermen, could not now be prevented by the Govers
ment. The question of the legality of the seizures will be tested in court. Wool
it not be well that this should be disposed of in the first instance ? An appeal to til
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will, of course, b^; open to either party.

Yours, &c,

(Su.) LANSDOWNB.
The Eight Honourable

Earl Granville, K.G.

No. 76.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

27th May, 1886.

Mv Lord, — With reference to my despatch No. 162, of the 19th May, the Bill
amendment of the Act respecting fishing by Foreign vessels will pass both Housoil
thj beginning of next week ana come up for assent.

Vessels in any way contravening the Convention of 1S18 are by it rendered liai
to forfeiture. ,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
The Eight Honourable

Earl Granville, K.Gi

lNSDOWNB,

(Telegram.)

No. IT.
JSarl Granville to Lord Lansdowne.

2'7th May, 1886.

Bayard to West, 10th May, Fisheries. Glad to receive by earliest opportanity
report of yoar Ministers.

(Sd.) SBCEBTARY OF STATE.

(Telegram.)

No. 78.
Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

27th May, 1886.

Beferriog to your telegram of the 27th. Beport in forward state of preparation.
Sent by next mail.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

No. 79.
From the Minister at Washington to Governor General.

[No. 67.] Washington, 29th May, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose herewith to Your Excellency copy of
tbe report of the Collector ot Customs at Portland (Maine) in regard to the detention
of the schooner " Sisters."

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.
His Excellency

The Governor General.

lNSDOWNB.

[Enclosure No. I.]

(Washington S^publican, 29th May, 1836.)

THE SEIZURE OF THE "SISTERS."

A REPORT BY COLLEOTOIt ANDKRSON OX THE SUIiJECT,

Acting Secretary Fairchild yesterday received a report from Collector Anderson, at Port-
land, in regard to the alleged detention of the British schooner " Sisters," in which he says : —

•' Herewith I transmit a statement of Jesse Ellis, master of British schooner ' Sisters,' of
Yarmouth, N. S., relating to a penalty incurred by him in consequence of viohiiiju of pro-
visions of section 2S14 Revised Statutes of the United States. On this case 1 hive rospeot-
fuUy to report that this vessel arrived and entered at this port under circumstances substan-
tially as stated by Capt. Ellis. The 'clearance' he alludes to has oa its face the sin.'^le word
'tish' as a description of cargo. Nowhere on 'clearance' is any reference male to kind,
condition, quantity, by whom shipped, or to whom consigned. Very likely the discrepancy
between his statement and the fact arises through an inadvertence on the part of the person
he employed to draw up the statement. The acting boarding officer at this port reported to
me, through the surveyor, under date of the 2Uh instant, that this vessel 'arrived at tjiis
port today, and the captain failed to produce a manifest of the cargo on board said schooner.'

" la consequence of this the master was informed on entry that he was liable to a penalty
of $50i) for failure to produce a manifest upon his arrival within the limits of this collection
district, as provided by section 2814 Revised Statutes of the United States ; that under an
article of Treasury Regulations, 1884, relating to Customs and navigation laws, the case would

be submitted «o the Secretary of the Treasury before enforcing tlx enaliy. I believe the I
reasons lie assies for his failure to comply with the requirements o.^ le navigation laws and
customs lobulations of the United St^.tes to be true. I have not dis..»vered any attempt on
his part to defraAid the revenue. He presented a manifest in proper form on ontry of bis
vessel, in which cartro was set up as taken on board at Farnsworth, N. S. ; convents, 20,000
fresh mackerel, sliipped by W. A. Killam and consigned to W.L.Clements & Co.; consignee's
residence, Portland, and port of destination, Portland. In view of the fact that the morning
papers of this city publish in full a statement of f.'iipt. Ellis, as herein enclosed, I deem it
proper to say that the document was not furnished the press by any officer connected with I
the Customs service at this port to my knowledge. I respectfully submit the case and await j
your instructions thereon."

Capt. Ellis' statement, referred to in the above letter, has already been published.

No. 80.

(JTthgram.) Sir Lionel West to I. i Lansdowne.

30th May, 1886.

I havd received a note from the Secretary of State in which he protests against I
the Bill No. 136, now before tb' House of CommoDs in Canada as " being in respectl
of conventions now existing between Great Britain and tho United States anf
assumption of jurisdiction entirely unwarranted, and which is wholly denied by the|
United Stales." Instructions have been sent to the United States Minister ir. i^
London to protest against the Bill. I am forwarding a copy of the note by mail.

(Sd.) WEST.

No. 81.

Sir L. West to Lord Lansdowne.

[No. 69.] Washington, 30th May, 1836.

My Lord, — I have the honour to forward herewith for Your Excellency's infor-ti
xaation copy ""f a note which I have received from tho Secretary of State, and tell
which my telegram of this day's date refers.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.
His Excellency jvi

The Mabquis of Lansdowne, G.C M.G.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West:

'Department of Statk,

Wa.shington, 129th May, 1886.

iSiR, — I have just i-eceived an official imprint of House of Commons Bill No. 136, noirl
pending in the Canadian Parliament, entitled " An Act further to amend the Act respecting
Fishing by Foreign Vessels," and am informed that ir, has parsed the House and is no>i|
pending in the Senate. I

This Bill proposes the forcible search, seizure and forfeiture of any foreign vessel within iinyl
harbour in Canada, or hoveiiug within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeksorl
harbours in Canada, where such vessel has entered such waters for any purpose not permittedl
by the laws of nations, or by treaty or convention, or by any law of the United Kingdom or oil
Canada now in force.

r. I believe the |
igation laws and
any attempt on I
)n entry of his
contents, 20,000
Co. ; consignee's
hat the morning
jlosed, I deem it
connected with
case and await |

published.

May, 1886.

)rote8t8 against I
)oing in respect I
itod States an I
denied by the
ea Minister ic|
ie by mail.

WEST.

1 liasten to draw your attention to the wholly unwarranted proposition of the Canadian
authorities, through their local agents, arbitrarily to enforce, according to their own construc-
tion, the provisions of nny Convention between the United States and Great Britain, and, by
the interpolation of language not found in any such Treaty, and by interpretation not claimed
or conceded by either party to such Treaty, to invade and destroy the commercial rights and
privileges of citizens of the Uuited States under and by virtue of Treaty stipulation with
Great Britain and statutes in that behalf made and provided.

I have also been furnished with a copy of Circular No. 371, purporting to be from the
Customs Department at Ottawa, dated 7th May, 1886, and to be signed by J. Johnson, Com-
missioner of Customs, assuming to execute the provisions of the Treaty between the United
States and Great Britain, concluded 20th October, 1818 ; and printed copies of a "Warning,"
purporting to be issued by George E. Foster, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated at Ottawa,
6th March, 1886, of a similar tenor, although capable of unequal results in its execution.

Such proceedings 1 conceive to be flagrantly violative of the reciprocal commercial

■ privileges to wbich citizens of the United States are lawfully entitled under statutes of Great

Britain and tiio well defined and publicly proclaimed authority of both countries, besides

being in respect of the existing Conventions between the two countries an assumption of

jurisdiction entirely unwarranted, and which is wholly denied by the Uniteil States.

In the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and friendly relations, I give you my
earliest information on this subject, adding that I have telegraphed Mr. Phelps, our Minister
at London, to make earnest protest to Hr-.' Majesty's Government against such arbitrary,
unlawful, unwarranted and unfriendly action on the part of the Canadian Government and
its officials ; and have instructed Mr. Phelps to give notice that the Government of Great
"".ritain will be held lia'le for all losses and injuries to citizens of the United States and their
^iroperty caused by the unauthorized and uufriendly action of the Canadian Government to
which 1 have referied.

i have, (fee,

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD.

May, 1836.

cllency's infor-
of State, and to[

jE west.

No.. 82.
Minister at Washington to Governor General.

[No. 70.] Washington, 3lBt May, 1886.

My Lord,— I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the fine imposed
on the Mova Scotia fitihiDg schooner "Sisters," seized at Portland (Maine) for a
violation of the Customs regulations, has been remitted by the Acting Secretary of
the Treasury. 1 enclose herewith an article from the " New Yor : Herald " in con-
nection therewith.

I have, &c ,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.
UIh Excellency

The Governor General.

May, 1886.

ill No. 136, noi»|
le Act respectinJ
louse and is nowl

vessel within an;!
8, bays, creelisorl
»se not permittedl
id Kingdom or clj

[Enclosure No. 1 ]
Extract from the New Vork Herald, o/'-ilst May, 188G.

"ERRIN'i SISTERS, (10 IN PEACE."

Mr. Fairchild, Ihe Acting Secretary of the Treasury, has remitted the tine to which the
^'ova Scotia fishing schooner " Sisters," which was seized at Portland last Monday, was liable
lor want of a manifest. The " Herald " anticipated this remission. On the morning after the
seizure we expressed our confidence that the Treasury Department would temper justice
with mercy as soon as it received an official certificate of the facts which our correspondent
at Portland already had ascertained and reported to us. The skipper was just as devoid of
evil intention as weie the captains and crews of those fishing schooners from Gloucester ami
Portland which the Canadians have seized and are prosecuting not only unmercifully but
unjustly.

lHft-5

The difference between the conduct of the authorities on this side of the border and on
the other side is a great one, and will not fail to be noticed wherever the fishery questions are
discussed. No special merit, to be sure, attaches to our Treasury Department for its course
in this case. It has done only what was to be expected of a civilized administration, and the
Canadians have only themselves to blame for the contrast.

No. 83.

(Telegram.) Earl Granville to Lord Lansdowne.

3rd Jane, 1886.

The following telegram has been handed to Lord Kosebery by the United States'
Minister. The telegram commences as follows : —

" Direct Lord Kosebery's attention immediately to tho Bill No. 136 now pend-
ing in the Canadian Parliament. This Bill assumes power to execute the Conven-
tion of 1818. You will also call his attention to the circular No. 371, issued by the
Commissioner of Customs for tho Dominion, Mr. Johnson, which orders tho seizure
of vessels on violation of that Convention. Both of these are unwarranted and
arbitrary assumptions of power against which you are desired to make an early
proto.it. You are instructed in doing so, to state that the Government of Great
Britain will be held responsible by that of the United States for whatever losses may
be incurred by American citizens growing out of tho dispoissession of their property,
detention or t^ale of their vessels lawfully within British North American territorial
waters." Tho telegram ends here. Please telegraph the purport of circular No. 371
referred to.

(Sd.) Gf?ANVILLB.

No. 84.

{Teleoram.) Earl Granville to Lord Lansdoivne.

4th Jane, 1886.

The terms of the concluding paragraph of the warning which was onolosed in
your despatch dated 25th March, exclude all foreign vessels as well as those of the
United States from Canadian bays. This is unintentional in all probability, as there
is in the Act recited nothing to justify this. It would bo well, however, to invite
the attention of your Government to this point with a view to having the warning
amended.

(Sd.) GEANVILLE.

(^Telegram.)

.No. 85.
From Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

4th June, 1886.

With reference to Yc ur Lordship's telegram of tho 3rd June, the circular No.
371 issued by the Customs Department recites Article I of tho Convention of 1818
and sections two, three and four of tho Dominion Pishorios Act of 1868. It directs
the Cuitoms Officers to furnish with warning notice any foreign fishing vessels
found within the three-mile limit, except for the four purposes specified aa lawful in
the Convention. If uny vessel is found fishing, preparing to fish or violating the
terms of the Convention by shipping men or supplies, or trading, or if hovering,
does not within twenty-four hours of warning depart, the Collector is instructed to
place an officer on board and telegraph to the Department of Fisheries, Ottawa^

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

'tkgram.)

e, 1886.
aitod States'

(> now pend-
the CJonven-
jBuod by the
) the Beizare
rraated and
ike an early
ont of Great
r losses may
jir property,
an territorial
iular No. 371

VILLB.

1886.

onolosed in
thoHO of the

ty, as there
to invite
the warning

VILLE.

ic,

. 188G.

3ircalar No.
ion of 1818
It di roots
ing vessels
B lawful in
iolating the
f hovering,
nstracted to
Htawa«

)WNB.

No. 86.

From Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

7th Jane, 1886.

Your telegram of the 4th June is received. The warning as it was issued at first
[ntainud a reference to all foreign vessels. The amended issue recites merely tho
Jit and the Convention and omits the reference. The final paragraph of the Cos-
Im^ Circular No. 371 is open to objection, perhaps, as implying that the Gonventioa
1 1S18 applies to all foreign vessels. Attention will bo given to this point.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

txtract.)

No. 87.
Lord lansdowne to Earl Granville.

Quebec, 7th Jane, 1886.

My Lord, — Her Majesty's Minister at Washington has been "ood enough to

Immunicato to ma for my information, copy of a note received by him from the

cretary of State for the United States, in which the Bill is criticized not so much

I account of its policy or because its introduction is regarded as iuopportane and

convonient, as upon the ground that any legislation by the Parliament of tho

pminion for the purpose of interoreting and giving effect to a contract entered into

tho Imperial Government is beyond tho competence of that Parliament and "an

bmptiou of jurisdiction entirely unwarranted " and, therefore, " wholly denied by

I United States."

Your Lordship is, no doubt, aware that legislation of this kind has been fre-

^cutly resorted to by the Parliament of tho Dominion for tho purpose of enforcing

taties or conventions entered into by the Imperial Government. In the present

lee tho legislation proposed was introduced, not with tho object of making a change

I tho terms of tho Convention of 1818, nor with the intention of representing as

caches of tho Convention any acts which are not now punishable as breaches of

What tho fi-amers of the Bill sought was merely to amend the procedure by

ich the Convention is enforced, and to do this by attaching a particular penalty

la particular breach of tho Convention after that breach had been proved before a

Impctont tribunal. It must be remembered that the Convention itself is silent as to

procedure to be taiccn in enforcing it, and that effect has accordingly been given

Jits provisions at different times, both through the means of Acts passed, ou tho

|o side, by Congress, and on the other by the Imperial Parliatient, as well as by

Legislatures of the British North American Provinces previous to Confederation,

Id since Confederation by tho Parliament of the Dominion. The right of tho

[»miniou Parliament to legislate for these purposes and *he validity of such legisla-

bn as against the citizens of a foreign country has, as far as I am aware, not been

riously called in question. Such legislation, unless it is disallowed by the Imperial

|)vcrnmeiit becomes part of the law of the Empire.

The Government of tho United States has long been aware of tho neceesity of
^oronco to the Dominion Parliament, in mutters affecting Canadian interests, and
I boliovo, never raised any objection to such reference. The Treaties of 1854
It'/l, so far us <hoy related to the fisheries or to tho commercial relations of tho
^minion were made subject to ratification by hor Legislature. In the same way,
treaty under which fugitive criminals from the United States into Canada are
freudcrcd is carried into effect by means of a Canadian statute. If a foreigner
units a murder in Canada he is tried, convicted, and oxecutel by virtue of a
Inadian, and not of an Impoi ial Act of Parliament. Seizures of goods and vessels for
paches of the local Customs law have in like manner been made for many years
pt without any protest, on the ground that such laws involved an usarpatioa of
s'cr by the Colony.
166— 5i

':<&

Mr. Bayard's statement Ibat the Dominion Government is eeekiBg by its action]
in this matter to " invade and destroy the commercial rights and privileges ^ecureil[
to citizens of the Ucited States, under and by virtue of treaty stipulations with!
Great Britain " is not warranted by the fads of the case. No attempt has been madel
either by the authorities entrusted with the enforcement of the existing law or byl
the Parliament of the Dominion to interfere with vessels engaged in bona fide comf
mercial transactions upon the coast of the Dominion. The two vessels which havej
been seized are both of them beyond all question fishing vessels and not traders, andl
therefore liable, subject to the finding of the courts, to any penalties imposed by tfel
law for the enforcement of the Convention of 1818, on parties violating the terms ofj
that Convention.

"When, therefore, Mr. Bayard protests against all such proceedings as
"flagrantly violative of reciprocal commercial privileges to which citizons of tbe|
United States are lawfully entitled under statutes of Great Britain, and Iho welll
defined and publicly proclaimed authority of both countries," and when be denieJ
the competence of the Fishery Department to issue under the Convention of ISlsJ
such a paper as the " Warning," dated 5th March, 1886, of which a copy has becul
supplied to Your Lordship, he is in efiect denying to the Dominion, the right of
taking any steps for the protection of its own rights secured under the Conventioil
referred to.

1 have, &c.,

The Eight Honourable

Earl Granville, K.G.,

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNE.

&0., &G., &C.

(^Telegram.)

No. 88.

From Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

8th June, 18ti6.

Tn reply to your telegram of the 4th June, the subjoined amondnrents are agiedl
to. In the last paragraph of the circular, third line, leave out from the word " for"
to the word " water " which is in the fourth line. In the sixth line leave out froal
the word " if" to the word *• trading" which is in the eighth lino and insert the {ol|
lowing words: —

*' If any fishing vessel or boat of the United States is found fishing, or to hmi
been fishing, or preparing to fish." I have written a despatch on the subject whiclj
follows. A decioiou will not bo arrived at in the case of " David J. Adams " m
Bceral weeks.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE

bay-» ai
ia the
1

of FlbE

:and
the foil

(Extract.)

No. 89.
Morquis of Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

Quebec, 8th June, 1886.

My Lord, — In reference to, Your Lordi^hip's telegrams of the 3id and 4lh iii.-t.,i:^
which you have called the attention of my Governmiut to the Customs Circuhii N(\|
371 and to the " Warning" enclosed therein, I think it desirable to make the follo»|
ing observations in explanation of the telegraphic replies which I have addres? cJ il
Your Lordship.

In your telegram of the 4th inst., Your Lordship pointed out that the terrotc
the concluding paragraph cf the " Warning " in question had the cfl'ect of cxcliulicl
not only vessels belonging to the United States but all foreign vessels from Cacadiai

Dg by its acticnj
ivilegoa fecuredl
ipulations wiihl
t baa been madJ
sting law or byl
n bona fide cornJ
ioIb which hml
Bot traders, anil
imposed by {M
Dg tbo terms ofi

edings as boi ^
I citizens of thel
in, and the -welll
when ho deniei|
vention of ISlsJ
i copy has becij
on, tbo right cif
• the Conventioul

S^SDOWNE.

June, 1866,

trents are agredl

the word "fori

le leave out frouj

nd insert the foil

hing, or to ha™
10 subject whickl
I J. Adums'ToJ

NSDOWNE

June, 1886.

and 4lh iiir-t.,iTi
ms Circular Nn
make the follow
ave addrcficcd!

at the terra" c

I'ect of fXcludiDJ

8 from Caradiai

bay"* and harbours, and yoa observed that this was probably not intentional as nothing
\a ilio Act recited would justify snoh an exclusion.

I have asc9rtained that the " Warning," as originally issued from the Department
of Fisheries after reciting the 1st Article of 'he Convention of 1818, and sections 2,
: and 4 of the Canadian Act of 1863, respecting fishing by foreign vessels, contained
^ho following paragraph : —

" Therefore be it known, that by virtue of the Treaty Provisions and Act of
Parliament above recited, all foreign vessels or bouts are forbidden from fishing or
ikin^ fish hy any means whatever within three marine miles of any of the coasts,
bay?, creeks and harbours in Canada, or to enter such bays, harbours and creeks ex-
cept for the pui'poso of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood
and obtaining water, and for no other purposes whatever; of all of wuich yoa will
take notice and govern yourself accordingly."

^ The passage quoted would, as Your Lordship has pointed out, have affected all
jforeign vessels, whether belonging to the United States or not. The mistake was
however, detected and the " Warning " issued in a revised form from which the para-
jraph which I have quoted was omitted and replaced by the words " of all of which
fo\x will take notice and govern yourself accordingly."

I enclose herewith copies of tbo warning in its original and in its amended
Enclosure No. 1 f^i™. It is possible that Your Lordship or the Ameri- Enclosure No. »
bfNa. 89amend- can Minister may have seen the warning before it had of No. 33, ori-
pd. been amended in the manner which I have described, ginal-

Che amended form which merely recites Art I. of the Convention of 1818 and the
Canadian Statute of 1868, appears to me to be entirely free from objection. The
latter of these Statutes is, as Your Lordship is aware, substantially the same as the
Imperial Act of 1819 (59 Geo. lEF., cap. 58) although the provisions relating to
lovering are taken from another Imperial Statute (9 Goo. 111., cap. 35). The law of
kho United States as to hovering is, I believe, the same as that embodied in this
Statute.

The concluding paragraphs of the circular No. 371 to which, and, not to the warn-
^nij, Your Lordnbip's celegram of the 4th of Juno may have been intended to refer,
iio also, I think, open to objection. Afcer reciting the Dominion Act of 1868, which,
like the Imperial Statute of 1819, applies to foreign vessels generally, the circular
proceeds to mention specially certain acts as violations, not of either of the Statutes
In quesjiion, but of the Convention of 1818. and decilaros that if "such vessels or boats,"
that is, any foreign fishing vessels or boats, are found committing those acts they are
bo detained. As, however, the Convention has refertace to the fishing rightsof the

Inited States and not to those of other foreign powers, the passages which I have
juoted are, 1 think, certainly open to the criticism not only that they assume that the
acts described are violations of the Convention, but that they seek to apply whatever
penatlioH may be enforced against parties contravening the Convention to vessels to

^hich those provibions are not properly applicable.

This point has been considered by my Government with every desiro >,o rectae

be circular in Huuh a manner as to remove all reasonable objections to it upon 'dMBO
br other grounds, and I have much pleasure in informing Your Lordship thai the
circular will be re issued with the following concluding paragraphs n lieu of those
preferred to above : —

" Having reference to the above you are requested :o furnish any )reign fishing
vessels, boats or fishermen found within three marine miles of the share within yoor
^islrict with a printed copy of the warning enclosed herewith,

" If any fi-hing vessel or boat of the United States is found fishing or to fe«v«

Ben fishing o;* preparing to fish, or if hovering within tho three mile limit oes not
lepart within twentyfoiir hours after receiving such warning, you will place an
•tiicer on board of such vessel and at once telegraph the facts to the Fisheries Depart-

lent at Ottaw.t and await instructions."

Tho effect of these words will be that every foreign fisherman found within the
Ihree mile limit will receive a warning which will make him aware of the state of

'■•i i:

the law, while every fi^^hing vessel belonging to the United States found oontravc;J
ing the existing Canadian 8tatatos,which, as I have already reminded year Lordsihii
in thepe reBpeots follow closely those passed by the Imperial Parliament, will, if li
departing within twenty-four hours after receiving such warning, be detained unda
the conditions described.

I trust that the above explanation will be satisfactory to your Lordship.

I have, &e.,

(SdO LANSDOWNE.

The Right Honorable

EaBL GRANVILtB, K.G.,

&C., &C., &0.

[Enclosure No. 1.]
WARNING.- TO ALL WKOM IT MAY CONCERN.

The Government of the United States having by notice terminated Articles 18 to 11
both inclusive, and Article 30, known as the Fishery Articles, of the Washington Treatl
attention is called to the following provision of the Convention between the United Stal|
and Great Britain, signed at London on the 20th October, 1818 : —

Article 1st. "Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by tlJ
*' United States, lor the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry and cure fish, on certain coast]
*' bays, harhors and creeks, of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agresJ
*< between the high Contracting Fartie8,that the inhabitants of the said United States shall baT|
" forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fislu
** every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Ca[|
*' Bay to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from i
" said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also (
" the coasts, bays, harbors and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador,!
" and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coitl
" without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Companii
*' and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in a[|
** of the unsettled bays, harbors and creeks of the southern part of the coast of NewfoundlanJ
" hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portiii|
" thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish
" such portion so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose, with the inhabitant^
** proprietors, or possessors of the ground."

" And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed i
*' claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three luarii
*' miles, of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions i:
** America, not included within the above-mentioned limits ; provided, however, that tl<
" American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors, for the purposed
" shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining watei', aii|
" for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may
*♦ necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any manner wM
" ever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them."

Attention is also called to the following provisions of the Act of the Parliament of Cana
Cap. 61, of the Acts of 1808, " An Act respecting fisliing by foreign vessels."

2nd. " Any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's Navy, serving on board of any ves?J
of Her Majesty's Navy, cruising and being in the waters of Canada for purpose of atlbnlicf
protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries, or any commissioned ollicei
Her Majesty's Navy, Fishery Officer, or Stipendiary Magistrate on board of any vessel belonjiliii
to or in the service of the Government of Canada and employed in the service of protectid
the fisheries, or any officer of the Customs of Canada, Sheritt, Magistrate or other person duit
commissioned for that purpose, may go on board of any ship, vessel or boat, within any harb|
in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within tiiree marine miles of any of the coas
bays, creek or harbors in Canada, and stay on board so long as she may remain within sucf
place or distance."

3rd. "If such ship, vefsel or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within sucJI
harbor, or so hovering for twenty-four Lours after the Master shall have been required :
depart, any one of such officers or persons as are above mentioned may bring such slijj

found oontravcl
id your LordHhi]
mont, will, if d
Q detained uodtj

Lordabip.
JDOWNE.

d Articles 18 to2|
Vashington TreaM
1 the United Stati|

rty claimed by tl
on certain coast
merica, it is afrret
ed States shall hav- ;
)erty to take fish ;
extends from C'ai
oundland, from tf;
slands, and alsu c
oast of Labrador,'*
jly along the coa:
jii's Bay Companjj
md cure fish in »i
3t of Newfoundlari
ime, or any portio
dry or cure iish i j
ith the inhabitant

itofore enjoyed f
itbin three mariv
esty's dominion^;
however, thut tt
for the purpose 1.
)taining watei', lU;. ^
•lotions as may 'i-
any manner wluvi

•llament of Canadij.

oard of any ves
irpose of atlbrdir
nissioned otlicev
ny vessel belonj;,
vice of protecti.
other person dui^
, within any harl'l
any of the coa
smain within :-uti

tinue within sii;|

been required;

' bring such sb:|

veosel or boat into port and search her cargo, and may also examine the Master upon oatii
touching the cargo and voyage ; and if the Master or person in command shall not truly
answer the questions put to him in such examination, he shall forfeit four hundred dollars ;
and if such ship, veesel or boat be foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the
United Kingdom or of Canada, and have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have
been fishing (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or
harbors ot Canada, not included within the above-mentioned limits, without a license, or
after the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to such ship, vessel or
boat under the first section of this Act, such ship, vessel or boat, and the tackle, rigging,
apparel, furniture, stores and cargo thereof shall be forfeited."

4th. " All goods, ehips, vessels and boats, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture,
stores and cargo liable to forfeiture under this Act, may be seized and secured by any ofSccrs
or persons mentioned in the second section of this Act; and every person opposing any
officer or person in the execution of his doty under this Act, or aiding or abetting any other
person in any opposition, shall forfeit eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of a misde-
meanor, and upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

Of all of which you will take notice and govern yourself accordingly.

(Sd.)

DgPARTMKNT OP FISHERIES,

Ottawa, 5th March, 1886.

GEORGE E. FOSTER,

Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

No. 90.

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Earl Granville,

[No. 188.] QuBBFc, 8th June, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — In reference to Sir Lionel West's letter to roe of the 2Ut May^
enclosing one from Mr. Bayard complaining of the treatment of the American
schooner " Jennie and Julia," of Eastport, Maine, which vessel .was represented to
have, after she had made due entry at the port of Digby, N.S., attempted to purchaso
herrings for smoking and to have been thereupon warned, and compelled to leave
without taking any cargo, I have the honor to enclose copy of a report which I
have received from my Minister of Marine and Fisheries dealing fully with the caso
in question.

Your Lordship will observe that the " Jennie and Julia " is described as being
to all intents and purposes a fishing vessel, fully equipped for fishing, and that as
Bach she was regarded as debarred by the Convention of 1818 from trading in
Canadian ports, and, therefore, warned to desist from so doing.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

[Enclosure No. 1.]
Department of Fisheries, Canada, Ottawa, June 5Tn, 18S6.

With reference to a de»i)atch from the British Minister at Washington, to His Excellency
the Governor General, dated 21st May last, and enclosing a letter from Mr. Secretary Bayard,
regarding the refusal of the Collector of Customs at Digby, N. S., to allow the United States'
schooner "Jennie and Julia" the right of exercising commercial privileges at the said port,
the undersigned has the honor to make the following observations : —

It appears that the •' Jennie and Julia " is a vessel of about 14 tons register, that she was
to all intents and purposes a fishing vessel, and at the time of her entry into the port of
Digby had fishing gear and apparatus on board, and that the Collector fully satisfied himself
of these facts. .According to the master's declaration she was there to purchase fresh herring
only, and wished to get them direct from the weir fishermen. The Collector acted upon his
conviction that she was a fishing vessel and as such debarred by the Treaty of 1818 from
entering Canadian porta for purposes of trade. He, therefore, in the exercise ol his plain duty,
warned her off.

Ill

I'-

The Treaty of 1818 iH explicit in its terms, and by it United Stntea' fishing vessels are
allowed to enter Canadian ports for shelter, repairs, wood and water, and " for no other
purpose whatever."

The undersigned is of the opinion that it cannot be successfully contended that a bona
Jide fishing vessel can, simply by declaring her intention of purchasing fresh fish for other
than baiting purposes, evade the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 and obtain privileges not
oontemplatod thereby. If that were admitted, the provision of the Treaty which excludes
United Statcb' fishing vessels for all purposes but the four above mentioned, would be
rendered null and void and the whole United States' fishing Heet bo at once lifted out of the
category of fishing vessels, and allowed free use of Canadian ports for baiting, obtaining sup-
plies and tranship))ing cargoes.

It appears to the undersigned that the question as to wiiether a vessel is a fishing vessel
or a legitimate trader or merchant vessel is one of fact, and to be decided by the character
of the vessel and the nature of lior outfit, and that the class to which she belongs is not to be
determined by the simple declaration of her master, that he is not at any given time acting
in the character of a fisherman.

At the same time the undersigned bogs again to observe that Canada has no desire to
interrupt the longestablished and legitimate commercial intercourse with the United States,
b'lt rather to encourage and maintain it, and that Canadian ports are at present open to tbe
whole merchant navy of the United States on the same liberal conditions as heretofore
accorded.

The whole respectfully submitted.

(Sd.)

GEO.

E. FOSTER,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

Nx 91.

Governor General to Earl Granville,

[No. 193.J QuBBBO, 9th June, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — I have the honor to forward herewith for Your Lordship'a inform-
ation, copies of two despatches I have received from Her Majesty's Minis-
and 82. ^^ ^^ Washington in regard to the detention and sabsequent release of the |
Canadian Schooner *• Sisters," at Portland, Maine, for violation of the Cas-
te ms regulations of the United States.

2. The vessel in question arrived in the port of Portland with a cargo of fish.aDd i
became liable to a fine of $500 for the failure of her captain to produce a manifest
of her cargo upon his arrival within the limits of the Customs jurisdiction of the
port. As, however, the United States' authorities were satisfied that there was no
intention on the part of the captain of the " Sisters " to defraud the revenue, the |
fine was remitted and the vessel released.

3. I have communicated copies of Sir Lionel West's despatches to my Govern-
ment.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
The Eight Honorable .

Earl Geanvillb, K.G.

No. 93.
Governor General to Earl Granville,

Citadel, Quebec, 9th June, 1886.
to previous correspondence I have the honor to|

{No. 196.]

My Lobd,— With reference

J. , forward herewith for YouV Lordship's information a copy of a despatch

enclosur"? ^''°™ ^^^ I^ionel West, enclosing a note from Mr. Bayard, dated May 29,

on questions arising out of the Bill to amend the " Dominion Fishery Act

of 1868," recently passed through both Houses of the Dominion Parliament.

hing vesselB are
i *' for no other

led that a bona
sli fish for other
n privileges not
which excludes
ioned, would (m
lifted out of the
, obtaining sup-

i a fishing vessel
y the character
ings is not to be
ren time acting

has no desire to
e United StateH,
jent open to the
IS as heretofore

•73

2. I havo already made Tour Lordnhip aware that the Bill rofo red to by Mr*
iBajard waa roaervod by me for the 8ifi;DiQ ;atioQ of Hor Mujoaty's pleasure thoreoa*
[upon tho ground that as it aiT.'oted matteri^ formioi!^ the Hubjoct of negotiation
jbotweon Ilor Miijesty'd QovernmoDt and that of tho United Statea, it waa deairablo
ithat it ahould not oome into operation until Hor Majesty's Govornmont should have
I had an opportunity of considering its provisions.

3. A copy of tho warning referred to by Mr. Bayard was sent to Your Lord*
Uhip in my despatch of 25lh March, and I now encloae a coj)y of the Customs oir-
[cutur of 7th May, which is montionei in Mr. Bayard's note.

4. I bad tho honor of intimating to Your Lordahip by telegram on the 8th

inatant, that it had boon found neceaaary to amocd the wording of this
Enc. No. 3 circular, the terms of which as they originally stwd would havo affected
of No. 33. ,j\\ foreign veseels and not only those of the United States.

I have, &o.,

(3d.) LANSDOWNB.

[Tho Right nonornblo

Earl Gu^nville, E.G.

nd Fisheries.

June, 1886.

rdahip'a inform- 1
1 ajeaty's Mi nig-
t release of the I
tlon of the Cni>

trgo of fish, and I
luce a manifest
iadiction of the
it there was no
le revenue, the]

to my Govern-

SDOWNB.

June, 1886.

e the honor to|
ly of a despai
dated May 29]
)a Fishery Actj
ament.

No. 93.
Colonial Office to Governor General.

Downing Street, 9lh June, 1886.

Mr Lord,— I have the honor to transmit to you, for the information of Your

iLordahip'a Government, copies of two despatches (received from the Foreign Office)

[which havo been addros-ed by the Earl of Rwoborry to Sir Lionel VVost, recording

I conversations held by His Lordship with the American Minister on the subject of tha

Fishery Question. '

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT,

for Earl Granvillc.
His Excellency

The Governor General.

(No. 20. Treaty.)

[Bnclosure No. 1.]
The Earl of Rosebery to Sir L. West.

Foreign Office, 24th May, 1S86.

Sir, — The American Minister called on me to-day, and said that he had received a
telegram from Mr. Bayard lute on -Saturday night instructing liim to aslt me if tho seizure of
American fishing vessels in Canadian waters could not be discontinued, and the vessels
already captured restored, of course, without prejudice, and on an undertaking to surrender
them if required.

Mr. Phelps went on to arirae the construction of the Treaty of 1818, and said that though,
at a first glance, its provision? might seem to justify the Canadian authorities in the course
which they had taken, a general view of its whole scope contradicted that assumption,
which, in any case, was inconsistent with the cordial relations existing between tho two
countries. In reply, I reminded Mr. Piielps that that Treaty was concluded at a time when,
after a war and a period of great bitterness, the relations betw:^ n Great Britain and tho
United States were not so cordial as they are now.

As regarded the construction of the Treaty, I could not presume to argue with so ominent
a lawyer as himself ; I could not, however, refrain from expressing the opinion that the
plain English of the clause seemed to me entirely to support the Canadian view. Nor waa it
the fault of the Canadians that they had been compelled to resort to the enforcement of the
Treaty. I admitted, indeed, that the responsibility did not lie on the Amoricaa Govern-

ft
I

.if''.' ^

rMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

//^.*t<^

^^"^^M^

c <^^%

1.0

I.I

1.25

lAo 111112.0

12.2

1.4

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 87il-4503

'V-

I/.

>1*

Ill

■ij

jilliii

mcnt But ihe Senate had refused to sanction any negotiation on the matter, and hii
therefore thrown back the Canadians on the provisions of the Treaty of 1818. As regard*]
the seizure of the vessels which Mr. Phelps had described as having transgressed unwittiogil
1 could only say but little, as I had received no intelligence beyond what was stated in thf
newspapers. If, however, they bad erred unwittingly it was not our fault, for we bad issuS
m formal warning to American fishermen that they would not be permitted, under the Tresil
of 1818, to do certain things, and we had requested Mr. Bayard to issue a similar notictl
He, hoiiever, had declined to do so. I could not, therefore, think that the American vessel
liaa erred unwittingly, more especially, as, if I was rightly informed by the newspapers, then
ifeie suspicious and furtive circumstances connected with tbe case of the " David J. Adams,!
at any rate, which tended to prove that tbe captain was aware that he was acting illegally.
As to the substantial proposition of Mr. Bayard, I begged Mr. Phelps to return t
ibllowing answer : Ko one, as he was aware, could be more anxious than I was to mainti
the most cordial relations between the two countries. He well knew that I would go moi
than halfway to meet Mr. Bayard in this matter, but it would be difficult to ask ths Ca::i,
dians to suspend their legal action if we had nothing to offer them in the way of a quidf'
quo. What I would suggest would be this, that he should telegraph at once to Washingto
to tell Mr. Bayard that I would do my best to induce the Colonial authorities to suspend thei
action if some assurance could be given me of an immediate readiness to negotiate on ia\
question. Mr. Phelps promised to do this.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) ROSEBERY.

[Enclosure No. 2.]

Jfr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps (communicated to ihe Earl of Bosebery by Mr. Phelps,

May 29).
<Telegraphic.) May 27, 1886.

You will say to Lord Rosebery that every dispositior. exists on our part to arrive at i
amicable and just solution of Canadian fishery and trade question, as the President '
already dianifested. Main point now is to have Treaty of 1818 so interpreted as not ti
destroy commercial intercourse, including purchase of bait for use in deep sea fishing. ThiJ
was done by Great Britain in 1871, and its abandonment now would be inadmissible,* aD|
adhered to now would relieve hardship and exasperation caused by summary arrest <
vessels. Present action of Canadian authorities is calculated to obstruct settlement.

hii

: I

[Enclosure No. 3.]

The Earl of Rosebery to iiir L. West.
(No. 21 A. Treaty.) Foreign Office, May 29, 1886.

Sib, — The American Minister called on me to-day and read me a telegram from 1
Bayard, of which I enclose a copji.

He again discussed at some length the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, and said that thr
newspapers which bad reached him from America treated the matter as of little momemj
because the British Govemn .?nt were sure not to support the action of the Canadiu
Administration. He also alluded to a correspondence with Lord Kimberley in 1871, u
which Lord Eimbeiley stated that the Imperial (iovernment was the sole interpreter of thJ
British view of Imperial Treaties, and that they were not able to support the Canadian vien
of the bait clause. Mr. Phelps finally urged that the action of the Canadian Governmfiil
chould be suspended, which would then conduce to a friendly state of matters, which vdm
enable negotiations to be resumed.

I replied to Mr. Phelps that, as regards the strict interpretation of the Treaty of 1818,|
was in the unfortunate position, that theie were not two opinions in this country on tin
matter, and that the Canadian view was held by all authorities to be legally correct. If wJ
aie now under the piovisions of the Treaty of 1818 it was by the action, not of Her MaJestfJ
GoTeinment, or of the Canadian Government, but by the wish of the United States. I hiij
offeied to endeavor to procure the prolongation of the temporary arrangement of last yeul

'ThU word it dcnbtfal as to correct reading of cypher.

ihe matter, and nil
1818. As regard*]
igressed unwittiogM
,t was stated intbT
lit, for we had issue]
sd, under the Treat
sue a similar notictl
ihe American vessei
le newspapers, theil
5 " David J. Adams,!
ras acting illegally,
Phelps to return t
I I was to mainti
lat I would go moi
lit to ask th3 Caa,
he way of a quidji'
ance to WashingK
ities to suspend the|
3 to negotiate on I

ROSEBERY.

in order to allow an opportunity for negotiating, and that had been refused. A Joint Commission
had been refused, and, in fact, as any arrangement, either temporary or permanent, had been
rejected by the United States, it was not a matter of option but a matter of course that we
returned to the existing Treaty. As to Lord Eimberley's view, I had had no explanation from
him on that point, and of course I entirely concurred with his opinion that the British Govem-
ment vtere the interpreters of the British view of Imperial Treaties; As regarded the wish
expressed by Mr. Phelps that the present action should be suspended, when possibly an
opportunity might arrive for negotiation, I said that that amounted to an absolute concession
of the Canadian position with no return whatever, and I feared that the refusal of the United
States to negotiate, for so I could not help interpreting Mr. Bayard's silence in answer to my
proposition, would produce a bad effect, and certainly would not assist the Imperial Govern-
ment in their eflorts to deal with this question. In the meantime, however, I be^'ged hint
simply to assure Mr. Bayard that 1 had received bis communication, and that we were still
awaiting the Canadian case and the details of the other seizures, that when we had received
these, for which we had telegraphed, I hoped to be in a better position for giving an answer.
Mr. Phelps also touched on the seizures of these ships, and I said that the legality of that would
be decided in a Court of Law, and Mr. Phelps objected that it would be a Donunion Court of
Law and not an Imperial Court. I replied that an appeal would lie to the Courts in this
country, and Mr. Phelps pointed out that that procedure would be expensive ; but I reminded
him again that it was not our fault that we had been thrown on the provisions of the Treaty
of 1818.

I am, &c.,

(Sd.) BOSEBERY.

/ by Mr. Phelps,

May 27, 1886.

part to arrive at i
s the President k
nterpreted as not ti
sp sea fishing. ThiJ
9 inadmissible,* ana

summary arrest r

settlement.

May 29, 1886.
telegram from!

8, and said that tb
s of little momeiij
on of the Canad
berley in 1871,
B interpreter of tin
the Canadian vieil
nadian Governmeiif
itters, which mm

he Treaty of 1818,1
his country on tbi
ally correct. If fl
ot of Her Majestf j
ited States. I b>i
;ement of last yeul

[EocloBore No. 4.]
The Earl oj Boaebery to Sir L. West.

(No. 24. Treaty.)

FoREioy Office, 2nd June, 1886.

SiK, — The American Minister informed me to-day, in the course of conversation, that he
was at this moment preparing a statement of the American contention with regard to the
recent seizures under the teims of the Convention of 1818. He entered into a long argument
to show that seizure was not piovided for by law as a penalty for the infraction of this clause ;
that what was piovided for was a punishment for American vessels fishing within the forbid-
den limits. He said that his Government could not admit the interpretation which apparently
was accepted by the Canadian Government, and he mentioned the fact that in any case the
American fishermen had no notice ot the action that was going to be taken. As to the latter

r}int, I replied that that was not the fault of Her Majesty's Government. On the 18th March
had telegraphed to you to ask you to request the Secretary of State to issue a Notice such
as we were about to issue to Canadian fishermen, and he had declined to do so. Mr. Phelps
was not aware of this. I went on to say that the view of the American Government appeared
to be this : " You are to accppt our interpretation of the Treaty, whether it be yours or not,
and in any case we will not negotiate with you." I said that that was not a tenable proposi-
tion. Mr. Phelps said that it was quite true that his Government, owing to circumstances of
which I was aware, had not been able to negotiate, but as regarded the Treaty, he felt sure
that he would be able to convince me tliat the American interpretation was correct, I said
that, as regards the circumstances to which he had alluded, we had only to look to the United
States' Government, and could not look beyond it. He would remember that at almost our
first interview on my accession to ofiSce I had proposed to him to endeavour to procure the
continuation of the recent arrangement for a year, although that arrangement was disadvan-
tageous to Canada in that it gave the United States all it wanted, and gave Canada L-ithing
in return. We had also piessed on the United States' Government the issue of a Joint
Commission to investigate the matter, and that bad also been refused. Further, on the 24th
Uay, I made a proposal, personally indeed, but with all the weight which my official character
could give, that Canadian action should be suspended, and negotiations should commence,
and to this I had received no reply. In these circumstances, I could not feel that Her Majesty's
Government bad been wanting in methods of conciliation, and 1 begged him to send me his
statement of his case as quickly as possible, for in the meantime there was such unanimity
among our Legal Advisers as to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818 that I had nothing to
submit to them. As regards the cases themselves, I had as yet no details, nor was I in
poBsession of the Bill or of the Circular to which Mr. Bayard's recent telegram referred.

I am, &o..

(Sd.)

ROSEBERY.

4.1

No. 94.

Governor General to Earl Granville, K. &,

(No. 199.] QnEBEO, 14th Jane, 1886.

Mr Lord,— I have thehonoar to enclose herewith a certifiedoopy of an approved
report of my Piiw Coaocil upon Mr. Bayard's notes of the 10th and 2Jth May, deal-
ing with the seizure of the American fishing vessel " David J. Adams," and the
questions affecting the i-ights of United States' fishermen within the territorial
waters of the Dominion, which have arisen in conseqaence of that seisare.

2. The report bears the strongest testimony to the desire of my Government,
not only to avoid any aclion which might unnecessarily interrupt the amicable and
neighbourly relations of tbo two countries, but also to establish, if possible, upon a
wider and mutually advantageous basis the commercial relations of Canada and the
United States.

3. Tour Lordship will observe that whatever action has been resorted to by the
Dominion Government has been taken solely with the object of maintaining valuable
rights secured to the subjects of Her Majesty by contracts entered into by the
Imperial Government, and by legislation carrying out the terms of those oontracta
The report expresses the conviction of my Government that such legislation, together
with the administrative acts of those to whom has been entrusted the duty of giving
effect to it, are not as the Secretary of State of the United States has asserted, usur-
pations of power on the part of the Canadian Legislature or of the Canadian Bxeco-
live, but clearly within the competence of both.

4. In another portion of the report Your Lordship will find a statement of the
roasons for which it is hold that the provisions of the Convention of 1818 have not, as
Mr. Bayard appears to suppose, been superseded or rendered of doubtful validity by
subsequent laws or regulations affecting the trade of the two countries, but that they
are still undoubtedly in force, and it is pointed out that now that the Convention has
been once more brought into operation by the action, not of the Dominion, but of the
United States, the Government of this country cannot consistently with its duty
abandon or suspend any of the privileges secured by that Convention to its people.

5 Your Lordship will find that a full, and, I trust, satisfactory explanation has
been given of the circumstances under which the " David J. Adams" was seized, and
of the conduct of the officers of the Canadian Fisheries Police in dealing with that
vessel. I may in conclusion again remind Your Lordship that in none of the oases
to which Mr. B:iyard's complaints have reference, has there been any interfereoce
with vessels other than those engaged in the fishing industry, and that there has
never been any desire on the part of the Canadian Government in any way whatever
to restrict the intercourse of other trading vessels frequenting the waters of the
Dominion.

The Bight Honourable

Eabl Granville, E.G.

(Si.) LANSDOWNB.

[Enclosure No. I.]

Cbrtifibd copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved 6y
His Ejicellency the Governor General in Council on the 14<A June, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a report from the
Minister of >Iarine and Fisheries upon the oooimunications, under date the 10th and 20th
May last, from the Hon. Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State of the United States, to Her Majesty's
Minister at Washington, in reference to the seizure of the American fishing veisel " Dviid J.
Adams."

The Committee concur in the annexed report, an.d they advise that Your Excellency be
moved to transmit a copy thereof, if approved, to the Sight Hon. the Secretary of State for_^
the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval. , ,

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council for Canada.

3D0WNB.

ncil, approved 6y

Report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
[Enolosnre No. 2.]

The undersigned, having had his attention called by Your Excellency to a communication
from Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State of the United States, dated the 10th May, and addressed
to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, in reference to the seizure of the American fishing
vessel " David J. Adams," begs leave to submit the following observations thereon :—

Your Excellency's Government fully appreciates and reciprocates Mr. Bayard's desire
that the administration of thi) laws regulating tho commercial interests and the mercantile
marine of the two countries might be such as to promote good feeling and mutual advantage.
Canada has given many indisputable proofs of an earnest desire to cultivate and extend her
commercial relations with the United States, and it may not be without advantage to
recapitulate some of those proofs.

For many years before 1854 the Maritime Provinces of British North America had com-
plained to Her Majesty's Government of the continuous invasion of their inshore fisheries
(sometimes accompanied, it was alleged, with violence) by American fishermen and fishing
vessels.

Much irritation naturally ensued, and it was felt to be expedient by both Governments
to put an end to this unseemly state of things by treaty, and at the same time to arrange for
enlarged trade relations between the United States and the British North American Colonies.
The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 was the result by which not only were our inshore fisheries
opened to the Americans, but provision was made for the free interchange of the principal
natural products of both countries, including those of the sea.

Peace was preserved in our waters, and the volume of international trade steadily
increased during the existence of this treaty, and until it was terminated in 1866 — not by
Great Britain, but by the United States.

In the following year Canada (then become a Dominion, and united to No\£. Scotia and
New Brunswick) was thrown back on the Convention ol 1818, and obliged to fit out a Marine
Police to enforce the laws and defend her rights. Still desiring, however, to cultivate friendly
relations with her groat neighbour, and not too suddenly to deprive American fishermen of
their accustomed fishing grounds and means of livelihood, she readily acquiesced in the pro-
posal of Her Majesty's Government for the temporary issue of annual licenses to iisli, on pay-
ment of a moderate fee. Your Excellency is aware of the failure of that scheme. A few
licenses were issued at first, "but the applications for them soon ceased, and the American
fishermen persisted in forcing themselves into our waters without leave or license.

Then came the recurrence, in an aggravated form, of all the troubles which had occurred
anterior to the Reciprocity Treaty. There were invasions of our waters, personal conflicts
between our fishermen and American crews, the destruction of nets, the seizure and condem-
nation of vessels, and intense consequent irritation on both sides. This was happily put an
end to by the Washington Treaty of 1871. In the interval between the termination of the
first treaty and the ratification of that by which it was evidently replaced, Canada on several
occasions pressed without success, through the British Minister at Washington, for a renewal
of the Reciprocity Treaty, or for the negotiation of another on a still wider basis.

When, in le74, Sir Edward Thornton, then British Minister at Washington, and the late
Hon. George Brown, of Toronto, were appointed joint Plenipotentiaries for the purpose of
negotiating and concluding a treaty relating to " Fisheries, Commerce and Navigation," a
provisional treaty was arranged by them with the United States' Government,but the Senate
decided that it was not expedient to ratify it, and the negotiation fell to the ground.

The Treaty of Washington, while it failed to restore the provisions of the Treaty of 1854
for reciprocal free trade (except in lish), at least kept the peace, and there was tranquility
along our shores until July, 1885, when it was termmated again by the United States' Gov-
ernment and not by Great Britain.

With a desire to show that she wished to be a good neighbour and in order to prevent loss
and disappointment on the part of the United States' Fishermen by their sudden exclusion
from her waters in the middle of the fishing season, Canada continued to allow them for six

months all the advantages which the rescinded Fishery clauses had previoiTsly given them,
although her people received from the United States none of the corresponding advantages
which the Treaty of 1871 had declared to be an equivalent for the benetits secured thereby
to the American Fishermen.

The President in return for this courtesy promised to recommend to Congress the
appointment of a joint commission by the two Governments of the United Kingdom and the
United States to consider the Fishery Question, with permission also to consider the whole
state of the Trade relations between the United States and Canada.

This promise was fulfilled by the President, but the Senate rejected his recommendation
and refused to sanction the Commission.

Under these circumstances, Canada, having exhausted every effort to procure an amicable
arrangement has been driven again to fall back upon the Convention of 1818, the provisions
of which she is now enforcing and will enforce in no punitive or hostile spirit, as Mr. Bayard
euppo.'^es, but solely in protection of her Fisheries, and in vindication of the rights seoureu
to her by Treaty. '

Mr. Bayard suggests that "the Treaty of 1818 was between two nations, the United
States of America and Great Britain, who, as the contracting parties, can alone apply
authoritative interpretation thereto, and enforce the provisions by appropriate legislation."

As it may be inferred from this statement that the right of the Parliament of Canada
to make enactments for the protection of the Fisheries of the Dominion, and the power of
the Canadian officers to protect those Fisheries, are questioned, it may be well to state at
the outset the grounds upon which it is conceived by the undersigned that the jurisdiction
in question is clear beyond a doubt.

(1.) In the first place ihe undersigned would ask it to be remembered that the extent of
the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada is not limited (nor was that of the Provinces be-
fore the Union) to the sea coast, but extends for three marine miles from the shore as to all
, matters over which any Legislative authority can in any country be exercised within that space.
The legislation which has been adopted on tais subject by the Parliament of Canada (and
reviously to Confederation by the Provinces) does not reach beyond that limit. It may
e assumed that in the absence of any treaty stipulation to the contrary this right is so well
recognized and established by both British and American law, that the grounds on which it is
supported need not be stated here at large. The undersigned will merely add, therefore, to
thiE statement oi the position, that so far from the right being limited by the Convention of 1818
thai Convention expressly recognizes it.

After renouncing the liberty to" take, cure or dry fish on or within three marine mil'js of
any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of Her Majesty's Dominions in America," there is
a stipulation that while American fishing vessels shall be admitted to enter such bays, &c.,
" for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of
obtaining water," they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their
taking, curing or drying fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges
reserved to them.

(!'.) ♦' Appropriate legislation " on this subject was, in the first instance, adopted by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Imperial Statute 59 George III, chap. 3"<, was
enacted in the year following the Convention in order to give that Convention force and
eflect. That Statute declared that except for the purposes before specified it should "not be
lawful for any person or persons, not being a natural born subject ot His Majesty, in any
foreign ship, vessel or boat, nor for any person in any ship, vessel or boat, other than suchas
shall be nadgated according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
to fish for, or to take, dry or cure any fish Ot any kind whatever within three marine miles of
any coasts, bays, creeks or harbours whatever in any part of His Majesty's Dominions in
America, not included within the limits specified and described in the First Article of the
said Convention, and that if such foreign ship, vessel or boat- or any persons on board thereof,
shall be found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within such distance of
such coasts, bays, creeks or harbours within such parts of His Majesty's Dominions in America,
out of the said limits as aforesaid, all such ships, vessels and boats together with their cargoes
and all guns, ammunition, tackle, apparel, furniture and stores, shall be forfeited and shall and
may be seized, taken, sued for, prosecuted, recovered and condemned by such and the like
ways, means and methods and in the same courts a? ships, vessels or boats may be forfeited,
seized, prosecuted and condemned for any ofience against any laws relating to the Revenuo
of Customs or the laws of trade and navigation, under any Act or Acts of the Parliament of
Great Britain, or Ol the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ; provided that nothing
contained in this Act shall apply, or be construed to apply to the ships, or subjects of any Pro-
vince, Power or State in amity with his Majesty, who are entitled by treaty with his Majesty
to any privilege of taking, drying or curing fish on the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors, or
within the limits in this Act described ; provided always, that it shall and may be lawful for

y given them,
ig advantages
cured thereby

Congress the
gdom and the
der the whole

lommendation

re an amicable
the provisions
13 Mr. Bayard
rights lecareu

I, the United
alone apply
;e legislation."
3nt of Canada
d the power of
veil to state at
cie jurisdiction

t the extent of
i Provinces be-
shore as to all
thin that space,
f Canada (and
limit. It may
right is so well
s on which it is
[d, therefore, to
iventionof 1818

marine mil'^s of
lerica," there is
such bays, &c.,
ng wood and of
o prevent their
» the privileges

adopted by the
[, chap. 3"<, was
niion force and
should "not be
Majesty, in any
ler than such as
Eiin and Ireland,
marine miles of
's Dominions in
3t Article of the
L baard thereof,
luch distance of
ons in America,
th their cargoes
d and shall and
ich and the like
ay be forfeited,
to the Revenuf)
e Parliament of
ed that nothing
jects of any Pro-
vith his Majesty
cs or harbors, or
ay be lawful for

by fisherman nf the said United States to enter intojany such bays or harbours of His Liitannio
Fajesty's Dominions in America as are last mentioned for the purpose of shelter and repair^
Ig damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose
Latever ; subject nevertheless to such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent auoh
biermen of the said United States from taking, drying or curing fish in the said bays or bar-
^ur8,or iu any other manner whatever abusing the said privileges by the said treaty and this
ct reserved to them, and as shall for that purpose be imposed by any order or orders to be
hm time ti time made by His Majesty in Council under the authority of this Act, and by
[y regulations which shall be issued by the Governor or person exercising the office of
bvernor in any such parts of His Majesty's Dominions in America, under or in pursuance of
ly such Crder in Council as aforesaid.

"And that if any person or persons, upon requisition made by the Governor of Newfound-
nd, or the person exercising the office of Governor, or by any Governor in person exer-
ting the office of Governor in any other parts of His Majesty's Dominions in America, as
presaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such Governor, or person exercising the
Bee of Governor, in the execution of any orders or instructions from His Majesty in
luncil, shall refuse to depart from such bays or harbours, or if any person or persons shall re-
Be or neglect to conform to any regulations or directions which shall be made or given for
t execution of any of the purposes of this Act, every such person so refusing or otherwise
lending against this Act shall forfeit the sum of two hundred pounds, to be recovered in
|e Superior Court of Judicature of the Ii^Iand of Newfoundland, or in the Superior Court of
Iclicature of the colony or settlement within or near to which such offence shall be com-
IttedjOr by Bill, Plaint or Information in any of His Majesty's Couits of Record at West-
luster, one moiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, His heirs and successors, and the
jier moiety to such person or persons as shall sue or prosecute for the same."

Dominion Acts, 31 Vic, Cap. 61.

J Vic , Osp. 16, now incorporated

lUevised Statutes of 1886, Cap. 90

Iva Scotia Acts, Revised Ststutes,

series, 0. 94, 29 Vic. (1866) 0.

New Brunswick Ants, Itf Vic.,

53) C. 69 P. Kdward Island Ace

ho. (1813) C. 14.

The Acts passed by the Provinces now forming Canada,
and also by the Parliament of Canada (now noted in the
margin) are to the same effect, aod may be said to be
merely declaratory of the law as established by the
Imperial Statute.

(3.) The authority of the Legislatures of the Provinces, and after Confederation, the
Jlliority of the Parliament of Canada, to make enactments to enforce the provisions of the
Invention, as well as the authority of Canadian officers to enforce those Acts, rests on well-
own constitutional principles.

Those Legislatures existed, and the Parliament of Canada now exists, by the authority
Ithe Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is one of the
lations " referred to by Mr. Bavard as the "contracting parties." Tbe Colonial Statutes
Ipe received the sanction of the British Sovereign, who and not the nation is actually the
hy with whom the United States made the Convention. The otScers who are engaged in
forcing the Acts of (,'anada or the laws of the Empire are Her Majesty's offioers, whether
|ii' authority emanates directly from the Queen or fiom Her representative the Governor
neral.

Tht juricidijtion thus exercised cannot, therefore, be properly da cribed in the language
id by Mr, B lyard as a supposed and therefore questionable delegation of jurisdiction by the
Ipenal Government of Great Britain. Her Majesty governs in Canada as well as in Great
Itain. tlie officers of Canada are Her officers, the Statutes of Canada are Her Statutes, passed
|tlie advice of Her Parliament sitting in Canada.

It is, therefore, an error to conceive that because the United States and Great Britain
te in the first instance the contracting parties to the Treaty of 1818, no questions arising
^er tliat Treaty can be "responsibly dealt with" either by the Parliament or by the
Ihorities of the Dominion.

The raising of this objection now is the more remarkable as the Government of the United
Jtes has long been aware of the necessity of reference to the Colonial Legislatures in
liters .atleoting their interests. The Treaties of 1854 and 187 1 expressly provide that so far
Ihey concerned the Fisheries or Trade relations of the Provinces, they should be subject to
iticiition by their several Legislatures, and seizures of American vessels and goods followed

comlemnation for breach of the Provincial Customs laws, have been made for forty years

nout protest or objection on the part of the United States' Government.

The undersigned with regard to this contention of Mr. Bayard has further to observe
It, in tlie proceedings which have recently been taken for the protection of the Fisheries,
lattempt has been made to put any special or novel interpretation on the Convention of
|8. The seizures of the fishing vessels have been made in order to enforce the explicit

provifiions of the Treaty, the clear and long established provUions of the Imperial Statut«|
and of the Statutes of Canada, expressed in almost the same language.

The proceedings which have been taken to carry out the law of the Empire in the presenti
case, are the same as those which have been taken from time to time during the period inl
which the Convention has been in force, and the seizures of vessels have been made under!
process of the Imperial Court of Vice-Admiralty established in the Provinces of Canada.

Mr. Bayard further observes that since the Treaty of 1818, "a series of laws and regubl
tions atiiecting the trade between the North American Provinces and the United States bavtl
been respectively adopted by the two countries, and have led to amicable and mutualljl
beneflcial relations between their respective inhabitants," and that "the independent audi
yet concuirent action of the two Governments has atl'ected a gradual extension from time tol
time of the provisions of Article l,of the Convention of July 3, J815, providing for recii
procal liberty of commerce between the United States and the Territories of Great BritainI
in Europe, no as gradually to include the Colonial Possessions of Great Britain in Nortbl
America and the West Indies within the limits of that Treaty."

The undersigned has not been able to discover in the instances given by Mr. Bayard anyl
evidence that " the laws and regulations afilecting the trade between the British NortJ
American Provinces and the United States," or that " the independent and yet concurrent!
action of the two Governments" have either extended or restricted the terms of the Conl
vention of 1818, or aifected in any way the light to enforce its provisions according to thJ
plain meaning ot the articles of the Treaty. On the contiary a reference to the 18tbl
article of the Washington Treaty will show that the contracting parties made the Conventionl
tiie bas s of the further privileges granted by the Treaty, and it does not allege that its prol
visions ate in any way extended or affected by subsequent legislation or acts of adminis^f
tration.

Mr. Bayard has referred to the proclamation of President .lackson, in 1830, creatinj
reciprocal commercial intercourse *' on terms of perfect equality of flag " between the United!
States and the British American dependencies, and has suggested that these "commercial!
privileges have since received a large extension, and that in some cases favours have been!
granted by the T^nited States without equivalent concess'on," such as "the exemptioJ
granted by the tripping Act of June 26, 1884 amounting +o one-halfof the regular tonnajel
dues on all vessels from British North America and West Ii idles entering ports of the Uniteii|
States."

He has also mentioned under this head "the arrangements for the transit of goods, andl
the remission by proclamation as to certain British ports and places, of the remainder of the|
tonnage tax, on evidence of equal treatment being shown " to United States vessels.

The proclamation of President Jackson, in IS.'iO, had no relation to the subject of the!
fisheries, and merely had the effect of opening United States' ports to British vessels on tei'ml
similar to those which had already been granted in British ports to vessels of the United!
States. The object of these " laws and regulations," mentioned by Mr. Bayard, was pureljl
of a commercial character, while the sole purpose of the Convention of 1818 was to establisl
and define the rights of the citizens of the two countries in relation to the fisheries on tlit|
British North American coast.

Bearing this distinction in mind, however, it may be conceded that substantial assistana
has been given to the development of commercial intercourse between the two countrieil
But legislation in that direction has not been confined to the Government of the Unib
States, as indeed Mr. Bayard has admitted, in referring to the case of the Imperial Shippiiij|
and Navigation Act of 1849.

For upwards of forty years, as has already been stated, Canada has continued to evinct
her desire for a free exchange of the chief products of the two countries. She has repeatedlil
urged the desirability of the fuller reciprocity of trade, which was established during tin
period in which the Treaty of 1854 was in force.

The laws of Canada, with regard to the registry of vessels, tonnage dues, and shippinJ
generally, are more liberal than those of the United States. The ports of Canada in inianf
waters are free to vessels of the United States, which are admitted to the use of her canal
on equal terms with Canadian vessels.

Canada allows free registry to ships built in the United States and purchased by Britiii|
citizens, charges no tonnage or light dues on United States' shipping, and extends a stand
invitation for a large measure of reciprocity in trade by her tariff legislation.

Whatever relevancy therefore the argument may have to the subject under consideratioij
the underrigned submits that the concessions which Mr. Bayard refers to as " favours " grantej
by the United States can hardly be said not to have been met by equivalent concessions '
the part of the Dominion, and inasmuch as the disposition of Canada continues to be tit
same as was evinced in the fiiendly legislation just referred to, it would seem that S|
Bayard's charges of showing " hostility to commerce under the guise of protection to iusliof

Imperial Statiit«|

figheries," or of " interrupting ordinary commercial intercourse by harsh measures and
I unfiieiuUy administration," is hardly justified.

The questions which were in controversy between Great Britain and the United States,
I prior to liS 18, related not to shipping and commerce, but to the claims of United tit:iteB'
I tisbermen to fish in waters adjacent to the British North American Provinces.

Those questions were definitely settled by (he Convention of that year, and although the
I terms of that Convention have since been twice suspended, first by the Treaty of 1 854, and
subsequently by that of 1 87 1 , and after the lapse of each of these two treaties the provisions
made in 1818 caaie again into operation, and were carried out by the Imperial and Colonial
I autliorities without the slightest doubt being raised as to their being in full force and vigour.
Mr. Bayard's contention that the effect of the legislation which has taken place under the
I Convention of 18 1 8, and of Executive action thereunder, would be " to expand ihe restric-
tions and renunciations of that treaty, which relatnd solely to inshore fishing, within the three
mile limit, so as to affect the deep sea fisheries," and " to diminish and practically destroy
the privileges expressly secured to American vessels to visit these inshore waters for the
object of shelter and repair of damages, and purchasing wood and obtaining water." appears
to the under^signed to be unfounded. The legislation referred to in no v^ny affects these
privileges, nor has the Goveinment of Canada taken any action towards their restriction. In
the cases of the recent seizures, which are the immediate subject of Mr. Bayard's letters, the
vessels seized had not resorted to Canadian waters for any one of the purposes specified in the
Convention of 1818 as lawful. They were United States' fishing vessels, and against the plain
1 terms of the Convention had entered Canadian harbours in doing so the " David J. Adams "
was not even possessed of a permit " to touch and trade," even if such a document could be
supposed to divest her of the character of a fishing vessel.

The undersigned is of opinion that while foi* the reasons which he has advanced there is
I no evidence to show that the Government of Canada has sought to expand the scope of the
I Convention of 1818, or to increase the extent of its restrictions, it would not be difficult tc»
I prove that the construction which the United States seek to place on that Convention
I would have the effect of extending very largely the prifileges which their citizens enjoy
I under its terms. The contention that the changes which may from time to time occur in the
habits of the fish taken o& our coasts, or in the methods of taking them, should be regarded
I as justifying a periodical revision of the terms of the treaty, or a new interpretation of its
I provisions cannot be acceded to. Such changes may from time to time render the conditions
of the contract inconvenient to one party or the other, but the validity of the agreement can
I hardly be said to depend on the convenience or inconvenience which it imposes from time
to time on one or other of the contracting parties. When the operation of its provisions can
I be shown to have become manifestly inequitable, the utmost that good will and fair deal-
I ing can suggest is that the terms should be re considered and a new arrangement entered
I into, but this the Government of the United States does not appear to have considered de-
Isirablc.

It is not however the case that the Convention of 1818 affected only the inshore fisheries •
lof the British Provinces ; it was framed with the object of affording a complete and exclusive
■definition of the rights and liberties which the fishermen of the United ^tates were thence-
I forth to enjoy in following their vocation so far as these rights could be affected by facilities
I for access to the shores or waters of the British Provinces or for intercourse with their people.
lit is therefore no undue expansion of the scope of that Convention to interpret strictly those
■of its provisions by which such access is denied, except to vessels requiring it for the pur-
[poses specifically described.

Such an undue expansion would, upon the other hand, certainly take place, if, under
icover of its provisions, or of any agreements relating to general commercial intercourse
Iwhich may have since been made, permission were accorded to United States' fishermen to
Iresort habitually to the harbours ot the Dominion, not for the sake of seeking safety for their
Ivessels or for avoiding risk oi human life, but in order to use these harbours as a general base
lof operations from which to prosecute and organize with greater advantage to themselves the
■industry in which they are engaged. It was in order to guard against such an abuse of the
Iprovisions of the treaty that amongst them was included the stipulation that not only should
■the inshore fisheries be reserved to British fishermen but that the United States should
Irenounce the right of their fishermen to enter the bays or harbours, excepting for the four
ppecitied purposes, which do not include the purchase of bait or other appliances, whether
fintended tor the deep sea fisheries or not.

The undersigned, therefore, cannot concur in Mr. Bayard's contention that " to prevent
I purchase of bait or any other supply needed for deep sea fishing would be to expand the
Convention to objects wholly beyond the purview, scope and intent of the treaty," and " to
live to it an effect never contemplated."
lti6-6

Mr. Bayard Hupgests that the possession by a fishing vessel of a permit to " touch and
trade " FhouhJ give her a right to enter Canadian ports, for other than the purposes named in
the treaty, or, in other words, should give her perfect immunity from its provisions.

This must amount to a practical repeal of the treaty, because it would enable a United
States' Collector of Customs by issuing a license originally intended for purposes of domestic
Customs regulation to give exemption from the treaty to every United States' fishing vessel, I
The observation that similar vessels under the British ilag have the right to enter the ports of I
the United States for the purchase of supplies, loses its force when it is remembered that the [
Convention of 1818 contained no restrictions on British vessels, and no renunciation of any
privileges in regard to them.

Mr. Bayard states that in the proceedings prior to the Treaty of 1818 the British Coni'
missioners proposed that United Slates' fishing vessels should be excluded " from carrying I
also merchandize," but that their proposition " being resisted by the Americp.n negotiators,
was abandoned " ; and goes on to say : " this fact would seem clearly to indicate that the
business of fishing did not then, and does not now, disqualify vessels from also trading in the
regular ports of entry." A reference to the proceedings alluded to will show that the pro
position mentioned related only to United States vessels visiting those portiotis of the coasts
of I^brador and Newfoundland on which the United States' fishermen had been gi-anted the
right to fish and to land for drying and curing fish, and the rejection of the proposal can at
the utmost be supposed only to indicate that the liberty to carry merchandize might exist
without objection in relation to these coasts, and is no ground for supposing that the right |
extends to the regular ports of entry, against the express words ot the treaty.

The proposition of the British negotiators was to append to Art. 1 the following words;
" It is therolbre well utiderstood that the liberty of taking, drying and curing fish, granted in I
the preceding part of this article, shall not be construed to extend to any privilege of carry [
ing on trade with any of His Biitaniiic Majesty's subjects residing within the limits herein-
before atsijmed for the use of the fisherman of the United States."

It was also proposed to limit them to having on board such goods as might " be n( cossary I
for the prosecution of the fishery or the support of the fishermen while engaged therein, or |
in the prosecution ot their voyages to and from the fishing grounds."

To this the American negotiators objected on the ground that the search for contraband I
goods and the liability to seizure for having them in possession would expose the fishermeni
to endless vexation, and in consequence the proposal was abandoned. It is apparent, there- 1
fore, that this proviso in no way referred to the bays or harbours outside of the limits assignedl
to the I merican fishermen, from which bays and harbours it was agreed, both before and I
after this proposition was discussed, that United States' fishing vessels were to be excluded I
for all purposes except than for shelter and repairs and purchasing wood and obtaininj]
water.

If, liowever, weight is to be given to Mr. Bayard's argument that the rejection of a prop I
osition adv need by either side during the course of the negotiations, should be held tol
necessitate an interpretation adverse to the tenor of such proposition, that argument majl
certainly bo held to prove that American fishing vessels were not intended to have the rigbtl
to enter Canadian waters for bait to be used even in the prosecution of the deep sea fisheries. I
The United States' negotiators in 1818, made the proposition that the words, "and bait" b«l
added to the emuneration of the objects for which their fishermen might be allowed to enteil
and the proviso as first submitted had read : " Provided, however, that American fishermeil
shall be permitted to enter si' :h bays and harbours for the purpose only of obtaining shelter!
wood, water and bait." The addition of the two last words was, however, resisted by th«l
British Plenipotentiaries and their omissicx; acquiesced in by their American colleagues. Ill
is moreover to be observed that this proposition could only have had reference to the deepi
sea fishing, because the inshore fisheries had already been specifically renounced by thtl
representatives of the United States. I

In addition to this evidence it must be remembered that the United States' Qovermnenil
admitted in the case submitted by them before the Halifax Commission in 1877, that neitheil
the Convention of 1818 nor the treaty of Washington conferred any right or privilege oil
trading on American fishermen. The British case claimed compensation for the privUegtl
which had been given since the ratification of the latter treaty to United States' fishinJ
vessels to transfer cargoes, to outfit vessels, buy supplies, obtain ice, engage sailors, procunl
bait and trafiSc generally in British ports and harbours. I

This claim was however successfully resisted, and in the United States case it is maiDl
tained : That the various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as thl
privileges of traffic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are not the subject of compensatioDl
because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United!
States, who new enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at any time bo deprived«|

it to " touch and
urposes named in |
wiaions.
enable a United I
posoH of domestic
es' fishing vessel,
enter the ports of I
embered that the [
lunciation of any

the British Com-
I " from carrying
riccn negotiators,
ndicate that tlie
,1ao trading in the
how that the pro-
;iotis of the coasts
been gi'anted the
e proposal can at
.ndizo might exist
ing that the right

ty-

I following words;
ig 6sh, granted in
privilege of carry
the limits herein-

ght "be necessary I
igaged therein, 01 1

'ch for contraband I
lose the fishermen I
is apparent, there- 1
the limits assigned I
, both before and I
)re to be excluded I
ood and obtaining

ejection of a prop- 1
ihould be held tol
at argument ma; I
to have the righlj
deep sea fisheries. I
is, " and bait " bel
e allowed to enterl
merican lishermeil
'obtaining shelteil
", resisted by thil
lan colleagues. Itl
rence to the deep I
'enounced by thtl

itates' Govermnenil
, 1877, that neitheil
;ht or privilege oil
L for the privilegtl
ted States' fishinJ
ge sailors, procunl

,tes case it is maiol
treaty, such as thi
; of compenBat'.onI
ttts of the Unite^l
ne be deprived ml

them by the enforcement of existing laws or the re-enactment of former oppressive statutes.
Moreover the treaty does not provide for any possible compensation for such privileges.

Now the existing laws referred to in this extract are the various statutes passed by the
Imperial and Colonial Legislatures to give effect to the Treaty of IS 18, which it is admitted
in tho said case could at any time have boon enforced (even during the existence of the
Washington Treaty) if the Canadian authorities had chosen to do bo.

Mr. Bayard on more than one occasion intimatts that the interpretation of the treaty
and its enforcement are dictated by local and hostile feelings, and that the main question is
being obscured by partisan advocacy and disturbed by the heat of local interest," and in
conclusion expresses a hope that " ordinary commercial intercourse shall not be interrupted
by harsh measures and unfriendly administration."

Tho undersigned desires emphatically to state that it is not the wish of the Government
or the people of Canada to interrupt for a .uoment the most friendly and free commercial
intercoiireo with the neighbouring KopuL.ic.

The mercantile vessels and tho commerce of tho United States have at present exactly
they same freedom that the have for years passed enjoyed in Canada, and the disposition of
the Canadian Governaient is to extend reciprocal trade with the United States beyond its
present limits, nor can it bo admittod that Ihe charge of local prejudice or hostile feeling is
justitied by the calm enforcement, through the legal tribunals of the country of the plain
terms of a treaty between Great Britain and "o United States and of tho Statutes which
have bc-«n in operation for nearly seventy years excepting in intervals during which (until
put au fpd to by the United fctatcs Govemiueiit) spicial and more liberal provisions existed
in relation to the commerce and fisheries of the two countries.

The undersigned has further to call attention to the letter of Mr. Bayard of the 20th
May, relating also to the seizure of the " David J.Adams " in the port of Digby, Nova Scotia.

That vessel was seized, as has been explained on a previous occasion, by the commander
of the Canadian steamer " Lansdowne," under the following ciioumstances : -

bhe was a United States' fishing vessel and entered the harbour of Digby for purposes
other than those for which entry is permitted by the treaty and by the Imperial and Canadian
Statutes.

As soon as practicable, legal process was obtained from the Vice- Admiralty Court at
Halifax, and the vessel was delivered to the officer of that Court. The paper referred to in
Mr. Bayard's letter as having been nailed to her mast, was doubtless a copy of the warrant
which commanded the Marshall or his deputy to make the arrest.

The undersigned is inlormed there was no intention whatever of so adjusting the paper
that its contents could not be read, but it is doubtles-j correct that the officer of the Court
in charge declined to allow the document to be removed. Both the United States' Consul
General and the captain of the "David J. Adams" were made acquainted with the reasons
for tho seizuie, and the only ground for the statement that a respectful application to ascer-
tain the nature of the complaint was fruitless, was that the commander of the •' Lansdowne,"
after the nature of the complaint had been stated to those concerned, and was published and
had '.jeeome notorious to the people of both countries, declined to give the United States'
Consul General a specific and precise statement of the charges upon which tho vessel would
be proceeded against, but referred him to his superior.

Such conduct on the part of the officer of the " Lansdowne " can hardly be said to have
been "extraordinary" under the jirescnt circumstances.

The legal jiroceedings had at that time been commenced in the Court of Vice-Admiralty
at Halifax where the United States' Consul General resides, and the officer at Digby could not
have stated with precision, as he was called upon to do, tho grounds on which the interven-
tion of the Court had been claimed in the proceedings therein.

There was not in this instance the slightest difficulty in the United States' Consul General
and those interested in the vessel obtaining the fullest information, and no information
which could have been given by those to whom they applied was withheld.

Apart from the general knowledge of the offences which it was claimed the master had
committed, and wnich was furnished at the time of the seizure, the most technical and pre-
cise details were readily obtainable at the registry of the Court and from the solicitors for the
Crown, and would have been furnished immediately on application to the authority to whom
the commander of the '> Lansdowne " requested the United States' Consul General to apply.
No such information could have been obtained from the paper attached to the vessel's mast.

Instructions have, however, been given to the Commander of the "Lansdowne"
and other officers of the Marine Police that in the event of any further seizures a statement
in writing shall be given to the master of the seized vessel of the offences for which the
vessel may be detained, and that a copy thereof nhoM be sent to the United States' Consul
General at Halifax, and to the nearest United States' Consula:- Agent, and there can be no
objection to the solicitor for the Crown being instructed likewise to furnish the Consul
16t -6i

Qpnoral with a cony of the le^al process in such esse, if it can be supposed that any fuller |
information will thereby be ^iven.

Mr. Bayard it correct in his statement of the reasons for which the " David J. Adams " wu
seized and Ih now held. It is claimed that that vessel violated the Treaty of ) S 1 8, and con-
sequently the Statutes which exist for the enforcement of that Treaty, and it is also claimed |
that she violated the Customs laws of 1883.

The undersigned recommends that copies of those Statutes be furnished for the informa-
tion of Mr. Bayard

Mr. Bayard has in the same despatch recalled the attention of Her Majesty's Minister to
the correspondence and action whicn took place in the year 1870, when the Fishery Question
was under consideration, and especially to the instructions from the Lords of the Admiralty
to Vice Admiral Wellesley, in which that officer, was directed to observe great caution in the
arrest of American fishermen and to confine his action to one class of offences against the
Treaty. Mr. Bayard, however, appears to have attached unwarranted importance to the cor-
respondence and instructions of I87U when ho refers to them as implying an " understanding
between the two ( jovernments ;" an understanding which should, in his opinion, at other times
and under other circumstances, govern the conduct of the authorities, whether Inipprial or
Colonial, to whom under the laws of the Empire, is committed the duty of enforcing the Treaty
in question.

When, therefore, Mr. Bayard points out the " absolute and instant necessity that now
exists for a restriction of the seizure of American vessels charged with violations ol the Treaty
of 1818," to the conditions specified under these instructions it is nececsary to recall the fact
that in the y3ar 1870 the principal cause of complaint on the part of Canadian fishermen was
tha*. the American vessels were trespassing on the inshore fishing grounds and interfering
with the catch of mackerel in Canadian waters, the purchase of bait being then a matter of |
secondary importance.

It is probable that the action of the Imperial Government was influenced very largely by
the prospect which then existed of an arrangement such as was accomplished in the follow-
ing year by the Treaty of Washington, and that it may be inferred, in view of the disposition
made apparent on both sides to arrive at such an understanding, that the Imperial author-
ities, without any surrender of Imperial or Colonial rights, and without acquiescing in any
limited construction of the Treaty, instructed the Vice-Admiral to confine his seizures to the
more open and injurious class of offences which were especially likely to be brought withm
the cognizance of the naval officers of the Imperial service.

The Canadian Government, as has already been stated, for six months left its fishing
grounds open to American fish ormen, without any corresponding advantage in return, in
order to prevent loss to those fishermen and to afford time for the action of Congress on the
President's recommendation that a joint commission should be appointed to consider the
whole question relating to the fisheries.

That recommendation has been rejected by Congress. Canadian fish is, by prohibitory
duties, excluded from the United States' market. The American fishermen clamour against
the removal of tl ese duties, and in order to maintain a monopoly of the trade, continue |
against all law to force themselves into our waters and harbours and mal<e our shores their
base for supplies, especially of bait, which is necessary to the successful prosecution of I
their business.

They hope by this course to supply the demand for their home market, and thus to
make Canada indirectly the means of injuring her own trade.

It is surely, therefore, not unreasonable that Canada should insist on the rights secured
to her by Treaty. She is Gimply acting on the defensive, and no trouble can arise between
the two countries if Ameiican fishermen will only recognize the provisions of the Convention
of 1818 as obligatory upon them, and, until a new airangement is made, abstain both from
fiehing in her waters and from visiting her bays and harbours for any purposes save those {
specified in the Treaty.

In conclusion the undersigned would express the hope that the discussion which has
arisen in this question may lead to renewed negotiations between Great Britain and the
United States and may have the result of establishing extended trade relations between the [
Eepublic and Canada, and of removing all sources of irritation between the two countries.

(Sd.) GEORGE E. FOSTER,

Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

I that any fuller

1 for the informa-

' underHtanding

No. 95.
From Lord Lansdowne to Earl Oranville.

I [No. 204] Cabcapbdia, 18th Juno, 1886.

My Lord,— -I have the honour to fnrwanl herewith for Your Lordship's informa-
Ition a copy of the araeDdod Customs circular No. 371, issued under the authority of
ItheGovornmont of Canada to the Colleotorn of Customs throughout the DomiDiOD.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

Tho Right Honourable

KaVLL GllANVILLE, K. G.

■ket, and thus to

[GncloaureNo. 1.]
ICirculnr No. 371.

Customs Dbparthent,

Ottawa, 7th May, 18">6.

Sir,— The Government of the United States having by notice terminated At "-lea IP' to
|25, both inclusive, and Article .30, known as the Fishery Articles of the Wi\9hiii,^.on Treaty,
lattention is called to the following pr'^vision of the Convention between tha United St' tea
[and Great Britain, signed at Lon<i,'ji, i . the 20th October, 181S : —

Article 1 St. "Whereas differences have a"isen respecting the liberty claim p' bv ifte
[United States, for the in- ' itants thereof, to take, dry and cure lish, on certain c jastr, bays,
Iharbours and creeks, of IIis Britannic Majesty's Dominion, in America, it is agreed between the
Ihigh Contracting Parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have, forever,
lin common with the subjects of II'S Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take lish ot every kind
Ion that part of the Southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Capo Pay to the
iBameau Island, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape
lEay to the Quirpon Islands, on the sJ^ores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
■bays, harbours and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through
Ithe Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without proju-
Idice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and that the
lAuierican fishermen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unset-
Itled bays, harbours and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland here above
■described, and of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion thei'eof,
■shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen io dry or cure fish at such por-
|tion 80 settled, without previous agreement for such purjiose, with the inhabitants, pro-
prietors, or possessors of the ground."

"And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or
claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry or cure fish, on or within three marine miles,
of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbourt* of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America,
ot included within the above mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American
shermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours, for the purpose of shelter and of
jrepaiiing damages therein, of purchasing wood, atid ot obtaining water and for no other pur-
pose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent
their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any manner whatever abusing the privileges
bereby reserved to them."

Attention is also called to the following provisions of the Act of the Parliament of
Canada. Cap. 61, of the Acts of lb'G8, intituled: "An Act respecting fishing by foreign
Vessels."

2nd. "Any commissioned officer of Her Ma,jesty's ^a/y. serving on board of any vessel
of Iler Majesty's Navy, cruising and beingin the waters of Canada for the purpose of atfording
protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries, or any commissioned officer of
Her Jlajesty's Navy, Fishery Officer, or Stipendiary Magistrate on board of any vessel
belonging to or in the service of the Government of Canada and employed in the service of
proteuting the fisheries or any officer ot tho Customs of Canada, Sheriff^ Magistrate or other
person duly commissioned for that purpose, may go on board of any ship, vessel or boat,
within any harbour in Canada, or hoveruig (in British waters) within three marine miles of any
pf tlie coasts, bays, creek or harbours in Canada, and stay on board so long as she may lemain
Ifithin such place or distance."

3rd. " If such ship, vessel or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such
harbour, or so hovering for twenty-foi.;. hours after the master shall have been required to
dejiart, any one of such ofiScers or persons as are above mentioned may bring such ship, I
vessel or boat into port and search her cargo, and may also examine the master upon oath
touching the cargo and voyage; and if the master or person in command shall not truly I
answer the questions put to him in such examination, he shall forfeit four hundred dollars ; I
and if such ship, vessel or boat be foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the I
United Kingdom or of Canada, and have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have I
been fishing (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeksorl
harbours of Canada, not included within the above mentioned limits, without a license, or after I
the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to such ship, vessel or boat I
under the first section of this Act, such ship, vessel or boat, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, [
furniture, stores and cargo thereof shall be forfeited,"

4th. " All goods, ships, vessels and boats, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, L
stores and cargo liable to forfeiture under this Act, may be seized and secured by any officers I
or persona mentioned in the second section of this Act ; and every person opposing any officer I
or person in the execution of his duty under this Act, or aiding or abetting any other person I
in any opposition, shall forfeit eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,]
and upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

Having reference to the above, you are requested to furnish any foreign fishing vessels,!
boats or fishermen found within three marine miles of the shore, within your district, withal
printed copy of the "WARNING" enclosed herewith. If any fishing vessel or boat of the I
United States is found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish, or if hoveringi
within the three mile limit, does not depart within twenty-four hours after receiving suchl
" WABNING," you will plea»e place an OflBcer on board such vessel, find at once telegraph|
the facts to the Fisheries Department at Ottawa, and await instructions.

(Sd.) J. JOHNSON,

Commissioner of Customs.

(Telegrc^m )

No. 96.
From Sir Lionel West to Governor General.

Itth Juno.

PIoa?o ir.form n.o whether the reply is authentic which appoarod in tho " ILnld"
of tho lliili Juno >\H having been made by tho Miniiriter of Fishorios tj a tirin in Pjrt'|
land. Slate of Maiiio,

(SJ.) WEST.

(^Til( grain)

No. 97.
Lord Lamdo'Mrie to Sir L. West.

19lh Juno. ISSa.

Tho letter in llio " HeTakl" is autbentio, but the tost haa boon given in:if.'eur:\*.olyJ
Ecfciei.ce WHS niado only lo fishing vcesols.

(Sd.) LANSDO'WNfv.

{Telegram )

No. 9=.

Earl Granville to Ijord Lansdoivne.

24Lh June, lS8i;.

p • The United SLiv fs' Govcriirnent lalfo qncftion whether Heizuro of "Duv:(l JJ
Adams" was jusliticd ly ixit-ting lcgi.>»latioi\ whether Imperial or Colonial, parted ill
ordoi' to enfurcc Art. J., Contention of 1818, or wairanicd hy any cUior la"f
relative to Cui^toniN or otl.orwii-o. Her Maj'.aty'ti Govcrninoiit anxiuub tor reply froul
JJonoiniGn GovoiMnoiit on i\v> point.

(Sd.) SECRETARY OP STATi:,

8*7

inue within such I
been required to

bring such ship, I
aaster upon oati]|
d shall not truly!
hundred dollars;

the laws of the I
fish, or to have I
sts, bays, creeks or I
t a license, or after I

vessel or

rigging, apparel,

pparel, furniture,!
red by any officers I
pposing any otKcer I

any other person I
>f a misdemeanor,!
vo years."
ign fishing vessels,!
)ur district, withal
ssel or boat of the I
ih, or if hovering I
ter receiving suchi

at once telegraph |

rxsoN,

er of Customs.

ITth Juno

1 ill tho " lie Vl.ld'f

tj u tii'in in Port-I
WEST.

1 Juno, 1SS().
ivenin:iocur:i'.olTi|

NSDO'WNE.

li June, ISSiJ.

re of "Duv:(l It
L'oloni.al, p:i!>f^ed ii
' any cibisr lanf
juB lor rc])ly fi'onj

OF STATi:,

(Jekijram.) No. 99.

Lord Granville to Lord Lans'iowne.

24th Juno, 1836.
"Annie M. Jordan"— send report in case of.

(3d.) SECRETARY OF STATE.

No. 100.

Colonial Office to the Governor General.

Downing Strket, 24th June, 1886.

My L >un, — With referonco to Yoar Lordship's d.?spatcb of th^i 3 1st ultimo, and
(omy tolt^LTJiin of to-day'rt date, re-ipoctin^ the North American Finherios question,
I have the honour to transmit to you, for oomraanication to your Govornmont, copy
of a letter from the Foreign Office en the eubjoct.

I hwvc, &o.,

(Sd.)

His Excellency

TuE GovKRNoa Genibal.

R. H. MEADE,

for the Secretary of State.

[Encloaure Nj. 1.]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Foreign Office, 14th June, 1880.

Sir, — I am directed by the Earl of Rosebery to transmit to you, to be laid before Earl
Granviilo, a copy of a note from the United States' Minister at this Court, containing repre-
sentations respecting the recent seizures of American Fishing Vessels in fanadiim Ports, and
I am to statu that His Lordship has referred this communication, as well as Jfr. Bayard's
note enclose'! in Sir L. West's despatch Treaty No. 28 of the 1 1th ultimo, to the Law Officers
of the Crown for any observations they may have to offer in anticipation of the detailed
exposition of tho views of the Canadian Government which Lord liosebery hopes may now be
received before long.

I am, &c.,

The UxDEu Secretary op State,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.)

J. PAUNCEFOTE.

[Eneloauro in No. ".]
Mr. Phelps to the Earl of Rosehery. {Received June 7.)

Legation op the United States, London, 2nd June, 1 886.

My Lord, — Since the conversation 1 had the honour to hold with your Lordship on the
mornin;i of the i^'Jtli ultimo, 1 Inve roiieived from my Government a copy of tho Report of
the Consul GentMMl of the Unit'^d States at Halifax, giving full details and depositions rela-
tive to the seizure of the "David .r. Adams," and the correspondence between the Consul
Geiioral and the Colonial autlioi-itios in reference thereto.

The report nf tho Consul (icrieral, and the evidence annexed to it, api)par fullv to
sustain the points I submitted to Your Lordship in tho interview above referred to, touching
the seizure of this vessel by the Canadian ofdci.ds.

1 do not understand it to be cLiiiued by the Can'^' ;ian authorities that the vo=!sol seized
had been ensagod, or was intend'n'^ to engage, m fisii.ig within any limit prohibited by the
Treaty of 181S. Tho occupation of the vessel was exclusively deep sea fishing, a business in

\\ ^'

which it hqd a perfect right to be employed. The ground upon which the capture was made |
was that t he master of the vessel had purchased of an inhabitant of Nova Scotia, near tl
port of Difihy in that Province, a day or two before, a small quantity of bait to be used in |
nshing in tlie deep sea, outside the three-mile limit.

The question presented is whether under the terms of the Treaty, and the construction
placed upon them in practice for many years by the British Government, and in view of tlie
existing relations between the United States and Great Britain, that transaction aifords a
sufficient reason for making such a seizure, and for proceeding under it to the confiscation of |
the vessel and its contents.

I am not unaware that the Canadian authorities, conscious, apparently, thit the aifirma-
tive of this proposition could not easily be maintained, deemed it advisable to supplement
it with a charge against the vessel of a violation of the Canadian Customs Act of 1883, in uot
reporting her arrival at Digby to the Customs officer. But this charge is not the one on
which the vessel was seized, or which must now be principally relied on for its condemnation,
and standing alone could hardly, even if well founded, be the source of any serious contro-
versy. It would be at most, under the circumstances, only an accidental and purely technical
breach of a Customhouse Kegula'iions, by which no harm was intended, and from which no
harm came, and would, in ordinal v cases, be easily condoned by an apology, and perhaps the
payment of costs.

But trivial as it is, this charge does not appear to be well founded in point of fact.
Digby is a small fishing settlement, and its harbour not defined. The vessel had moved
about and anchored in the outer part of the harbour, having no business at or communication
with Digby, and no reason for reporting to the officer of Customs.

It appears by the lieport of the Consul-General to be conceded by the Customs author-
ities there, that fishing vessels have for forty years been accustomed to go in and out of the
bay at pleasure, and have never been required to send ashore and report when they had no
business with the port, and made no landing, and that no seizure had ever before been made
or claimed against them for so doing.

Can it be reasonably insisted under these circumstances that by the sudden adoption,
without notice, of a new rule, a vessel of a friendly nation should be seized and forfeited for
doing what all sioiilar vessels had for so long a period been allowed to do without question T
It is sufficiently evident that the claim of a violation of the Customs Act was an after-
thouglit brought forward to give whatever added strength it might to the principal claim on
which the seizure had been made.

Recui ring, then, to the only real question in the case, whether the vessel is to be for-
feited for purchasing bait of an inhabitant of Nova Scotia to be used in lawful fishing, it may
be readily admitted that, if the language of the Treaty of 1818 is to be interpreted literally,
rather than according to its spirit and plain intent, a vessel engaged in fishii [X would be pro-
hibited from entering a Canadian port " for any purpose whatever," except tu obtain wood or
water, to repair damages, or to seek shelter. Whether it would be liable t.> the extreme
penalty of confiscation for a breach of this prohibition, in a trifling and hai mless instance,
might be quite another question.

Such a literal construction is best refuted by considering its preposterous cou'aequences.
If a vessel enters a port to jiost h letter, or send a telegram, or buy a newspaper, to obtain a 1
physician in case of illness, or a surgeon in case of accident, to land or bring off a passcnsei',
or even to lend assistance to tlie inhabitants in fire, flood, or pestilence, it would, upon this
construction, be held to violate the Treaty stipulations maintained between two fulightened,
maritime, and most friendly nations, whose ports are freely o^jen to each other in all other
places and under all other circumstances. If a vessel is not engaged in lisliing, she may
enter all ports. But if employed in fishing not denied to bo lawful, she is excluded, though
on the most innocent errand. She may buy water, but not food or medicine ; wood, but not
coal. She may repair rigging, but not purchase a new rope, though the inhabitants are
desirous to sell it. If she even entered the port (having no other business) to re})ort herself
to the Custom House, as the vessel in question is now seized for not doing, sho would be
equally within the interdiction of the Treaty. If it be said these are extreme instances of
violation of the Treaty, not lilcely to be insisted on, I reply that no one of them is more
extreme than the one relied ujjon in this case.

I am persuaded that your Lordship will, upon reflection, concur with mo that an inten-
tion so narrow, and in its results so unreasonal)lo and so unfair, is not to be attributed to the
High Contracting I'arties who entered into this Treaty.

It seems to me clear that the Treaty must be construed in accordance with those ordi-
nary and well-settled rules applicable to all written instruments, which, without such salutary
assistance, mut.t constantly tail of their purpose. By these rules the letter often gives way to
the intent, or, ratlier, is only used to ascertain the intent. The whole document v/ill he taken
together, and will be considered in connection with the attendant circumstances, the situa.

tion of the parties, and the object in view. And thus the literal meaning of an isolated
clause is often shown not to be the meaning really understood or intended.

Upon these principles of construction, the meaning of the clause in question does not
seem doubtful. It is a Treaty of friendship, and not of hostility. Its object was to define
and protect the relative rights of the people of the two countries in these fisheries, not to
establish a system of non-intercourse, or the means of mutual and unnecessary annoyance.
It should be judged in view of the general rules of international comity, and of maritime
intercourse and usage, and its restrictions considered in the light of the purposes they were
designed to serve.

Thus regarded, it appears to me clear that the words, " for no other purpose whatever,"
as employed in the Treaty, mean no other purposes inconsistent with the provisions of the
Treaty, or prejudicial to the interest of the provinces or their inhabitants, and were not
intended to prevent the entry of American fishing vessels into Canadian ports for innocent
and mutually beneficial purposes, or unnecessarily to restrict the free and friendly inter-
i course customary between all civilized maritime nations, and especially between the United
I States and Great Britain. Such, I cannot but believe, is the construction that would be
placed upon this Treaty by an enlightened Court of Justice.

But even were it conceded that if the treaty was a private contract instead of aa
international one, a court, in dealing with an action upon it, might find itself hampered by
the letter from giving effect to the intent, that would not be decisive of the present case.

The interpretation of treaties between nations in their intercourse with each other pro-
ceeds upon broader and higher considerations. The question is not what is the technical
eSect of tlie words, but what is the construction most consonant to the dignity, the just in-
terests, and the friendly relations of the sovereign powers. [ submit to your Lordship that a
I construction so harsh, so unfriendly, so unnecessary, and so irritating as that set up by the
[Canadian authorities is not such as tier Majesty's Government has been accustomed either to
I accord or to submit to. It would find no precedent in the history of British diplomacy, and
I no provocation in any action or assertion. of the Government of the United States.
I These views derive great if not conclusive force from the action of the British Parliament
Ion the subject, adopted very soon after the Treaty of 1818 took efifect, and continued without
Ichonge to the presenttime. An Act of Parliament (59 Geo. HI, cap. 3S) was passed on the
Il4th June, 1819, to provide for carrying into effect the provisions of the treaty. After recit-
ling the terms of the treaty, it enacts (in substance) that it shall be lawful for His Majesty,
[by Orders in Council, to make such regulations and to give such directions, orders, and instruc-
Itions to the Governor of Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers ia that station, or to any
lother persons, " as shall or may be from time to time deemed proper and necessary for the
Icarrying into effect the purposes of said convention witli relation to the taking, drying, and
Icuring of fish by inhabitants of the United States of America, in common with British subjects,
Iwithin the limits set forth in the aforesaid convention."

It further enacts that any foreign vessel engaged in lishing or preparing to fish within
Ithree marine miles of the coast (not authorized to do so by treaty) shall be seized or forfeited
|upon proi-ecution in the proper court.
It further provides as follows : —

"That it shall and may be lawful for any fisherman of the said United States to enter into
'such bays or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America as are last men-
Itioned, for the jiuipose of shelter and repMiring <lamages therein, and of purchasing wood and
of obtaining water, anil for no other pui'imso whatever ; subject, neverthele-is, to such restric-
tions as may bo necessary to prevoiit siuh fishermen of tiie said United Stites from taking,
drying, or curing fi.sh in the said bays or harbours, or in any other manner whatever abusing
I saiil ijrivi'.eiics by the said treaty and this Act reserved to tliom, and as shall for that pur-
le bo imposed by any Order or Orders to be fioni time to time made by His Ma.jesty in
|L.'oiineil under the uuthority of this Act ; and by any regulations whicli shall b'^ issued by the
Governor, or person exercising the olfico of Oovernor, in any such jsarts of Ills Majesty's
ilominions m Ameiica, under or in pursuance of any such Order in Council as aforesaid."
It furtlu'r eiiact-i as follows : —

" "i liat if any person or persons, upon rrquisltion made by the Governor of Newfoundland,
pi' tlie jHM'son exercising the office of (jrovcrnor, or by any Governor or person exercising the
plllce ol (.iovernor in any other parts of His Majesty's dominions in America as aforesaid, or by
[iny oiliiuT or oilicfrs acting under such Governor or person exercising the otfii;e of Governor,
the oxocution of any orders or instructions from His Majesty in Council, shall refuse to
tlopait from such bays or harbours ; or if any person or persons shall rol'uso or neglect to con-
fo! Ill to iiuy regulations or directioiio which shall be made or given for tlni execution of any
pf Uu! piiri),).-(s of this Act ; every such person so refusing, or otherwise oll'eudiiig against this
4ct, sbull forfeit the sum of CiOU, to be recovered," &c,

It will be perceived from these extracts, and still more clearly from a perusal of the entire
ict, that while reciting the language of the treaty in respect to the purpc B3s for which Ameii

can fishormen may entor British ports, it provides no forfeiture or penalty for any such entry, .
unless accompanied either (1) by fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prohibited limits;
or (2) by the infringement of restrictions that may be imposed by Orders in Council to pre-
vent such fishing, or the drying or curing of fish, or the abuse of privileges reserved by the |
treaty ; or (3) by a refusal to depart from the bays or harbours upon proper requisition.

It thus plainly ajjpears that it was not the intention of Parliament, nor its understanding I
of the treaty, that any other entry by an American fishing vessel into a British port should be |
regarded as an infraction of its provisions, or as affording the basis of proceedings against it.

No other Act of Parliament for the carrying out of this treaty has ever been passed. It I
is unnecessary to point out that it is not in the power of the Canadian Parliament to enlarge
or alter the provis ons of the Act of the Imperial Parliament, or to give to the treaty either a |
construction or a iegal eflfect not warranted by that Act.

But until the effort which I am informed is now in progress in the Canadian Parliament I
for the passage of a new Act on this subject, introduced since the seizures under consideral
tion, I do not understand that any statute has ever been enacted in that Parliament whiciil
attempts to give any different construction or effect to the treaty from that given by the Act f
of 59 George 111.

The only Provincial Statutes which, in the proceedings against the "David J. Adams,"!
that vessel has thus far been charged with infringing are the Colonial Acts of 1868, 1870, and!
1883. It is therefore fair to presume that there are no other Colonial Acts applicable to the|
case, and I Icnow of none.

The Act of 1868, among other provisions not material to this discussion, provides for a I
forfeiture of foreign vessels " found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing in I
British waters within three marine miles of the coast ; " and also provides a penalty of S400l
against a master of a foreign vessel within the harbour who shall fail to answer questions putl
in an examination by the authorities. No other Act is, by this statute, declared to be illegal, [
and no other penalty or forfeiture is provided for.

The very extraordinary provisions in this statute for facilitating forfeitures, and embarj
rassing defence against or appeal from them, not material to the present case, would, on i
proper occasion, deserve very serious attention.

The Act of 1870 id an amendment ot the Act just referred to, and adds nothing to it|
afiecting the present case.

The Act of 1883 has no application to the case, except upon the point of the omission o(|
the vessel to report to the Customs Officer, already considered.

It results, therefore, that, at the time of the seizure of the " David J. Adams " and otherl
Tessels, there was no Act whatever, either of the British or (Colonial Parliaments, which madel
the purchafco of bait by those vessels illegal or provided for any forfeiture, penalty, or pml
ceedings against them for such transaction. And even if such purchase could be regarded ail
a violation of that clause of the treaty which is relied on, no law existed under which thel
eeizure could be justified. It will not be contended that Custom House authorities or coloniall
courts can seize and condemn vessels for a breach of the stipulations of a treaty, when nol
legislation exists which authorizes them to talie cognizance of the subject, or invests tiieml
with any jurisdiction in the premises. Of tliis obvious conclusion the ('anadian anthoritieil
seem to be quite awave. I am informed that bince the seizures they have pressed, or anl
pressing', through the Canadian Parliament in much haste an Act wiiich is designed, for thf[
first tiuje in the history of the legislation under this treaty, to make the facts up in which tlii
American vessels have been seized illegal, and to authorize proceedings against them tlun'eforJ

What the ellect of such an Act will be in enlarging the provisions of an existing trcatjl
between the United States and Great Britain need not be considered here. The questioil
under discussion depends upon the treaty, and upon such legislation, warranted by tlitf
treaty, as existed when the seizures took place.

The pi actio. il construction given to the trca'y down to the present time has heon ill
entire accord with the conclusions thus deduced from tlio Act of Parliament. The Britiil
Government his repeatedly refused to .nllow interference with American lishing vessel^
unless lor illegal fishing, and has given exi)licit. orders to the cjntrasy.

On the I'tith May, 1870, Mr. Thornt m, the British Minister at Washington, com;nuiiicat:i
oflBcially to the Secretary of State of the United States copies of the orders addressed by t'
British Admii'alty to Admiral Wellesley, comminding Her Maj'ih-ty's naval forces on the Xortl
American Station, and of a letter from the Colonial Department to the Foreign oiliee, inorJel
that the Secret.'iry might "see the nature of the instructions to be given to Her Mtiipstyi
and the Canarhau officers employed in maintaining order at the fisheries in tlie neiglibouii
jhoud of the coasts of Canada." Among the documents thus transmitted is a letter from tlJ
Foreign Oillce to the Secretary of the Admiralty, in which the following langu.ige is eoEf
tained: —

'mmmm

"or any such entry,
prohibited limits;
a Council to pre-
1 reserved by tlie|
requisition,
its understanding I
:ish port should be |
edings against it.
been passed. It I
lament to enlarge!
;he treaty either a I

larHan Parliament!

I under oonsidera-l
Parliament which I
t given by the Act [

David J. Adams,"!
of 1868, 1870, and
applicable to the I

m, provides for a I
ve been fishing in I
a penalty of §400 1
iwer questions put!
clared to be illegal, I

itures, and embarj
case, would, on a|

dds nothing to il|

of the omission oil

\danis " and otbeil
nents, which madel
e, penalty, or pro-l
luld be regarded asf

under which the!
thoritics or coloniail
a treaty, when nol
:ct, or invests themi
inadian authoritieil
ave pressed, or arfl

Josigncd, for thtl
ct.s up.in which thJ
ainst them thoreforl
an existing treatTl
H'e. The quostioil
1, warranted by tliil

time has beon ill
leiit. The Britiil
ica.i lishing vesselJ

ton, coinmunicat|?o|
rs addresriod byt'
forof^s on tho Norti
•oign Oilieo, in or.l

II to !Ier Majesty I
in the neighboal

s a letter from t'/
;» laii''u.'ige is <:^

" The Canadian Government has recently determined, with the concurrence of Her
Majesty's Ministers, to increase the stringency of the existing practice of dispensing with the
the warnings hitherto given, and seizing at once any vessel detected in violating the law.

" In view of this change, and of the questions to which it may give rise, I am directed by
Lord Granville to request that you will move their Lordships to instruct the officers of Her
Majesty's ships employed in the protection of the fisheries that they are not to seize any
vessel unless it is evident, and can tie clearly proved, that the offence of fishing has been
committed, and the vessel itself captured, within three miles of land."

In the letter from the Lords of the Admiralty 'o Vice-Admiral Wellesley of the 5th May,
1870, in accordance with the foregoing request, and transmitting the letter above quoted
from, there occurs the following language: —

" My Lords desire me to remind you of the extreme importance of Commanding Officers
of the ships selected to protect the fisheries exercising the utmost discretion in carrying out
their instructions, paying special attention to Lord Granville's observation, that no vessel
should be seized unless it is evident, and can be clearly proved, that the offence of fishing
has been committed, and that tho vessel is captured within three miles of land."

Lord Granville, in transmitting to Sir John Young the aforesaid instructions, makes use
of the lollowing language : —

"Her Majesty's Government do not doubt that your Ministers will agree with them as to
the propriety of these instructions, and will give corresponding instructions to the vessels
employed by them."

These instructions were again officially stated by the British Minister at Washington, to
the Secretary of iState of the United States, in a letter dated the Uth June, 1870.

A gain, in February, 1871, I^rd Kinil)erley, Colonial Secretary, wrote to the Governor
General of Canada as follows : —

" The exclusion of American fishermen from resorting to Canadian ports, except for the
purpose of shelter, and of rei^airing damages therein, purchasing wood, and of obtaining
water, might be warranted by the letter of the Treaty of 1818, and by the terms of the Imper-
ial Act 59 Geo. III. cap. 38 ; but Iler Majesty's Government feel bound to state that it seems
to them an extreme measure, inconsistent with the general policy of the Empire, and they
are disposed to concede this point to the United States Government, under such restrictions
as may be necessary to prevent smuggling, and to guard against any substantial invasion of
the exclusive rights of fishing which may be reserved to British subjects."

And in a subsequent letter from the game source to the Governor General, the following
language is used : —

" I think it right, however, to add that the responsibility of determining what is the true
construction of a Treaty made by Her Majesty with any foreign Power must remain with Her
Majesty's Government, and that the degree to which this country would make itself a party
to the strict enforcement of the Treaty rights may depend not only on the literal construc-
tion of the Treaty, but on the moileratioa and reasonableness with which these rights are
asserted."

I am not aware that any modification of these instructions, or any different rule from
that therein contained, has ever been adopted or sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government.

Judicial authority upon tliis question is to the same effect. That thn purchase of bait by
American fishermen in the provincial ports has been a common i.ra'.tica is well known, but
in no case, so far as I can ascertain, has a seizure of an American vis-el ever been enforced
on the ground of the purchase of bait, or of any other supplies. < )ii the h'.-aring before the
Halifax Fisheries Commission in 1877-7S this question was discu>sod, and no case could be
produced of any such condemnation. Vessels shown to have been condemned were in all
cases adjudged guilty either of Hsliina;, or pre2)aring to fish, within the prohibited limit.

And in the case of the "White Fawn," tried in the Admnalty Court at New Brunswick
before Judge Hazen in 1870, I understand it to have been distinot'y held that the purchase
of bait, unless proved to have been in preparation for illegal fi.'-lnig, was not a violation of
the Treaty nor of any existing law, and afforded no ground lor proceedings against the
vessel.

But even were it possible to justify on the part of the Canadian authorities tho adoption
ofaconstiuotion of the Treaty entirely different from that which has always heretofore pre-
vailed, an<l to declare those acts criminal which have hitherto been regaided as innocent,
upon obvious grounds of reason and justice, and upon common principles of comity to the
United States' Government, previous notice should have been given to it or to tho American
lisheinien of the new and stringent restrictions it was intended to en'orce.

If it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recall the instructions which I
have tliown had been previously and so explicitly given relative to interference with Ameri-
can vessels, surely notice should have been given accordingly.

The United States have just reason to complain, even if these restriotionB could he justi-
fied hy the Treaty, or by the Acts of Parliament passed to carry it into effect, that they should
be enforced in so harsh and unfriendly a manner, without notice to the Government of the
change of policy, or to the fishermen of the new danger to which they were thus exposed.

In any view, therefore, which it seems to me can be taken of this question, I feel Justified
tin pronouncing the action of the Canadian authorities in seizing and still retaining the
"David J. Adams" to be not only unfriendly and discourteous, but altogether unwarrantable,

The seizure was much aggravated by the manner in which it was carried into effect. It
appears that four several visitationd and searches of the vessel were made by boats from the
Canadian steamer " Lansdowne " in Annapolis Basin, Kova Scotia. The " Adams " was finally
taken into custody, and carried out of the Province of Nova Scotia across the Bay of Fund;
•nd into the port of St. John, New Bnmswick ; and, without explanation or warning, on the
following Monday, the 10th May, taken back by an armed crew to Bigby, in Nova Scotia.
That, in Digby, the paper alleged to be the legal precept for the capture and detention of the |
vessel was nailed to her mast in such manner as to prevent its contents being read, and the
request of the Captain of the " David J. Adams," and of the United States' Consul General,
to be allowed to detach the writ from the mast, for the purpose of learning its contents, was
positively refused by the provincial official in charge. Nor was the United States' Consul
General able to learu /rom the Commander of the " Lansdowne " the nature of the complaint {
against the vessel, and his respectful application to that effect was fruitless.

From all the circumstances attending this case, and other recent oases like it, it seenu I
to me very apparent that the seizure was notmade,for the purpose of enforcing any right or |
redressing any wrong. As I have before remarked, it is not pretended that the vessel had
been engaged in fishmg, or was intended to fish, in the prohibited waters, or that it had done,
or wos intending to do, any other injurious act. It was proceeding upon its regular and I
lawful business of fishing in the deep sea. It had received no request, and, of course, could |
have disregarded no request, to depart, and was in fact departing when seized ; nor had
master refused to answer any questions put by the authorities.

It had violated no existing law, and had incurred no penalty that any known statute j
imposed.

It seems to me impossible to escape the conclusion that this and other similar seizures j
were made by the Canadian authorities for the deliberate purpose of harassing and embar-
rassing the American fishing vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment, and theiojury I
which would have been a serious one if committed under a mistake, is very much aggravated
by the motives which appear to have prompted it.

1 am instructed by my Government earnestly to protest against these proceedings as |
wholly unwarranted by the Treaty of 1818, and altogether inconsistent with the friendly rela- ■
tions hitherto existing between the United States and Iier Majesty's Government ; to request
that the " Lavid J. Adams " and the other American fishing vessels now under seizure in
Canadian ports be immediately released ; and that proper orders may be issued to prevent
similar proceedings in the future ; and I am also instructed to inform you that the United
States will hold Her Majesty's Government responsible for all losses which may be sustained
"by American citizens in the dispossession of their property growing out of the search, seizure,
detention, or sale of their vessels lawfully within the territorial waters of British North |
America.

The real source of the difficulty that has arisen is well understood. It is to be found in I
the irritation that has taken place among a portion of the Canadian people on account of the
termination, by the United btates' Government, of the Treaty of Washington on the 1st July
last, whereb/ fish imported from Canada into the United States, and which, so long as that
Treaty remained in force, was admitted free, is now liable to the import duty provided by the
General Revenue Laws. And the opinion appears to have gained ground in Canada that the
United States may be driven, by harassing and annoying their fishermen, into tbe adoption [
of anew Treaty hy which Canadian fish shall be admitted free.

It is not necessary to say that this scheme is likely to prove as mistaken in policy as it is I
indefensible in principle. In terminating the Treaty of Washington the United States were
simply exercising a right expressly reserved to both parties by the Treaty itself, and of the
exercise of which by either party neither can complain. They will not be coerced by wanton
injury into the making of a new one. Nor would a negotiation that had its origin in mutual
irritation be promising of success. The question now is not what fresh Treaty may or might
be desirable, but what is the true and just construction, as between the two nations, of the
Treaty that already exists.

The Government of the United States, ai^proaching this question in the most friendly
spirit, cannot doubt that it will be met by Her Majesty's Government in tlie same spirit, and
feels every confidence that the actioni of Her Majesty's Government in the premises will be j

Buch as to maintain 'the cordial relations between the two countries that have so long happily -
prevailed.
' I have, Ac, ""'"

(Sd.) E. J. PHELPS.

*"0 • WW—,

Consul General,

(Telegram.)

No. 101.

Lord Lansdownt to Earl Granville.

26th Jane, 1886.

Your LordBhip'H telegrams of the 24th iiist. have been received. It was decided
[by the Vico-Admiially Court in 1871 that the buying of bait was evidence ot pro-
IpariDg to fish. The master of the "D. J. Adams" having porchased bait, that vessel
IbecomeB liable under the Imperial Statute of 1819, seotion 2. There ie also a Cana-
Idian Statute to the same effect. The master of the " Adams " is also liable to a penally
{for entering Canadian waters for a purpose which the Convention of 1818 does not
■recognize. The vessel is liable also under the Customs Act until the penalty of $400-
Ifor not making proper entry at the Custom House has been paid. Nothing concern-
ling the " Annie M. Jordan " is known here.
' (Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

any known statute

No. 102.
The Governor General to the Minister at Washington,

[No. 61.] Cascapedia, 30th June, 1885.

Sir, — With reference to your despatches, noted in the margin, forwarding notoa
from Mr. Bayard, dated 10th and '^Oth of May last, upon qaostions
So. 61, No. 68. arieing qq^ of the seizure of American fishing vessels in Canadian terri-
jtorial waters, I have the honour to transmit herewith, for your information, n copy
of a minute of my Privy Council, covering a report by the Minister of
ff'S!?*?!*''"' ^ Marine and Fisheries upon the notes referred to. fi^g

''^''°'**' Ihave,&c., wa^,-..,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
The Hononrable

Sir L. S. Saokvillb West, K.C.M.G.

yo natioas, of the

[Telegram.)

No. 103j

Earl Granville to Lord Lansdoume,

6th July, 1886.

It is asserted by the United States' Minister that American vessels have been'
earned by the Collector of Customs at Canso to keep three miles outside a line
Irawn from Canso to St. Esprit, also outside a similar line extending from North
pape to East Point in Prince Edward Island.

(Sd.) GEANVILLE.

,1 No. 104. . i

Minister at Waahington to Qovernor General,

[No. 83 J WAsemaTON, 8th July, 1886.

Mr Lord, — I have the honour to acknowledge the reooipt of Tour ExooUonoy'gl
doBpatoh No. 67 of the 30th ultimo, forwarding oopy of a report by the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries on M!r. Bayard's notosof the lUth and 2Uth of May last, respect' I
ing the seizure of American fishing vessels in Canadian waters. '

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

His Excellency

The Govsrnob Gbnbbal.

\TelegraM) No. 106.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

' 12th July, 1886.

With respect to Your Lordship's telegram of the 6th inst, I have ascertained thall
no warning was issued by the Oolleotor of Customs at Canso other than the officiall
warning which has been seen by you. In conversation with the master of a fishingi
vessel the Collector expressed his opinion that the headland line ran from Cranberijl
Island to St. Esprit, but this was not authorized by my Government in any manner,[

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

No. 106.
From Colonial Office to Governor General.

DowNiNa Strebt, 15th July, 18&6.

My LoBD, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch o
the 8th of June last, and to acquaint you that Her Majesty's Government obaenil
with satisfaction the amendments which have been made in the Customs Circular M
8*71 and in the warning to be given to the United States' fishing vessels frequentlD;!
the waters of Canada.

I have, &o.,

His Excellency

The Governob General.

(Sd.)

GEANVILLB.

No. 107.
Colonial Office to Governor General.

Downing Street, 15th July, 1886.

Mt Lord,— With reference to my telegram of the 6th of July and to your telJ
graphic reply of the 12th instant, relating to warnings alleged to have been giventr
fishing vessels of the United States by the Collector of Customs at Canso, I have ^

honour to tranpinit to you the accompanying copy of a letter from tbo Foreign OflSco
with its enclosure on which my telegram wan toundod.

I bhould be glad to receive a report from your Government at their early
coDVc'uienuo on the subject of these papers.

H:b Excellency

Tii£ Governor General.

1 have, &c.,

(Sd.)

/ '^'

GllA^qVlLLB.

[Enoloiore No. 1.]
The Foreign Office to the Colonial Office,

FoEEioN Office, 30th June, 1886.

Sir, —With reference to my letter of the 19th instant, I am directed by the Secretary of
I State for Foreign Affairs to transmit to you to be laid before Earl Granville, a copy of a
despatch from Her Majesty's Mmister at Washington, relative to the headland question
in connection with the North American Fisheries.

I am, &c , ,

I The Under Secretary of State
For the Colonies.

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

LEnclosure No. 2.]
From Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FoREioN Offiob, 30th June, 1886.

Sir,— .With reference to your letter of the 26th instant, I am directed by the Earl of
jEosebery, testate that His Lordship would be glad if Earl Granville could ascertain whether
lany instructions have been given by the Canadian Government to Customs Ofhcers on the
I subject of headland lines which might have given rise to the alleged claims to exclude United
IStates' fishing vessels from the waters covered by lines drawn from CapeCanso to St. Esprit,
land from North Cape to East Cape of Prince Edward Island.

I am, &c . ,

|The Under Shorbtary of Stati:
For the Colonies.

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

^RA-NVILLE.

[ Enclosure No. 3.]
[[Treaty No. 55.] Sir L. West to Earl Roaehery.

Washinoton, 15th June, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship, herefwith, copy of a note which
ll have received from the Secretary of State requesting the attention of Her Majesty's Govern-
Iment to certain warnings alleged to have been given to American fishing vessels by the Cana-
Idian authorities to keep outside imaginary lines drawn from headlands to headlands, whicb
Ihe characterizes as wholly unwarranted pretensions of extra territorial authority and usurpa-
tions of jurisdictiop.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.)
The Right Honourable

The Secretary op State

For Foreign Affairs.

ll-

M-

[EneloBare No. 4.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

Washwoton, 14th June, 1886.

Sir,— The Consul Oeneral, of the United States, at Halifax, communicates to me thel
information derived by him from the Collector of Customs at that port, to the effect thati
American fishing vessels will not be permitted to land fish at that port of entry for trau-l
portation, in bond, across the Province. [

I have also to inform you that the masters of the American fishing vessels of Gloucester,!
Mass., "Martha A. Bradley," "Rattler," "Eliza Boynton" and "Pioneer," have severailjl
reported to the Consul General, at Halifax, that the Sub-Collector of Customs, at Canso, had!
warned them to keep outside an imaginary line drawn from a point three miles outsidel
Canso Head to a point three miles outside St. Esprit, on the Cape Breton coast, a distancel
of forty miles. This line, for nearly its entire continuance, is distant twelve to twenty-firel
miles from the coast. 'Ihe same masters also report that they were warned against goingi
inside an imaginary line drawn from a point three miles outside North Cape, on Prince EdI
ward Island, to a point three miles outside East Point, on the same island, a distance of overl
one hundred miles, and that this last named line was, for nearly that entire distance, abouti
thirty miles from the shore. I

The same authority informed the masters of the vessels referred to that they would noti
be permitted to enter Bay Chaleur. I

Such warnings are, as you must be well aware^ wholly unwarranted pretensions oil
extra-territorial authority and usurpation of jurisdiction by the provincial officers. I

It becomes my duty in bringing this information to your notice, to request that if anji
Buch orders for interference with the unquestionable rights of the American fishermen t«l
pursue their business without molestation, at any point not within three marine miles of thel
shores, and within the defined limits as to which renunciation of the liberty to fish was exf
pressed in the Treaty of 1818, may have been issued the same way at once, be revoked ail
violation of the rights of citizens of the United States under Convention with Great Britain.!

I will ask you to bring this subject to the immediate attention of Her BritannicI
Majesty's Government, to the end that proper remedial orders may be forthwith issued. I

It seems most unfortunate and regrettable that questions which have been long sincel
settled betwen the United States and Great Britain should now be sought to be revived.

I have, &c.

The Honourable

Sir Lionel S. Saoktille

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD,

West, K.C. M.G.

(^Telegram.)

No. 108.

Earl Granville to Lord Lansdotvne.

2l8t July, 1886.

My Lohd,— Tho Secretary of the United States has made a protest in very stronJ
terms to British Minister against tho proceedings in tho case of tho echooDerj
" City Point," alleged to have boon detained at Shelburne for having landed men an(l|
obtained water. Send explanation by telegraph as soon as possible.

(Sd,) GRANVILLE,

(Telegram.)

No. 109.
Lord Lansdowne 1o Earl Granville.

24tb July, 1886.

Mt Loed,— Your Lordship's telegram of the 2lBt July. The United States'l
fishing schooner " City Point " committed a broach of tho Canadian Customs' lawil
by landing portion of her crew and luggage, and by not reporting to the Custoni8.|
Sho was detained, and, on deposit of 8400, subsequently released.

(Sd,) LANSDOWNE.

th June, 1886.

unicates to me thel
t, to the effect thsti
of entry for tram-l

is^ela of Gloucester,!
er," Lave Beverallyl
oms, at Canso, hadl
hree miles outaidJ
)n coast, a distancjl
reive to twenty-fifjl
irned against goinJ
Jape, on Prince Ed I
, a distance of overl
tire distance, abouil

hat they would not!

3d pretensions oi|
1 officers,
roquest that if an]i|
trican fishermen tol
narine miles of thel
3rty to fish was exj
nee, be revoked
with Great Britain,!
1 of Her Britannic!
thwith issued,
ve been long sincel
b to be revived.

. F. BAYAED.

it July, 1886.

est in verystrongl
of the echoonerl
I landed men s

RANVILLE.

i July, 1886.

bo United States'!
n Castoms' lawsf
to the Custoas-I

NSDOWJSE.

No. 110.
Sari ChranvilU to Lord Latudowne.

DowMiNO SvftMT, 28th Jaly, 1886.

Ht Lobd, — I have the honoar to traoBinit to yon, for oommanioation to Tour
I Lordship's Government, a copy of a letter, with its cnolosareB from the Foreign
Office, respecting the case of the United States' schooner "City Point/' on wbioh-
my telegram of the 2lBt instant was founded .

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) GRANVILLE.
[Governor General,

The Most Honourable

The Mabquis of Lamsoownb, 6.0.AI.G.

[Bneloinre No. 1.]
TJie Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

FoBBioN Office, 17th July, 1886.

Sib,— I am directed by the Earl of Rosebery to transmit to you a copy of a despatch from
Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, enclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard, in which-
he protests against the detention of the American schooner " City Point," at Shelburne,
Nova Scotia ; and I am to request that Earl Granville will instruct the Marquis of Lansdowne,
by telegraph, to send home & report on the subject, if possible, by cable.

I am, &o,.

The UXDER Seobxtabt of Statb,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

[Bnolosnre No. S.]
Sir L. West to the Earl of Rouhery.

[Treaty No. 60.] Washington, 3rd July, 1886.

MvY.ORD, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship, herewith, copy of a farther
note which I have received from the Secretary of State, reporting the detention of the
American schooner « City Point," of Portland (Maine), by the authorities of Nova Scotia.

I have, &o..

The Earl of Bosbbbry,
&c., &c., &<;•

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

[Bnclosare No. 3.]

Jidr. Bayard to Sir L. S. S. West,

, Depabthbnt of State,

Washinoton, 2nd July, 1886.

{^iH, — It is my unpleasant duty promptly to communicate to you the telegraphic report
to me by the United. States' Consul General at Halifax, that the Schooner « City Point," of
PorUaQd, Maine, arrived at, the Port of Shelbume, Nova Scotia, landed two men, obtained
vateTf and is detained by the authorities until further instructions are received from Ottawa.
The caso, as than reported, is an infringement of the ordinary rights of international hos-
pitality, and constitutes a violation of treaty stipulations and comineiroial privileges, evincing
au|L>h. uafriendUnesB, ta theivciticens of the United States as i»' greatly to be deplored, and
lt)6— 7

which I hold it to he the reiponaible duty of the Oovernment of Oreat Britain promptlj to |
oorrect.

1 have, Ao.|

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.
The Hon. Sir L. S. H. West, E.C.M.a.,

&0., &0., &0t

(Extract.)

No. 111.
Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granvills.

[No. 288.] Citadel, Qnieio, 29th July, 1886.

Mr Lord, — I have the honour to forward herewith u copy of an approved report
of a Committee of the Privy Coanoii in reforenoe to the A it entitled " An Act further
to amend the Act respeoting flihing by foreign vesBols," whiob was pasaed at its last
session by the Parliament of Canada, and which, as Tour Lordship will remember,
was renorvcd by mo for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon.

Tour Lordship will observe that for the reasons offered by the Minister of Jos-
tloe my Government recommends that the attention of Hor Majesty's Government
may be drawn to the necessity for having the Eoyal Assent given at as early a day
as possible to the Act above referred to.

Yoar Lordbhip has already been fully informed of the olrcamstances under
which this Bill was originally introduced, and which are again recurred to in the
report now sabmitted.

I enclose herewith a copy of clause 1*7 of the Act No. 86 mentioned by the
Minister, and I apprehend that there can be no doubt that should the President at
any time determine to issue a proclamation such as that contemplated in the clause
Canadian vessels would become liable to seizure and forfeiture in consequence of
acts for which, as the law now stands, it might not be possible to enforce the same
penalties against vessels of the United S uies.

I have, &o.,

(Sd) LANSDOWNE.

Ihe Right Honourable

Eabl Gbanvillb, TL, G.

[Baclosure Ko. 1.] *

Copy <>/■ an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council of Canada, dated 2\tt

July, 1886.

'^Ti a Report dated 17th July, 1886, from the Honourable Mr. Thompson, for the Minister
of Mtt ine and Fisheries, submitting the following observations in reference to the Act entitled
"An Act further to amend the Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels," which was passed
at its laat session by the Parliament of Canada, and which has been reserved by Your
Excellency for the assent of Her Majesty The Queen, a full and careful consideration of the
subject with which the Act deals, made apparent the necessity for such a measure for the
enforcement within Canadian waters of the statutes, which have been already passed in the
Imperial and Canadian Parliaments, for carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of 1818
between Great Britain and the United States. The Statute 59 Geo. Ill, cap. 38, provides
the penalty of fo^eiture as to any foreign fishing vessels found fishing, or to have been fish-
ing, or preparing to fish, within three marine mifes of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or
harbours in any part of Her Majesty's Dcminions in America, &c.

The Canadian Act of 1868, (cap. 61,) entitled " An Act respecting * fishing by foreign
vessels,' " and its amendment followed the Imperial Act and established the same penalty
for the same offences. For all other offences against the treaty, and against the Imperial
Act above referred to, the only penalty now provided by statute is that mentioned in section
4 of the Imperial Act, viz., the penalty of £200 to be recovered in the Superior Courts.

The Minister has had his attention called to the fact that the ordmary common law
remedy for violation of a statute, viz., indictment as for a misdeamour, is an unsuitable one

tftin prompUj to |
. BAYARD.

Fuly, 1886.

[>pro7ed report
In Aol farther
«Bed at its last
rill remember,
reon.

[iniater of Jas*
's Government
as early a day

istanoes under
irred to in the

tioned by the
le Preaideot at
[ in the olanse
Qonsequenoe of
force the same

.- auoh caaea, because it would involve long personal imprisonment, even before trial (»a

±e (lorondanta would generally be foreigners without available seouri ^ to offer for their

Ippcoranco) and would after conviction be followed in nearly all oases by a further term of

DiirlBonment, as the person on whom the penalties would fall would probably be unaUa

) bear a conaiderable fine.

It ia obvious that the mere right to bring a suit against the masters of offendins flshinc
ciiseU, is a remedy of little or no avail. Before judgment for the £200 could be obtained
be porgou sued would be almost certain to be out of the jurisdiction of the Dominion oourta^
D(l the onforoement of the judgment would, for that reason become, in most oases, im-
08.sible, e /en if the dofondants possessed the moans from which the judgment could bo
bali!!K(l.

The ^[inister submits that the penalty of forfeiture applied by the second section of the

reriiil Statute, and by the Canadian Act, to the offence of fistiing, &o., would be a suitaUa
moRt available penalty for the infringement of these statutes.

It cannot bo claimed by the United States' Qovemment to be an excessive or an uu-
^a:oniible penalty, because, by Statute No. 85, of the United States' Congress, lately assented
iby tlie Prosident of the United States, the same penalty is established against foreign
essols whose masters, officers or agents do any act which may be contrary to any proolam-
lion msued under that Statute.

The Committee concurring in the foregoing report, and considering the great value of tho
iiuadlaii fialilng grounds, and the neo<^Hsity which exists for their protection from encroaob-
^eals by forolgn fltihermon, in order t' i / ^hese natural resources may be made available to
urovvn people, recommenda that the tention of Iler M^osty's Government be drawn to
lis 8ul)iect, and that reprosentations be made as to the necessity for having the Royal
■sent given at as early a day as possible to the Act of lost session which is before referred

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGBE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

DOWNB.

[Bnoloiure No 3.]

tda, dated 2Ut

br the Ministei
le Act entitled
ch was passed
rved by Your
oration of the
aasure for the
passed in the
Treaty of 1818
38, provides
ve been fish-
ys, creeks, or

ng by foreign
same penalty
the Imperial

ned in section
Courts,
common law

nsuitable ono

Section 17 of Bill No. 85 of the United States' Congress.

•

Section 17. That whenever any foreign country whose vessels have been placed on the

line footing in the ports of the United States as American vessels (the coastwise trade excep-

iJ) ahall deny to any vessels of the United States any of the commercial privileges accorded

national vessels in the harbours, ports, or waters of such foreign country, the President, on

:elvlng satisfactory information of the continuance of such discriminations against any

issela of the United States, is hereby authorized to issue his Proclamation excluding, on

d after such time as he may indicate, from the exercise of such commercial privileges

the ports of tiie United States as are denied to American vessels in the ports of such

eign country, all vessels of such foreign country of a similar character to the vessels of the

ited States thus discriminated against, and suspending such concessions previously

uted to the vessels of such country ; and on and after the date named in such Proclama-

n for It to take eflect, if the master, officer, or agent of any vessel of such foreign country

[eluded by said Proclamation from the exercise of any commercial privileges shall do any

prohibited by said Proclamation in the ports, harbours, or waters of the United States for

|on account of such vessel, such vessel, and its rigging, tackle, furniture and boats, and all

goods on board, shall be liable to seizure and to forfeiture to the United States ; and

' person opposing any officer of the United States in the enforcement of this Act, or

ing and abetting any other person in such opposition, shall forfeit eight hundred dollars

I shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be liable to imprisonment

a term not exceeding two years.

1C6-H

•Vt'

100

■!''■

No. 112.

Earl Granville to the Governor General^
[No. 115.] ' DowNiNO Street, 29th July, 1886.

Mt liORD, — I havd tho honour to transmit to you a copy of a letter from tbel
Foreign Office, enclosing two dcspatche-* from Her Majesty's chargi d'afaires sti
WathiDjgtoD, oontaining protests of Mr. Bayard against the action of tho authoritie»|
of (he Dominion in regard to United States' fleshing vessels. SjfiJil!' f

I have to request that your Government will, with as little delay as possible,!
furnish Her Majesty's Government with a report on the cases referred to.

' I have, &c,,

(Sd.) GRANVILLE.
Governor General,

l7ae Most Honourable

The llABQTTis OF Lansdownk, G.C.M.G.
&c., &c., &c.

[Bnclosare No. 1.]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Foreign Oi-i-ice, 28th July, 1886.

Sir,— I am directed by the Earl of Bosebery to transmit to you two despatches from Herl
Majesty's Charge d'AfPaires at Washington containing protests of Mr. Bayard against the actioil
of the Canadian authorities in regard to United States' fishing vessels, and I am to suggciJ
that if Earl Granville sees no objecticAi, a report on the cases mentioned should be obtained!
from the Dominion Government with as little delay as possible.

I am, &c.,

The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.)

J. PAUNCEFOTE.

[EnoIoBure No. 2.]

Mr. Hardinge to the Earl of Bosebery.

[Treaty No. 67.1 Washington, I2th July, 1886.

My LoRO, — I have the honour to transmit herewith to Your Lordship copy of a noti|
received to-day from the Secretary of State protesting against the action of the Canadk
Customs authorities at Pictou, N.S., in denying to the steamship "Novelty," of the United
States, the right to take in steam coal, purchase ice or tranship fish in bond to the Unitfi|
States.

I am, &c.,

(Sd.) CHARLES HARDINGE.

The Earl of Roreoerv.

[bnclosare No. 3.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. West.

DsrARTMENT 01' StATB,

Washington, lOtliJuly, 18S6,

SiBj— .1 have the honour to inform you that I am in receipt of a report from the Conit
General of the United States, at Halifax, accompanied by sworn testimony stating thatt'

h July, 1886.

a letter from tbel

•Mrgi d'affaires atl

of the authoritie»|

delay as possible,]
rred to.

RANVILLB.

28th July, 1886.

Jespatches from Herl

rd against the actioil

and I am to suggerJ

1 should be obtained!

PAUNCEFOTE.

12th July, 1886.

[ship copy of a nol(|
ion of the Canatlii
elty," of the United
bond to the UniteJ

ibl

I '"Novelty," a duly registered merchant steam vessel of the United States, has been denied
the right to take in steam coal, or purchase ice, or tranship fish in bond to the United
States, at Pictou, N.S.

It appears that, having reached that port nn the Ist inst, and finding the Customs
Office closed on account of a holiday, the Me-ter of the "Novelty" telegraphed to the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, at Ottawa, asking if he would be ptrmitted to do any of
the three things mentioned above. That h<i receivod in reply a telegram recitmg fiitb
certain inaccurate and extended application, the language of Art. I, of the Treaty of 1818,
the limitations upon the significance of which are in pending discusaion between the Govern-
ment of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty. That on entering and clear-

I ing the " Novelty " on the following day at the Custom House, the Collector stated that his
instructions were contained in the telegram the Master had received -, and that, the privilege

I of coaling being denied, the "Novelty" was compelled to leave Pictou without being allowed
to obtain fuel necessary for her lawful voyage on a dangerous coast.

Against this treatment I make instant and formal protest &i an unwarranted interpreta-
tion and application of the Treaty by the OflBcers of the Dominion of Canada and the
Province of Nova Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of commercial and maritime inter-
course existing between the two countries, and as a violation of hospitality, and for any loss

[ or injury resulting therefrom the Government of Her Britannic Miyesty will be held liable.

I have, iV c,

The Honourable

Sir L. S. West, K.C.M.G.
&c., (fee, &c.

(3d.)

T. F. BAYARD.

[BuClosure No. 4.]
JUr, Eardinge to Earl of Fose^try.

[No. 08.] Washington, I2th July, 1886.

My Lord,— With reference to my preceding despatch No. 67 Treaty of today, I have
the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith copy of a further note addressed by the
Secretary of State to Sir L. West, protesting against the interference of the Dominion cruiser
" Middleton " in preventing American boats from visiting St. Andrews, N. B., for the purpose
of there purchasing herring tor canning.

In reply I have merely acknowledged the receipt of his note and stated that I wauld
acquaint Your Lordship with his views on the subject.

I have also the honour to transmit to Your Lordship an extract from the " National
Republican " of to-day's date, giving the full text of Mr. Bayard's reply to representative
Boutelle of Maine, tigether with a statement made by the captain of one of the Americaa
boats in question whose masters complain of the violation of their commercial rights.

Tlie Earl op RosEnaRV,
&c., &c., &c.

1 have, &c.
(Sd.)

CHARLES HARDINGK

ES HARDINGE.

ibth July,

1886.

ort from the Coii5>
aony stating that i

[Enclosore No. 5.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S, West,

Department of State,

Washington, 10th July, 1886.

Sib,— On the 2nd of June last, I had the honour ts inform you that despatches from
Eastport, in Maine, had been received, reporting threats by the Customs Officials of the
Dominion to seize American boats coming into those waters to purchase herring from the
Canadian weirs for the purpose of canning the same as sardines, which would be a manifesfc
infraction of the right of purchase and sale of herring caught and sold by Canadians in their
own watew in the pursuance of legitimate trade.

To this note I have not had the honour of a reply.

103

C. A. JBoutwell, M. P. from Maine, informs me that American boats visitinij
i> — it. . _/.ii una ' ' ' — ' — i'- - '^ >=-- — •

To day Mr.
St. Andrews, N. B., for the purpose of there purchasing herring from the Canadian weirs fotl
canning had been driven away by the Dominion cruiser " Middleton." I

Such inhibition of usual and legitimate commercial contracts and intercourse is assured!; I
without warrant of law, and 1 draw your attention to it in order that the commercial rights I
of citizens of the United States may not be thus invaded and subjected to unfriendly dis-f
crimination.

I am, &c,,

The Hon.

Sir L. S. West, K.C.M.G.,
&c., &c., &c.

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYiRD.

[Enclosure No. 6.]

ExTBAOT from the " National Bepvblican " of 12th July, 1886.

Thb Expklled Sabdinb Boats. — An Alleged Yioi^tiom of Commercial Bights will bb Asserted, I

Pepresentative Boutelle, of Maine, has received the following reply to his request that
the State Department give immediate attention to the statement telegraphed him from
Eastport, that American boats were driven away from St. Andrew's, N. B., on Friday, by a
Dominion cruiser : —

Hon. C. a. Bohtelle,

7o«ae of Representatives.

Drpartment of Staib, 10th July, 1886.

Dear Sir, — I have just received your telegram of this date stating that you had a
despatch from Eastport, Me., that American beats after herring for sardines at St. Andrew's,
N. B., were driven away by the Dominion cruiser " Middleton," with the announcement that
no American boats will be allowed to take herring for any purpose. And to this you invoke
the immediate attention of this Department.

Oil the 2nd of June last, you called at this Department, in company with Senator Hale,
of Maine, and then drew my attention to a similar threat of interference with the purchase
of small herding for canning as sardines from the Canadian weirs. On the same day I made
representation of the alleged threats to the British Minister at this capital, and drew his
attention to the alleged violation of lawful commercial intercourse between British subjects
in Canada and the citizens of the United States.

It will assist materially in all such cases of alleged violation of commercial rights, if accurate
and full statement of all the facts in each case are procured and forwarded to this Depart-
ment, accompanied by affidavits.

A great deal of loose rumour and sensational statement would be thus disposed of, and a
tangible basis be laid for claim for compensation by the injured parties.

I have, &c ,

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD.

Mr. Boutelle has telegraphed to Eastport requesting that full and accurate sworn state-
ments of the interference complained of, be prepared and forwarded at once to the Depart-
ment of State.

Statement telegraphed to WASiiiNaTox.

Eastport, Me, 1 1th July, 1886.
Captain Balkam, in charge of one of the American boats which were at St. Andrew's, N.B .
Friday night, and which were driven away by the Dominion cruiser " General Middleton,"
in command of Lieutenant Kent, makes the following statement :— " I was lying in St
Andrew's harbour, waiting for the fishermen to seine their weirs, when ' General Middleton'
come into port. Lieutenant Kent, of the ' Middleton', came on board my boat, and inquired
if she was an American boat atad if I was an American citizen. I told him I did not know
whether my boat was American or not, but as for myself I was an American citizen. ' It
makes no diflFerencc,' he replied, ' whether your boat is American or English, you have no

F. BAYA.RD.

WILL DB Asserted,

103

right to purchase fish in this port, and if you do not leave, or if you attempt to buy fish, your
I boat will be seized.' He also notified the other boatmen. Not wishii^g to have an^ trouble

with the Dominion Government, we all set sail, and blowing our fog horns in derision of the
] 'General Middleton,' steered for the American shore. Collector Null has taken my
I statement and telegraphed to Washington."

[(fefe^flm.)

No. 113.
Earl OranvilU to Lord Lansdmone.

2Dd AaguBt, 1886.

Send fall particalars as to United States' Hshing vessels seized or warned off.
Tfoands for seizire or warning, and ezaot locality, inolading distance from shore, of
bach vessels.

(Sd.) SBCEBTABY OP STATE.

No. 114.

Jliimter at Washington to Qovemor General,

[No. 88.] Washington, 3rd August, 1886.

I My Lord,— I have the honoar to transmit herewith to Your Bscellenoy copy of a
Lte addressed by the Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Minister, and I ^hall bo
|erjr much obliged if Your Bzcellenoy will cause instructions to be issued to furnish
ne with the papers required.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) CHARLES HARDINGE.

His Excellency

The GOVERNOB GSNEB&L.

iisposed of, and a

[Bnolosnre No. I. ]
Mr. Bayard to Sir Lionel West.

Washington, 2nd August, 1886.

My deak Sir Lionel,— In response to a request you gave me some time ago, references
Jceitain British and Canadian Statutes relating to the fisheries, and also sent me— one or
fvio circulars emanating from the Dominion authorities on the same subject.

Many changes and innovations are reported to have been made in the public and other
prders issued in Canada, and I will ask of you the favour to procure and send me, in dupli-
ate, if possible, copies of all *lie orders, circulars and regulations issued oflacially, and now
1 force in Canada, under which the entry of American fishing vessels in Canadian waters, or
heir purchase of bait or other supplies, shipment of crews, «&c., are regulated. For these
nportant documents I shall be much obliged.

I am, &c,,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

[Telegram.) No. 115.

Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

4th August, 1886.
My Lord,— Your telegram of the 2nd. Fall particulars by tomorrow 'a mail,

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNE.

101

(^Extract.)

No. 116.
Oovemor General to Secretary of State.

QuBBKO, 4th Aagast, 1886.

Mr Lord,— I had the hoDoar of receiviog Yoar Lordship's telegram of the 2ad|
iastant, reqaeatinz mo tosapplyyoa with fall parbioa'ars of all the Uaitel Statavl
fishing vessels which have been seised or warned off by the Fisheries Police of thtl
Dominion, of the grounds for such seizures and warnings, and of the exact localitjl
in which they had taken place, with especial rofereace to the distance from the shorel
of such vessels at the time when they were seized or warned. I

In regard to seizures, I have as6ertained that the only oases have been the|
following : —

iBt. The "Pavid J. Adams/' seized at Digby, N.S., on the 7th May last.

2nd. The " Btia M. Doughty," of Portland, Ma., saizad at Eoglishtoivn.N.S.oiil
the I7th of May laot.

3rd. The " City Point," seized at Shelburne, N.S., on the 2nd of July last.

4th. The. "George W. Cashing" and the " C. B. Harrington," both of which I
vessels were seizdl at Shalburna on the 3rd of July. I

Copies of the seizare reports , which contain all the information of which mjl
Government is possessed relative to these seisnres, are enclosed herewith. I

The ciroumstancos under which the " David J. Adams " was seized have beetl
already explained at some length in my previous despatches. This vessel is
detained, and waits trial before the 7ice-AdmiraUy Court.

Particulars with regard to the *' Ella M. Doughty " were given in my despt
No. 167, of the 26th May. This vessel has been released, her owners hariogl
deposited the sum of 98,000. I

The "City Point," "George W. Cushing" and "Oi B. Harrington" werel
released upon deposit of $100 each, that being the amount of the penalty to which|
they were liable under Section 29 of the Customs' Act of 1833, which they '
contravened.

I also enclose for Your Lordship's information copies of the boardins: books ofl
the Government fisheries protection vessels : " Lansdowne," " Critic," " P. B. Conrad,']
"Terror," "General Middleton " and " L. floulett."

In the large majority of cases where vessels have been warned or ordered tol
leave Canadian waters the vessel was boarded in harbour. It has been thought i
ficient to give the name of the harbour by way of a description of the locality.

In the few cases in which vessels appear to have been boarded outside a port oil
harbour in which oases no seizure was made or attempted and a simple warniD;!
given in accordance with the terms of the circular of which Your Lordship hvl
already seen a copy, it has, I understand, not been thought necessary to instriutl
the officers in command of police vessels to mark the locality with greater exactnesl
than by giving the name of the port or harbour off or near which the vessel wal
boarded. f

In the case of vessels actually seized the reports contain mach furthei^ informtl
tion as to locality. I

I may mention in explanation of the fact that the returns of some of the polioil
vessels have not been brought down to a more recent date, that these vesseU an|
ordered not to come into port more than once a week and then only if they c«|
be spared from their cruising grounds.

I have given directions that Your Lordship is to be from time te time sq
with further information in regard to any seizures or warnings which may hereaftti|
take place.

I have, &o.,
The Right Honourable (Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

The Skobetary of State,
for the Colonies.

105

(Extract.)

es buve been thtl

ih furthej^ informil

No. 117.
Lord Lansdowne to Earl Granville.

Citadel, Quebec, 4th Augast, 1889.

My Lobd, — T have the honoar to acknowledge receipt of Yonr Lordship's dea-

p&tch of the 16th Jaly, enclosing,Mr. Paaaoefote's letter of 30th Jane,

No. 107, and en- with which were transmitted the enclosares noted in the margin, rela-

f°*l'l ?°*- ^' live to the points raised in Mr. Bayard's note to Sir Lionel West, dated

2,3aua4. 14th *Jaly, 1886.

*So dated in enclomre, but it is presumed the date should be 14tb June.

1 det-ire at once to point out to Your Lordship the inaccuracy of the language id
which Mr. Bayard has described " such warnings," including, it is presumed, the
alleged warning which had reference to the Bay des Chaleurn, as " wholly unwar-
ranted pretentions ot extra territorial authority and a<)urpations of jurisdiction by
tho Provincial officials," constituting "an interference with the unquestionable rights
of the American fi>hermon to pursue their business without molestation at any point
not within thue marine miles of the shores, and within the defined limits as to which
renunciation of the liberty to fish was expressed in the Treaty of 1818."

My Government will be prepared at the proper moment, and whenever it
becomes necessary to raise the questions formally, to uphold by snffioient arguments
tho contention which has, from the time that thcHO matters firot entfaged the atten-
tion of the Governments interested, been maintained by that of the Dominion in
regard to the interpretations which should be placed upon that portion of Art. L of
the Convention of 1818. which describes the limits within which the liberty of fishing
was renounced by the United States.

It is not necessary upon the present occasion that I should recur to the past
history of the " headlands question," or that I should do more than state that Mr.
Bayard's suggestion that the Bay des Chaleurs does not form a part of the w.iters
from which United States fishermen are eKclnded, is one in which my Government
cannot acquiosce. Throughout the negotiations which have at different times taken
place in regard to these matters no such admission has ever been made on the p.irt
of the Dominion, or, as far as I am aware, by tho Imperial Government. It is there-
fore wholly incorrect of Mr. Bayard to speak of the question as one which should be
included amongst those " which have been long since settled between the United
States and Great Britain."

I shall ascertain whether any statement according with that referred to in the
first paragraph of Mr. Bayard's note was made by the Collector at Halifax in regard
to the landing of fish at that point for transportation in bond across the Province.
It will, however, be evident to Tour Lordship that the landing of fish for the above
purpose is not one of the objects for which entrance to Canadian harbourd is pcr-
milted within the terms of the Convention of 1818.

I have, &c.,

The Right Honourable

Earl Gbanvillk, E. G.

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNE.

,1 ,'l

No. 118.

INSDOWNB.

The Bight Honourable Edward Stanhope to Lord Lansdowne.

DowNiNO Stbebt, 4th August, 1886.

Mr Lord, — I have the honour to transmit to you, for the information of Your
Lordship's Government, a copy of a idtter from the Foreign Office, enclosing ftti

106

extract from tho " Now York Hearld " relative to th© North American fisheiicj|
qacBtion.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STA.NHOPE.
Governor General

The Most HoDoarable the Mabquis of Lansdownb, G.O.M.G.

[Enclosure JHo. 1.]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office,

FoREioJi Office, 26th Juiy, 1886.

Sir, — I am directed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to transmit to you, to
be bud before Earl Granville, an extract from the " New York Herald," relative to the North
American fiiiheries question.

I am, i&c.,

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEb'OTE.
The Under Secretary of State,
Ck)lonial Office.

[Bnclosare No. S.]

Extract from the " New York Berall " of 9th July, 188S.

Dkpartmkkt of State,

WASniNGTON, 30th June, 188&.
Captain Jesse Lewis,

Owner of the schooner " David J. Adams,"

Gloucester, Mass.

Sir, — I have your letter, dated the 26th inst., stating the severe loss to you occasioned
by the summary ceizure by the Canadian authorities, in Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia, of
your fishing schooner the " David J. Adams," which, as you say, is all the property you
possess and constituted your only support.

It is proper tbat I should infoim jou that demand was made upon the Government of
Great Britain for the release of the vessel, coupled with a notification that that Government
would be held answerable for all loss and damage caused by her seizure and detention.
Your case commands my sincere sympathy, and ever since it was brought to my knowledge
baa had the constant consideration of the Department, and of the consular officers of the
United f^tates in the Dominipn of Canada.

Mr. "William L. Putnam, of Portland, Me., in conjunction with Mr. George W. Biddle, of
Philadelphia, has been engaged by this Government as its legal counsel in respect of its
rights and duties which may be brought in question by reason of the seizure of your vesBel.
It you will communicate with Mr. Putnam he will no doubt give you all information in his
power in relation lo the laws under which your property was so seized, and suggest what
eteps should be taken to protect your private interest in the premises.

M' aovev, I suggest that you should carefully secure evidence of all the facts connected

■■■ pst-sence of your vessel in Annapolis Basin, and of the absence of any unlawful act

>r .!•:; .. -''i: 'm the part of her master, crew, or owner, as well as proof of the actual loss and

I f ti-^d by you by reason of this harsh and, as I believe, wholly unwarranted action

•) S< ■ I • "c.nn officials— such evidence to be obtained and preserved as the basis of claims

•'.'; '.eration.

M •:.<:' tj »i one year ago I sought to protect our citizens engaged in fishing from the
results whicii might attend finy possible misunderstanding between the Governments of
Great Britain and the United Slates as to the measure of their mutual rights and privileges
in the territorial waters cf British North America, after the termination of the fishery articles
of the Treaty of Washington in June last. It seemed to me then, and seems to me now,
very hard that differences of opinion between the two Governments should cause loss to the
honest citizens whose line of obedience mit.'ht be thus rendered vague and uncertain and
their property be brought into jeopardy. Influenced by this feeling, I procured a temporary

107

erican fisbev

ici

A.NHOPE.

;h Juijr, 1886.

msmit to you, to
Mive totheKortb

arrangen Jit wliich secured our fishennf n full enjoyment of all the Canadian iisheriesj
tree from molestation during a period which would permit discuesion of a just international
settlement of the whole fishery question. But other counsels prevailed, and my eiforts
further to protect the fishermen from such trouble as you now sufrer were imavailing.

To secure for them full protection in the enjoyment of all their just rights and privileges
is still my earnest intent and object, and for all losses to which they may be unlawfully sub-
jected at the hands of the authorities of loreign Governments i shall seek and expect to
obtain full redress. I regret exceedingly the disturbance in the long customary pursuits
and the serious loss and inconvenience attendant upon a disputed construction of laws and

j treaties by two separate Governments, and I trust that I shall soon be enabled to secure

I Buch a clear and comprehensive declaration of agreement between those charged with the
administration of the two Governments as will define the line of their rights and secure
Cram molestation those American fishermen who, obeying the injunctions of their Govern-
ment respecting subordination to the laws of foreign Governments, keep within the laws of

Itiieirown country.

I Separation for all lossea unlawfully ca' ised by foreign authority will be made the subject

|of international presentation and demand.

I am, &o.,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

UNCEl'OTE.

16.

hJune, 1885.

you occasioned
Nova Scotia, of
he property you

Government of
that Government

and detention,
to nay knowledge
ar officers of the

•rge W. Biddle, of
in respect of its
e of your vessel.
iformation in his
ad suggest what

facts connected
any unlawful act
e actual loss and
warranted action
le basis of claims

fishing from the
Governments of
a and privileges
le fishery articles
^ms to me now,
cause loss to the
d uncertain and
red a temporary

No. 119.
Lord Lantdoiune to Earl Granville.

Citadel, Qcbbko, Sth August, 1886.

Mt LOUD, — With reference to my despatch of yesterday's date I have now tbo -
koDOur to forward for Tour Lordship's information copies of the papora relative to-
be seizure of tho United States' fishing schooner *' Ella M. Doughty."

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

he Bight Honourable

Eabl Granville, E.G.,
&o., &c., &c.

[Eacloeure No. 1.]

Halifax, Sth August, 1886.

Jtegina vs. "Ella M. Doughty."

Sir, — I received your telegram today as follows :a."please send me to-day copy of Collect-
or of Customs' affidavit in re, Doughty seizure."

The only affidavit made by the Collector of Customs is the affidavit to lead warrant, which
I very brief and contains no particulars of fact, the Admiralty rules only requiring that it
hould state the nature of the claim. I, therefore, forward in addition to this the other docu-
hents enumerated below as they may contain some information required by you. Enclosed
erewith are:— 1st. Affidavit of Daniel G. McAskill and Donald J. Morrison, 18th May, 1886.
hd-Affidavitof Angus Morrison, 3l8t. May 1886. 3rd. Affidavit of Donald McRitchie, 31st
Ay, 188G. 4th. Statement of Torquell McLean. 5th. Statement of Donald J. Morrison, 31st
jay, 1886. 6th Statement of Daniel G. McAskill, 31st May, 1886. 7th. Copy of Affidavit of
puchlin G. Campbell to lead warrant, Eegina va. "Ella M. Doughty". 8th. Copy of Plaintiff's
pition, Eegina, ca. " EllaM. Doherty."

Your obedient servant,

(Sd.)

fORGB W. BURBIDOB, Esq.,

Deputy Minister of Justice, Otta va.

WALLACE GRAHAM.

^^1^

108

[Bneloiare No. 1]

We, Daniel O. MoAiikill and Donald J. Morrison, of EoKlishtowtt, do solemnly swe&r thtll
^e 8old on the 12ch day of tiarch, 1886, 1,400 herring at 25 cents per hundred, and oa th«|
13th 3 barrels more or less at $1.00 per barrel to schooner '* Ella M. Doughty."

Sworn to, before me this ISth
day of May, 1886.

(Sd.) D. MoAunT,

Deputy Collector.

(SJ.) DANIEL G. MoASKILL,

D. J. MURRISON.

[EacloaureNoS.]

I, Angus Morrison, of Englishtown, make the following statement and say : —
That I was aboard schooner " Ella M. Doughty " with Torquell McLean selling 500 her I
ring lor 30 cents per 100. I did not sell any myself. The Captain and crew were wamingml
not to tell. The day before this day the crew were ashore wanting me to take herring aboanll
in night time. They were talking about the trading license but they did not know whetherl
it was good or not. [

I, Angus Morrison, do solemnly swear that the above statements are true and correct iil
all their particulars.

(Sd.) ANGU5 MORRISON.

I, the undersigned cert ' that the above Angus Morrison made the statements and swort|
to them before me this 31st a ly of May, 1886.

(Sd.) D. MoAunT,

Deputy Collector.

[Enclosnre No. 4.]

I, Donald Mc Ritchie, went aboard schooner "Ella M. Doughty" on the 12th day of M
1886, and took aboard with me 900 herring which the Captain bought from me and gave nil
^i.25 for them. I

Captain of schooner " Ella M. Doughty " wished me to keep it quite secret. While I w)i|
about leaving, Donald Mclnnes, Daniel G. McAskill and Donald J. Moirison came aboard,
solemnly swear that the above statements are correct, so help me God.

(Sd.) DONALD MoRITCHIE,

I, the undersigned, certify that the above statements were made before me and swi
to on the 31st day of May, 1886.

(Sd.) D. McAuLAT,

Deputy Collector.

[Eaclosure No. 6.]

I, Torquell McLean, and Angus Morrison went aboard schooner "Ella M.Dou^ty" 9
the 13 th May, and sold herring and there were aboard Donald Mclnnes, Donald J. Morriio
and Daniel G. McAskill.

This statement made in presence of Daniel Morrison and Daniel McLean.

Torquell McLean refuses to sign this or swear to it : says it is true.

(Sd.) D. MoAULAY,

Deputy Collector.

[Enclosure No. 6.]

I, Donald J. Morrison, was in the boat on the 12th day of May, 1886, with Dan.(
McAskill and Donald Mclnnes when the dory of the schooner " Ella M. Doughty " met i
coming home with nets and herrings ; the crew told us to clean nets and take herrings ab '
and captain would buy them when v.'e were in vesseL We saw aboard Torquell McLean i

109

I Donald McRUchie. They seemed to be very much afraid that they would be seized. Second
day >ve went aboard Torquell McLean and Angus Morrison (little) had left schooner " Ella M.
Doughty " and they commenced cleaning net. They said Torquell McLean and Angus
Morrison went aboard with herring when cleaned out of nets, and we saw the herring taken
out of boat into vessel "Ella M. Doughty"; while aboard they saw some men ashore and
I us if they were Customs officers.

We got 25 cents per 100 for 1,400 first day and $3 for the lot which we had the second
I (lay, 13th inst., which was about three barrels, more or less.

bis
(Sd.) DONALD + J. M0RRI30N.

mark.
lEsoLianTOWN, Slst May, 1886.

I, tlie undersigned, certify that the above statement was made before me this 31st day
I of May, 1886.
' (Sd.) D. McAULAY,

Deputy Collector.

true and correct ig I

[BaclosnreNo. 7.]

, When we, D. G. McAskill and D. J. Morrison and Donald Mclnnes, were coming home on
12th May, inst, 18FG, with nets with herring in, and not taken out of net, a dory met us that
came from the schooner " Ella M. Doughty " and asked us if we had herring to sell. D. Mclnnes
told them we had about 1,000 herrings ; they told us to get herring out of netaand goaboard
and tliey would buy them. They seemed to be afraid of being seized as the crew of vessel
told us not to report them ashore. When we went aboard Donald McEitchie, Eel Cove, was
aboard. Torquell McLean was aboard after D. McHitchie left schooner " EUa M. Doughty."
We were aboard when Torquell Mclean put bait aboard said schooner •' Ella M. Doughty."
Second day, we went to said schooner and had about three barrels of herring, more or loss, and
captain said he had no change but would give $3.00 for the lot. Torquell McLean and Angus
Morrison were then on board but let the vessel go and commenced taking herring out of net
and they went aboard again and sold the herring to captain, but I did not see them receive
any payment. When we counted herring first day we had 1,400 and we got 25 cents per 100

(Sd.) DAN. G. MoASKILL.

Ekglishtown, 31st May, 1886.

I, the undersigned, do certify that the above statement was made in my presence.

(Sd.) D. MoAULAY,

Deputy Collector.

(No. 473)

[Eaelosure No. 8.]
In the Vice- Admiralty Court of Halifax,

Her Majesty the Queen, Plaintiff, against the ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty " and her cargo.

Action for forfeiture of the said vessel and her cargo for violation of a certam convention
between His Late Majesty King George the Third, King of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part,
made on the twentieth day of Octobe;', J 818, and for violation of the Act of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom of Great Bruain and Ireland made and passed in the fifty-ninth year
of the reign of His Late Majesty George the Third, King of the United Knigdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, being chapter thii ty-eight of the Acts of the last named Parliament
made and past in the said year.

Also for forfeiture of the said vessel and her cargo for violation of chapter sixty one of
the Acts of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada made and passed in the year 1868, and
of chapter fifteen of the Acts of the said Parliament passed and made in the year 1 870, and of
chapter twenty-three of the Acts of the said Parliament made and passed in the year 1871.

I, Lauchlin G. Campbell, of Baddeck, in the County of Victoria and Province of Nova
Scotia, Collector of Customs, make oath and say a& follows : —

1. That the Honourable .John S. D. 'J hompson. Her Majesty's Attorney General for the
Tomuiion of Canada, claims, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, to have the said ship or

-*!

110

=^Binei

vessel " Ella M. Doughty" and her carge condemned to Her Miyesty the Queen for violation
of a certain convention between His Late Majesty George the Third, King of the Unitud
Kingdom of Qreat Britaio and Ireland, of the one part, and the United States of America, of
the other part, made and signed at London in Qreat Britain on the twentieth day of October
in the year of our Lord 1818, and also for violation of the Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom of Oreat Britain and Ireland made and passed in the fifty ninth year of the reign
of His Late Majesty George the Third, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, being chapter thirty-eight of the Acts of the said Parliament made and passed in the
said year, and being intituled " An Act to enable His Majesty to make regulations witii
respect to the taking and curing of fish in certain parts of tlie coasts of Newfoundland and
Labrador and His said Majesty's other possessions in North America, according to a conven-
tion made between His Majesty and the United States of America."

The said Honourable John S. D. Thompson, Her Majesty's Attorney General for the
Dominion of Canada, also claims, on behalf of Her Mty'esty the Queen, to have the said ship
" Ella M. Doughty " and her cargo condemned as forfeited to Her Mtyesty the Queen for
violation of chapter sixty-one of the Acts of the Parliament of tlie Dominion of Canada made
and passed in the year 1868, and intituled " An Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels,"
and for violation of chapter fifteen of the Acts of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada
made and passed in the year 1870, and intituled "An Act to amend the Act respecting fishing
by foreign vessels," and for violation of chapter twenty-tliree of the Acts of the Parliament of
tho Dominion of Canada made and passed in the year 1871, and intituled " An Act further to
amend the Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels."

The said ship " Ella M. Doughty " is a foreign vessel and not navigated according to tlie
laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Dominion of Canada, and
is registered in the United States of America and is owned by foreigners residing in the said
United States of America.

I further make oath and say that the aid of this Court is required to enforce the said
claim.

1 am the Collector of Customs at Baddeck aforesaid.

(Sd.; LAUCHLIN GEO. CAMPBELL,

' Collector of Customs.

On the 25th day of May, A.D. 1886, the said Lauchlin George Campbell was duly sworn to
the truth of this affidavit at Baddeck, in the County of Victoria and Province of Nova
Scotia, before me.

(Sd.) ALEX. TAYLOR,

A Commissioner duly appointed to administer oaths

in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Halifax.

(No 47.1)

[Enclosure No 9.]
In the Vice Admiralty Court at Halifax.

Her Majesty the Queen, Plaintiff, against the Ship or Vessel " Ella M. Doughty " and her Cargo.

Action for forfeiture of the said vessel and her cargo for violation of a certain convention
between His late Majesty George the Third, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland of the one part, and the United States of America of the other part, made on
the twentieth day of October, 1818. And for the violation of the Act of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, made and passed in the fifty-ninth year
of the reign of His late Majesty George the Third, King of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, being Chapter thirty-eight of the Acts of the said last named Parliament
made and passed in the said year. Also for forfeiture of the said vessel and her cargo, for
violation of Chapter sixty-one of the Acts of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, made
and passed in the year 1868, and of Chapter fifteen of the Acts of the said Parliament passed
and made in the year 1870, and of Chapter twenty-three of the Acts of the said Parliament
made and passed in the year 1871.

Writ issued on the 20/A day of May, A.D. 1886.

1. A certam Convention between His late Majesty George the Third, King of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, was made and
signed at Lonv5on, on the 20th day of October 1818, and by the first Article thereof, after reci-

Ill

3on for violation
5 of the Unitod
i of America, of
I day of October
ntof the United
ear of tlie reign
eat Britain and
iid passed in tlie
•egulatious witii
Ytoundlaad and
ing to a cunven-

General for the
,vo the said Hhip
' the Queen inr
of Canada made
foreign vessels,"
,inion of Canada
especting Hshing
he Parliament of
in Act further to

according to the
n of Canada, and
siding in the said

enforce the said

IPBELL,
r of Cuatoma.

IS duly sworn to
Province of Nova

ter oaths
of Halifax,

" and her Cargo.

rtain convention
jf Great Britain

[part, made on
Parliament of

I fifty-ninth year
igdom of Great

|med Parliament
her cargo, for
jf Canada, made

Irliament pas:ied

paid Parliament

kg of the United
Iwas made and
Ureof, after reci-

jK tliat differences had arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the said United States for (he

Dhal)it!)^nts thereof to take, dry and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbours and creeks of

His Britannic Mojestv's Dominions in America, it was agreed between the High Contracting

parties tliat the inhabitants of the said United States should have forever in common with

he Hutijects of His Britannic Majesty the liberty to take lisli of every kind on that part of the

outiiern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on

he western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon

t'landH, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, creeks, and

ibours from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador to and through the ."-traits of

lelle hie, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast without prejudice, however,

any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company ; and tliat the American fishermen

hoaUl also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours and

S'eeka of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland thereabove described, and of the

oast of Labrador : but so soon as the same or any portion thereof should be settled it should

ot be lawful for the said fishermen to dry and cure fish at such portion so settled without

Irevious agioeraent for such purpose witli the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the

Iround. And the said United States thereby renounced forever any liberty theretofore enjoyed

•claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take dry or euro fish on or within three marine

liles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Majesty's Dominion in America not

[eluded within the above mentioned limits ; provided, however, that the American fisher-

n should be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of

kpairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water and for no other pur-

iDse whatever. But they should be under such restrictions as might be necessary to prevent

keir taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the

yivileges thereby reserved to them.

2. That a certain Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
eland was made and passed in the fifty-ninth year of the reign of His late Majesty King
leorge the Third, being Chapter thirty-eight of the Acts of the said Parliament made and
Issed in the fifty-ninth year of the reign of His said late Majesty King George the Third,
id being intituled " An Act to enable His Mnjesty to make regulations with respect to the

King and curing of fish on certain parts of the Coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, and
I Majesty's other possessions in North America, according to a Convention made between
[is Majesty and the United States of America.

3, That on the 29th day of March, A.D. 1867, a certain other Act of the Parli iment of
le United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was made and passed, being Chapter three
[the Acts of the said Parliament passed in the thirtieth and thirth-first years of the reign
I Her present Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Groat Britain and Ireland,

being intituled " An Act for the union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and
Ihe Government thereof, and for purposes connected therewith," which said Act is cited
|d known as " The British North America Act, 1867."

4, That a certain Act of the Parliament of Canada was made and passed in the thirty-first
arof the reign of Her said Majesty, Queen Victoria, being Chapter sixty-one of the Acts of

said Parliament made and passed in the year 1868, and being intituled " An Act

^pecting fishing by foreign vessels."
Anil a certam other Act of the Parliament of Canada was made and passed in the thirty-

|rd year of the reign of Her said Mtyesty Queen Victoria, being Chapter li> of the Acts of
! said Parliament made and passed in the year 1870, and being intituled "An Act to

lend the Act respecting fishing by.foreign vessels." And in the thirty-fourth year of the
gnof Jler said Majesty Queen Victoria a certain other Act of the said Parliament of
nada was made and passed, being Chapter twenty three of the Acts of the said Parliament
de and passed in the year J871, and being intituled " An Act further to amend the Act
pecting fishing by foreign vessels."

5. That the said Convention and the said several Acta hereinbefore mentioned were and
[still in full force and effect.

0. The Harbor of St. Ann's, situate in the County of Victoria, in the Province of Nova

Jtia, together with its outlet to the Bay of St. Ann's, and also, the said Bay of St. Ann's, all

leinbeforo designated as the Bay and Harbor of St. Ann's, are a portion of the Dominions

Umerica formerly of His late Majesty George the Third, King of the United Kingdom of

lat Britain and Ireland, and now of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, Queen of the United

bgdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not included or lying on that part of the southern

kt of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western

I northern coasts of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the

fesof the Magdalen Islands, or on the coasts, bays, harbours and creeks from Mount Joly

jhe southern coast of Labrador to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence

Wardly indefinitely along the coast.

112

7. Tliat the laid Hhii*. "Ella M. Doughty," whereoi one Warren A. Doughty, who was noil
a natural born lubjoct ot Ifor Majesty, was or is master, is a foreign ship or veBsel not ntvJ
gated according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or uccordin||
to the lawd of Canada, but was and is a ship of the United HtatcRof Amorioa owned by forei;
era, that is to Buy, by perHonH rosiding in and being citizens of the United States of Aineric
vrhere the f aid ship or vessel was built and enrolled ; iind the said ship or vessel "Ella }
Doughty" was at the time uereinaftor mentioned licensed and permitted to carry on ib
fisheries under and in pursuance of the Acts of tlio United States of America, undvu
engaged in Uio prosecution of the fitihuries and on a tisliing voyage, and was and is witiiouti
Hcense to lish or any license whatsoever m that behalf from the Government of Canada ore
Nova ^■cotia under the statutes of Canada or of Nova Kcotia in that behalf.

8. Between the tenth and seventeenth days of May, 18s6, the said Warren A. Doughti,
the master of the said ship or vessel, " Ella M. Doughty," and the officers and crew of thi
said ship or vessel, " Ella M. Doughty," did in and with the said ship or vessel, " Ella ^
Doughty," enter into the Bay and Harbour of St. Ann's aforeBaid,within three marine mWea
the shores of the said Bay and Harbour of St. Arm's i and within three miles of the coasts, bajJ
creeks and harbours of those portions of the Dominions in America of His said late Miijedijl
Sing George the Third, being now the Dominions in America of Her Majesty Queen Victorii,!
not mcluded within the limits speciKed and defined in the said first Article of the said CodI
vention, and set out and reoite(l in the first paragraph hereof, for the purpose of procuriDj|
bait, that is to say, herrings, wherewith to fish, and ice for the preservation on board said \t
sel of bait to be used in fishing, and of fresh fi.sh to be fished for, taken and caught by i
upon the said vessel and by tne master, officers and crew thereof, and did procure such I
Wherewith to fish, and such ice for the purposes aforesaid, and did so enter for other jiu
poses than the purpose of shelter, or repairing damages, or of purchasing wood, or of obtainiiij|
water, contrary to the provisions of the said Convention and of the said several Acts ; anj
the said vessel, " EllaM. Doughty," and her cargo were thereupon seized within three uiariu
miles of the coasts or shores of the said Bay and Harbor of St. i^nn's, by Donald MoAulay »
lAUchlin G. Campbell, officers of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to forfeiture
breach or violation of the said Convention and of the i<aid several Acts.

9. 'Ihe said Warren A. Doughty, the master of the said ship or vessel, "Ella
Doughty," and the officers and crew of the said ship or vessel, <■ Ella M. Doughty,"
between the tenth and seventeenth days of May, 188(), and subsequently, in the said Bhipo
vessel, " Ella M. Doughty," in the Bay and Harbour of St. Ann's aforesaid, and while he i
they and the said ship or vessel, " Ella M. Doughty," were within three marine miles of
coasts or shores of the ^aid Bay and Harbor of St. Ann's, and within three marine miles oft
coasts, shores, bays, creeks and harbors of those portions of the Dominions in America of £
said late Majesty King George the Third, being now the Dominions in America of Her Moje>:
Queen Victeria, not included within the limits specified and defined in the said first Articlij
of tlie said Convention, and set out and recited in the said first paragraph hereof, fish forfiik
and take fish, and did dry and cure fish and were preparing to fish, within the meaning i
the said Convention and of the said several Acts hereinbefore mentioned, contrary to ilJ

£ revisions of the said Convention and of the said several Acts; and the said vessel, "Eiij
[.Doughty," and her cargo were thereupon seized within three marine miles of the coasij
or shores of the said Bay and Harbour of St. Ann's, by Donald Ale Aulay and Lauchlin 6
Campbell, officers of the Customs of Canada, as bein;^ I'ablo to forfeiture for violation oftl
said Convention and of the said several Acts.

10. The said Warren A. Doughty, the master of the .sai i ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty,]
and the officers and crew of the said ship or vessel " *^;ilr.. M. Doughty" were between thesai
10th and 17th days of May, i88C, and subsequft/i«iy .n the said ship or vessel "Ellal
Doughty," in the Bay and Harbour of St. Anns, aforesaid, and while he and they and thej
ship or vessel "Ella M. Doughty" were within three marine miles of the coasts or sliored
the said Bay or HarbourofSt. Ann's, and within three marine miles of the coasts, shores baij
creeks and iiarbours of those portions of the Dominions in America of His late Majesty Ba
George the Third, being now the Dominions in America of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, m
included within the limits specified and defined in the said first Article of the said Comeir
tion and set out and recited in the first paragraph hereof, preparing to fish within the mm
ing of the Convention, and of the several Acts hereinbefore mentioned, contrary to thepj
visions of the said Convention, and of the said several Acts, and the said vessel "Ellar
Doughty " and her cargo were thereupon seized within three marine miles of the coasUj
shores of the said Bay or Harbour of fct. Ann's, by Donald McAulay andLauchlin G. Cainpli*
officers of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to forfeiture for breach or violation of il
said Convention, and of the said several Acts.

11. Between the said lOlh and 17th days of May, 18-0, and subsequently in the saidi
and Harbour of St. Ann's, within three marine miles of the shores thereof and within '

118

narino milei of the coanti, bays, oroelcs nnd harbours of those portions or parts of the
DoiuiDioiiB in Americu of His late MajoHty King George the Third^ being nowthu i)ominionB in
Inierica of Iler present Majesty Queen Victoria, not included within too limits Hpeoified and
drHncd in the said firnt article of tho Huid Convention, and set out and recited in the said
tiret parHgra]>h hereof, the said ship or vessel '-Ella M. Doughty" waH found to be fishing
within tho said distance of threo marine uiileH of tho said coasts, bays, creeUo and harbours,
rontrary to tii«' provisions of the Huid Convention, and of tlio said Heveral Acts, and tho said
veitHel " Ella JI. Doughty" and her car/^o woio tbiroupon Hei/ed within thien marine niilea
of the coasts or shoreH ol tho said hiy and HprlM'ur of St. Ann's by Donald MoAulay and
Lauchlin O. Campbell, otIicerH of tlio Jjiihtonis ol Canada, as being liable to forfeiture for
lircach or violation of the ttaid Convention and of the said several Actd.

12. Between the said lUth and 17th days of May, 1886, and subsequently thereto, in the
Mid Bay and Uarbourof St. Ann's, within three marine miles of tlie sboreH thereof, and within
three marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks and harbouis of those parts or portions of the
Dominions in America of Il^s late Majesty King George the 'third, being now the Dominion*
in America of Her present Majesty Queen Victoria, not included within tho limits specilled
and defined in the said first article of the said convention, and sot out and recited in the
fiaiJ tiret ])aragraph hereof, tho taid ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty " was found to have
been fishing within the said distance of three marine miles of tho said coasts, bays, creekn
and harbours, coiiti ury to the provisions of the said Convention and of the said several Acts,
and tlio said vessel " Ella M. Doughty " and hor cargo was thereupon seized within three
marine miles of the coasts or shores of the said Bay and Harbour of St. Ann's, by Donald
Mctulay and Lauchlin H. Campbell, ofHcors of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to
forfeiture for breach or violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts.

i;5. Between the said 10th and 17th days of May, 1886, and subsequently in tho said bay
and Imiboiiroi' St. Ann's, within three marine miles of the shores thereof and within three
marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks and harbours of thnge parts or portions of the Do-
minions in America of His said late Majesty King George the Third, being now the Dominions
in America of Iler present Majesty Queen Victoria, not included within the limits specified
and defined in the said first Article of the said Convention and set out and recited in the
tirbt pariigiaph hereof, iho said ship or vessel "Ella M. Douthty" was found to be preparing
to fish within the said ilistance of throe marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks and hsrboura,
contrary to tiie provisions of the said Convention and of the said several Acts, and the snid
vessel "Ella M. Doughty "and hor cargo was thereupon seized within three marine miles of the
coasts cr shores of the said Bay or iiaibjur of St. Ann's, by Donald McAulay and lauchlin (r.
Campbell, olhcers of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to forfeiture for violation of the
Haid Convention and of the said several Acts.

14. During the months of April and May, 188(j, the said Warren A. Doughty, the master
of the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty " and the officers and crew of the said ship or
vessel "EllaM. Doughty," did, in the said ship or vessel "EllaM. Doughty " enter within
three marine miles of the coast, bays, creeks and harbours of the Province of Nova Scotia
being a portion of the Dominions of America in His said late Majesty King George the Third
and now of Her said Majesty Queen Victoria not included within the limits specified and
defined in the said first Article of the Convention and set out and recited in the first
para.i:rnph hereof for the purpose of procuring bait, that is to say, herrings, wherewith to fish
and ii;e for the preservation on boaid said vessel of bait to be used in fishing and of fresh fish
to be fished for, taken and caught by and upon the said vessel and by the master, officers
and ciew thereof, and did procure such bait wherewith to fish, and such ice for the purposes
aforesaid, and did so enter for other purposes than the purpose of shelter or repairing damages
orof jiurchasing wood or of obtaining water contrary to the provisions of tho said Convention
and of tho said several Acts and the said vessel " Ella M. Doughty " and her cargo were there-
upon seized within three marine miles of the coasts or shores of the said Province of Nova
Scotia liy Donald McAulay and Ijiuchlin G. Campbell, Officers of the Customs of Canada as
being liable to forfeiture for breach or violation of the said Convention and of the said
several Acts.

1.'). During the months of April and May, 1886, the said Warren A. Doughty, the master
of the saiii ship or vessel '* Ella M. Doughty " and the officers and crew of the said ship or
vessel " Ella M. Doughty, ' did in the said t-hip or vessel " Ella M. Doughty," and while ho
and they and the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty " were within three marine
miles of the coasts, bays, creeks and harbours of the Province of Nova Scotia being
a portion of the Dominions in America formerly of His said late Majesty King George
the Third and now of Her Mtyesty Queen Victoria not included within the limits
specified and defined in the said first Article of the said Convention and set out
and recited in the said first paragraph hereof, fish for fish, take fish, and dry and cure fish,
and were preparing to fish within the meaning of the said Convention and of tho several
166-6

"..if

?■:;:

114

Acts hereinbefore mentioned contrary to the provisions of the said Convention and of the
said several Acts, and the said vessel "Ella M. Doughty" and her cargo were thereupon
seized within three marine miles of the coasts or shores of the said Province of Nova Scotia
by Donald McAuIay and Lauchlin G. Campbell, officers of the Customs as being liable to
forfeiture for breach or violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts.

16. During the months of April and May, 1886, the said Warren A. Doughty, the mister
of the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty," and the officers and ot^w of the said ship or
vessel "Ella M. Doughty," were in the said ship or vessel " Ella S£. Doughty," and while he
and they and the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty," wore within three marine miles of
the coasts, bays, creeks and harbours of the Province of Nova Scotia, being a portion of the
Dominions in America, formerly of dis late Majesty King George the Third, and now of Hot
Majesty Queen Victoria, not included within the limits spe>^.iKed and defined in the said
first article in the said Convention, set out and recited in the first paragraph hereof, prepar-
ing to fish within the meaning of the said Convention, and of 'he several Acts hereinbefore
mentioned, contrary to the provisions of the said Convention, and of the said several Acts,
and the said vessel " Ella M. Doughty," and her cargo were thereupon seized within three
marine miles of the coasts or shores of the said Province of Nova Scotia, by Donald Mclulay
and Lauchlin G. Campbell, Officers of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to forfeiture for
violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts.

The Honourable John S. D. Thompson, Her Majesty's Attorney General, for the Dominion
of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty, the Queen, claims the condeamation of the said ship
and her cargo and her guns, ammunition, tackle, apparel, furniture, and stores for violation
of the said Gonvention and of the said several Acts.

(Sd.) WALLACE GRAHAM,
Solicitor for the Attorney Qentral of Canada.

No. 120.

Mr. Stanhope to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

DowNiNa Street, 6th Angast, 1886.

My Lord,— I have the honour to transmit to Your Lordship a copy of a letter
from the Foreign OfiSoe with a copy of a note from Mr. fiayard protesting avainat
the action of Captain Kent of the Dominion ornizer "Qeneral Middleton" iarefasirig
Stephen A. Balkam permission to buy fish from Canadians, and I have to request
that you will obtain a report from your Government in reference to this ease.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPE.
Governor General

The Most Honourable

The Mabquis of Lansdowni, G.C.M.G.
&C. &0. &c.

[Enclotnre No. 1. ]
The Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

t FoBBioK Office, 2nd August, 1886.

SiE, — I am directed by the Earl of Rosebery to transmit to you a copy of a despatch from
Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Washington, enclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard
protesting against the action of Captain Kent of the Dominion cruiser "General Middleton"
in refusing Stephen A. Balkam permission to buy fish from Canadians ; and I am to suggiBat
that Eurl Granville should obtam a report on the subject from the Dominion Government.

I am, &o.,

(Sd.) J.PAUNCEPOTJL
Thb Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.

aiaafii

115

=3)

[BneloinTe No. 3.]

Mr. Hardinge to Earl of Roaehery.

Washington, 17th July, 1886.
(Treaty No. 71.)

Jlr Lord,— With reference to my despatch No. 68 of this series, of the 12th instant, I have
Ihe honour to transmit herewith to Your Lordship a copy of a note which I have received
rom Secretary Bayard protesting against the action of Captain Kent, of the Dominioa
ituiser " General Middleton " in expelling Stephen R. Balkam from the Harbour of 8*.
todrewB, New Brunswick, and in refusing to permit him to purchase fish caught and sold by
[Canadians for the purpose of canning as sardines.

I have, &c.|

The Earl of Eosebery,

(Sd.) CHARLES HARDINGK

&c., &c., &c.

LBnoloBure No. 3.]
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Hardinge.

Washington, 16th July, 1886.

Sir, — I have just received through the Honourable C. A. Boutelle, M.C., the affidavit of
tcphen R. Balkam, alleging his expulsion from the Harbour of St. Andrews, N.B., by Captain
ent of the Dominion cruiser " Middleton," and the refusal to permit him to purchase fish,
mght and sold by Canadians, for the purpose of canning as sardines.

The action of Captain Kent seems to be a gross violation of ordinary commercial privil-
iges against an American citizen, proposing to transact his customaiy and lawful trade and
ot prepared, or intending, in any way to fish or violate any local law, or regulation, or treaty
itipulation.

I trust instant instructions to prevent ihe recurrence of such unfriendly treatment of
merican citizens may be given to the offending officials at St. Andrew's and reparation be
ade to Mr. Balkam.

I have, &c.,

riie Hon. C. Hardinge.

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 121.

The Administrator to'Jhe Bight Honourable E. Stanhope.

Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2lBt Aagast, 1886.

Sir, — With reference to Earl Granville's despatch of the 15th July last, addressed
fto the Marquis of Landdowne, requesting a report from my Government f^- the
jBabjeot of an enclosed note from the Secretary of the United States to Her inuj^^aby's
jMiaister at Washington, relating to certain Warnings alleged to have been given to
lUnited States' fishing vessels by the Collector of Customs at Ganso I have the honour
Ito forward herewith a copy of an approved report of a Committee of the Privy
oaacil, ombodying a report by my Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the sabjeot.

I have, &c.,

I Right Honourable
Edward Stanhopi,
&o., &o., &o.

(Sd.) A. RUS3ELL.

166 -8J

'!&:

%::\

116

[BacloaareNo. 1-]

CnTiFiED copyofa Report of a Commitfee of the Honourable the Privy Covncil approved Jy
Sia Excellency the Administrator of the Government in Council on the I6th August, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated 15th
Juiy, 1886, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which he asks lor a report froa
the Canadian Government on the subject of an enclosed note from Mr. Secretary Bayard to
thefiritishMinister at Washington, relating to certain warni-ags alleged to have been given
to United States' fishing vessels by the Sub Collector of Customs at Canso.

Mr. Bayard states : 1 at. " That the masters of the four American fishing vessels of Glouces-
ter, Mass: "Martha C. Bradley," '• Battler,'' " Eliza Eoynton," and "Pioneer," have sever-
ally reported to the ConsulGeneral at Halifax that the Sub-Collector of Customs at Canso
had vramed them to keep outside an imaginary line drawn from a point three miles outside
Canso Head to a point three miles outside St. Esprit on the Cape Breton coast"

2nd. "That the same masters also report that they were warned against going inside an
imaginary line drawn from a point three miles outside North Cape in Prince Edward Island
to a point three miles outside East Point on tie same Island."

3rd. " That the same authority informed the masters of the vessels referred to that they
** would not be permitted to enter Bay Chaleur."

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries to whom the despatch and enclosures were referred

obseives that the instructions issued to Collectors of Customs authorized them

ill certam cases to furnish United States' Fishing vessels with a copy of Uie

Bnclosnre Ka 1 cifcuiar hereto attached and whijh constitutes the only official •' warning "

^^oanre 'no" 1 Collectors of Customs are empowf red to give. It was to be presumed that the

StNo. 96. Sub-Collector of Customs at Canso, as all other ColU ctors, would carefully

follow out the instructions as received, and that therefore no case such as that

alleged by t-ecretary Baysrd would be likely to arise.

The Minister states, however, that eo soon as the despatch above referred to was received,
he aent to the Sub-Collector at CanuO a copy of the allegations and requested an immediate
reply thereto. The Sub-Colleci or in answer emphatically denies that he has ordered any
American vessel out of any harbour in his district or elsewhere, or that he did anything in
the way of warning, except to deliver copies of the circular above alluded to, and states that
he boarded no United States' vessel other than the " Annie Jordan " and the " Hereward,"
and that neither the "Mariha C. Bradley," "Rattler," or "Pioneer," of Gloucester have
during this season reported at his port of entry. He, with equal clearness, denies that he
has warned any United States' Fishing vessels to keep outside the line from Cape North to
East Point alluded to by Secretary Bayard, or that they would not be permitted to enter
Bay Chaleur.

The Minister has every reason to believe the statements made by the Sub-Collector at
Canso, and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, is of the opinion that
the information which has reached the Secretary of State does not i :st upon a trustworthy
basis.

With reference to the concluding portion of Mr. Bayard's note, which is as follows :—

"Such warnings are, as you must be well aware, wholly unwarranted pretensions of
extra territorial authority and usurpations of jurisdiction by the provincial officials.

" It becomes my duty in bringing this information to your notice to request that if any
such orders for interference with the unquestionable rights of the American fishermen to pur-
sue their business without molestation at any point not within three marine miles of the
shores and within the defined limits, as to which renunciation of the liberty i' fish, was ex-
pressed in the Treaty of 1818, may have been issued, the same may at once b<) revoked as
violation of the rights of citizens of the United States under convention with Great Britain,

" I will ask you to bring this subjects to the immediate attention of Her Britannic
Miyesty's Government to the end that proper remedial orders mav bo forthwith issued.

" It seems most unfortunate and regrettable that questions which have been long since
settled between the United States and Great Britain should now be sought to be revived."

The Minister further observes that, in his opinion, the occasion of the present despatch,
which has to deal mainly with questions of fact, does not render it necessary for him to enter
upon any lengthened discussion of the question of headland limits. He cannot, however,
do otherwise than place upon record the earnest expression of his entire dissent from the
intrepretation therein sought to be placed upon the Treaty of 1818 by the United States'
Secretary of State.

The Committee concur in the foregoing report of the Minister of Marine and Fisherie§,
and advise that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy thereof to Her Majesty's Sec-
xetary of State for the Colonies.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk Friot/ Council^ Canada-

(No.18
Si

117

f tin oil approved bi\
loth Auffusf, m&.

despatch dated IStJ

lor a report from

secretary Bayard to

to have been given |

g vessels of Glouces-
meer," have sever- f
Customs at Canso
hree miles outside!
Boast." f

ast going inside as
ince Edward Island I

ferred to thatthej

sures wore referred
ns authorized them I
nth a copy of the
omcial •' warning " f
presumed that the
rs, would carefully
o case such as that

;d to was received,
ited an immediate
has ordered any |

> did anything in
o, and states that i
the "Hereward,"
' Gloucester have
58, denies that he j
m Capt North to
Jrmitted to enter

> Sub-Collector at
the opinion that

on a trustworthy

is as follows :—
ed pretensions of
fiffieials.
luest that if any
fishermen to pur-
rine miles of the
t^ fish, was ex-
• b<^ revoked as
;h Great Britain,
•f Her Britannic
ith issued,
been long since
o be revived."
■esent despatch,
for him to enter
annot, however,
lissent from the
) United States'

and Fisherie*,
f Majesty's Sec-

No. 122.
The Administrator to the Honourable E. Stanhope,

^0. 18.) Halifax, N. S., 2lBt Anga^t, 1888.

Sir, — I caused to be referred to my Governme^it a oopy of Bail Granville's des-
patch No. 175, of the 2Jth ult., addressed to the >Iarqai'4 of Lan<idowae enclosing
Jtwo denpatches from Her Majesty's Ghvgi d* affaires at Washington containing prp-
[testB of Mr. Bayard against the aotion of the authorities of the Dominion in regud
I certain United States' fishing vesseU.
2. I DOW have the honour to transmit herewith a oopy of an approved report of
laCommitteeof the Privy Council to which is annexed a report by the Minister of
IHarine and Fisheries relative to the circumstances under which the Secretary of State
lof the United States affirms that the American fishing steamer " Novelty ' was not

Sarmitted to take in steam coal, purchase ice, or traaship fish in bond to fl^
ruled States at Piolon, Nova Scotia.
I 3. Tea will observe that Mr. Foster's report deals also with Mr. Bayard's note
I of the 10th ultimo relating to the alleged threats by the Customs offljials of th^
Dominion to seizd American boats coming into those waterd to purchase herring from,
the Canadian weirs for the parpose of cauaiag ad sardines. '

I have, &o.,

I The Right Honourable
Edwabd Stanhope.
&c., &c., &c.

(81)

A. RUSSELL.

[Enclosure No. I.]
Privy Council Report of 20th August.

The Committee of the Privy Couaoil have had under consideration the despatch dited
29th July last, from Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, enclosing two notes
from Mr. Secretary Bayard to the British Minister at Washington, and asking that Ser
Majesty's Government be furnished with a report upoa the oases therein referred to.

I he Committee respectfully submit the annexed report from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, to whom the said despatch and its enclosures were submitted, and they advise that
your excellency be moved to transmit a copy thereof, if approved, to Her Majesty's principal
Secretary of State for the Colonies.

[EncloBure No. 2.]

Otiawa, 14th August, 1885.

The undersigned has the honour to submit the following, in answer to a despatch from
Lord ttranville to the Governor General under date 27th -July last, enclosing two notes froia
Mr. Secretary Bayard to the British Minister at Washington, and asking that Her Majesty's
Government be furnished with a report upon the cases therein referred to.

In his first communication, dated 10th July, Mr. Bayard says : —

" I have the honour to inform you that I am in receipt of a report from the Consul
General of the United States at Halifax, accompanied by sworn testimony, stating that the
"^ovelty," a duly registered merchant steam vessel of the United States, ha4 been denied
the right to take in steam coal, or purchase ice, or tranship fish in bond to the Uflited StateSy
at Piotou, Nova Scotia.

" It appears, that having reached that port on the 1st instant, and finding the Customs
office closed on account of a holiday, the master of the "Novelty" telegraphed to the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa, asking if he would be permitted to do any of the
three things mentioned above ; that he received in reply a telegram reciting with certain
inaccurate and extended application the language of Article I of the Treaty of 1818, the
liuitations upon the signifioance of which are in pending discussion between the (3overaa»enfe

l, Canada.^

i\'i

118

of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty ; that on entering and clearing tlij
<* Novelty " on the following day at the Customs House, the Collector stated that his instraJ
tiODS were contained in the telegram the master had received, and that the privilege M
oosling being denied, the " Novelty " was compelled to leave Fictou without being allowed t
Obtain fuel necessary for her lawful voyage on a dangerous coast.

" Against this treatment I make instant and formal protest, as an unwarranted interpret
tation and application ot the Treaty, by the officers of the Pominion of Canada and tk
Province of Kova Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of commercial and maritime intercourse^!
existing between the two countries, and as a violation of hospitalityj and for any loss oti
injury resulting therefrom the Government of Her Lritannic Majesty will be held liable." I

With reference to this, the undersigned begs to observe that Mr. Bayard's statement!
appears to need modification in several important particulars. In the first place, thel
''Kovelty " was not a vessel regularly trading between certain ports in the United Stateil
and Canada, but was a fishing vessel, whose purpose was to carry on the mackerel seininj
business in the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, around the coast of Prince Edward IsluiJ
and Nova Scotia ; that she had on board a full equipment of seines and fishing apparatus!
and men ; that she was a stean? vessel and needed coal, not for the purpose of cooking orl
muming, but to produce moti v v« power for the vessel, and that she wished to pursue herl
business of fishing in the above-ru..ved waters, and to send her fares home over Canadian I
Territory, to the f nd that she mi^>.nt the more uninterruptedly and profitably carry on herl
business of fishing. That she was <i ti.' . n't vessel and not a merchant vessel, is proved notl
only by the facts above-mentioned, but <.^ o ^rom a telegram over the signature of H. B. Joyce, I
the Captain of the vessel, a copy of which is appended. In his telegram. Captain Joyce]
indicates the character of his vessel by using the words " American Fishing Steamer,"
he signs himself " H. B. Joyce, Master Fishing Steamer, ' Novelty.' "

There seems, no doubt therefore, that the " Novelty " was in character, and in purpose, I
a fishing vessel, and as such comes under the provision of the Treaty of 1818, which allows
IJnited States fishing vessels to enter Canadian ports " for the purpose of shelter and repair- 1
ing damages therein, and of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other I
puipose whatever."

The object of the Captain was to obtain supplies for the prosecution of his fishing, and to
tranship his cargoes of fish at a Canadian port, both of which are contrary to the letter and
spirit of the Convention of 1818.

To Mr. Bayard's statement, that in reply to Captain Joyce's enquiry of the Minister of
ICarine and Fisheries, he received in reply a telegram reciting with certain inaccurate and
extended appUcation, the language of Art. I of the Treaty of 1818, the imdersigned |
considers it a sufficient answer to adduce the telegrams themselves.

Ist. Enquiry by the captain of the "Novelty":

Hon. George E. Foster, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.

PicTor, N.S., Ist July, 1886.

Will the American fishing steamer now at Fictou be permitted to purchase coal or ice,
or to tranship fresh fish, in bond, to the United States' markets ? Please answer. ^ „

(Sd.) H. B. JOYCE,

Master of fishing steamer " Novelty."

2nd. Beply of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries thereto :

To H. B. Joyce, Master American steamer "Novelty," Fictou, N.S.

Ottawa, Ist July, 1886.

By terms of Treaty 1818, United States' fishing vessels are permitted to enter Canadian
ports for shelter, repairs, wood and water, and for no other purpose whatever. That treaty
u now m fyce.

(Sd.) , GEO. E. FOSTER,

« Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

The undersigned fails to observe wherein any "inaccurate or extended application" of
the language of the treaty can be found in the above answer, inasmuch as it consists of a dc
ydcte citation from the treaty itself with the added statement for the information of the
captain, that said treaty was at that time in force. As to the "unwarranted interpretation
and application of the treaty," of which Mr. Bayard speaks, the undersigned has already

119

diicussed that phase of the question in his memorandum of 14th June, which was adopted by
Council, and has been forwarded to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bayard's second note is as follows :->-" On the 2nd of June last I had the honour
to inform you that despatches from Eastport, in Maine, had been received, reporting threats
bjrthe customs officials of the Dominion, to seize American boats coming into those waters
to purchase herring from the Canadian weirs, for the purpose of canning the same as sardines,
which would be a manifest infraction of the right of purchase and sale of herring caught and
lold by Canadians in their own waters in the pursuance of legitimate trade.

" To this note I have not had the honour of a reply.

« To-day, Mr. C. A. Boutelle, M.C., from Maine, informs m« that American boats
boats visiting St. Andrews, N.B., for the purpose of there purchasing herring from the Cana-
I dian weirs, for canning, had been driven away by the Dommion cruiser ' Middleton.'

"Such inhibition of usual and legitimate commercial contracts and intercourse is
I assuredly without warrant of law, and I draw your attention to it, in order that the commer-
I cial rights of the citizens of the U'lived States may not be thus invaded and subjected to
unfriendly discrimination."

With reference to the above the undersigned observes that so far as his information
j goes, no Collectors of Customs or captains of cruisers have threatened to " seize American
boats coming into Canadian waters to purchase herring from Canadian weirs for the purpose
of canning them as sardines."

Collectors of Customs have however, in pursuance of their duties under the Customs law
[ orOanada, compelled American vessels coming to purchase herring to enter and clear in con-
fonnit^ to Customs law.

With reference to the action of the Dominion cruiser " Middleton, " the undersigned
cannot do better than quote from the official report of the captain of that vessel as to tho
iaetsof the case referred to. In his report of date 9th July, 1886, Captain McLean, of the
"General Middleton " says : —

" At 9 a. m. made sail and drifted with the tide towards the bay. Seeing a large number
of boats of various sizes hovering around the fishmg weirs, I ordered the boat in waiting and
sent officer Kent in charge, giving him instructions to row among the boats and see if there
were any Americans purchasing fish. On the return of the boat, Chief Officer Kent reported
the boats mentioned were Americans thero for the purpose of getting herring. I immediately
directed the Chief Officer to return and order the American boats to at once report them-
selves to the Collector of the port and get permits to load fish or leave without further delay.
One of the boatmen complied with the request and obtained a permit to load fish for East-
port ; the others were very much disturbed on receiving the above instructions and sailed
away towards the American side of the river and commenced blowing their foghorns, showing
their contempt. Other boats at a greater distance seeing our boat approaching did not wait
her arrival but up sail and left for the American shore. "

The above extract from the report of the Chief Officer of the " General Middleton " goes
to show that it was not his object to prevent American boats from trading in sardines, but
rather to prevent them from so trading without having first conformed to the Customs law of
Canada.

The whole respectfully submitted.

(Sd.) GEORGE E. FOSTER,

Miniaier of Marine and Fisheries.

No. 123.

The Administrator to the Minister dt WasMngton.

[No. 2.] Halifax, 2 let Aognst, 188S.

Sir,— With reference to yoar despatch No. 88 of the 3rd instant, addressed to
ffis Bxcellency the Governor General, transmitting a copy of a note from the
Seoretary of State of the United States, requesting to be famished with certain
papers relating to Canadian Fisheries, I have the honor to forward herewith a copy
of a letter from the Department of Fisheries, enclosing copies, in daplioate, of tno
papers required.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) A. G. BUSSBLL.
The Honorable

Sir L. S. Sackvilli Wist, E.C.M.G.

1 '

120

[Enclosure No. 1.]
' ; ■ Dbpabthbnt of Fishbribs.

Ottawa, 18th Aucnut, 1880.
8iR, — Having reference to a despatch from the British Minister at Washington, dattdl
3rd instant, covering a request frn*" the Hon. Mr. Bayard to be furnished with certain papeni
relating to Canadian Fisheries, I nave the honour, by direction of the Minister of Marine wdl
Fisheries, to enclose herewith for transmission to the British Minister, dupli^^te copies of:-.!
Chap. 96, Beviged Statutes. The Fisheries Act;

do. 94 do The Act respecting fishing by Foreign vessels, and amendmontil

49 Vie., Ohap. 114. thereto;

Bae. : No. 2 of No. 33. " Warnings " to Foreign fishing vessels.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

(Sd.) S. P. BAU.SET,
For Deputy Minister of' Fiaheriet.
Capt. Harbt Strbatfbiu),

Governor <ieneral's Secretary,
Ottawa.

^Telegram.) No. 124.

Secrstari of S'l for the Colonies to the Governor General.

2l8t August, 1886.

" The GovernnKn of the Uniitrrl States complains that the Customs' ofici-
als at Fort Amberut, M% 'leu inlands, threaten the sohooner " Masootte " with
seizure in case any attempt to obtuin bait for fishing, or to take a pilot is made by I
that vessel. Under the Treaty of 1818 the United Slates have the right to fish
these Islands, it is presumed that the Customs' officers on the Blagdalens have not |
been instructed in the same manner as those on the remaining coasts of the
Dominion.

(Sd.) STANHOPE.

No. 125.
Mr, Stanhope to the Administrator.

Downing Stbbbt, 25th August, 1886.

Sia,— I have the honour to transmit to you a copy, received through the Foreign
Office, of a despatch from Her Majesty's Chargi daf aires at W^ashington, with a nota
from Mr. Bayard, calling attention to alleged infMCtfons of the Gjnvention of I(J18
by the anthorities of Canada and Newfoundland at the Magdalen Islands and fioane
Bay respectively.

In my telegram of the 2l6t instant, I drew your attention to the case at the
Magdalen Islands, and I pointed out that United States' fishermen have the righc
under the Convention of 18 18 to fish ofif the coasts of the Magdalen Islands.

I have now to request that your Government will fVirnish me with a full report
npon the subject of Mr. Bayard's complaint, so far as it relates to the action of the
Canadian authorities. Her Majdsty's Gorernmaut would reoommend that special
instructions should be issued to the authorities at those places where the inshors
fishery has been granted by the Convention of 1818 to United States' fishermen,
-calling theii' attention to the provisions of that Convention, and warning them that
no action contrary thereto may be taken in regard to United States' fishing veaseU.

I have, &.C.,

(Sd.) EDWABD STANHOPB.
Thi Offioeb Administibing

The Qovernment of Canada.

131

»;and amendmonlil

LBnoloiiire No. 1.]
Mr. Hardinge to Lord Boaebery,

eatyNo. 74.] Wasuinotos, 31 st July, 1886.

Ifr Lord,— I have the honour to transmit herewith to Your Lordship^ copy of a note
Ihich I have received from Mr. Bayard, drawing my attention to an alleged mfraction of the
lipulationof the Treaty of October 20th, 1818, by the Newfoundland authorities at Bonne
pj, in the case of the fishing vessel " Thomas F. Bayard," and by the Dominion authorities
tPort Amherst, Magdalen Islands, in the case of the schooner " Mascotte."

I have, &c.,

lieEABL OF R03BB17RY,
&C., &C f &0.

(Sd.) CHARLES HARDINGB.

[Bncloaure No. 3.]
Mr. Bayard to Honourable C. Hardinge.

Department of State, Washinotok.

Sir,— It is my duty to draw your attention to an infraction of the Treaty between the
Ijnited States of America and Great Britain, oonoluded 20th, October 1818.
I By the provisions of Art. 1, of that Convention, the liberty to take fish of every kind, for-
Iver, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, is secured to the inhabitants a/[
m tJnited States "on that part Of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from
tape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from
he said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands," and on
he other coasts and shores in the said article set forth.

Notwithstanding these plain provisions, I regret to be obliged to inform you that by the

fidavit of the master of the American fishing vessel " Thomas F. Bayard," that being at

onne Bay, which is on the western coast of Newfoundland, and within the limits specided

I Article 1 of the Convention referred to, the master of the said vessel was formally notifitid

kyone N. N. Taylor, the Officer of Customs at that point, that his vessel would be seized if

ne attempted to obtain a supply of fish for bait, or for any other transaction in connectioa

vith fishing operations within three marine miles of that coast.

To avoid the seizure of his vessel, the master broke up his voyage and returned home.
lam also in the possession of the affidavit of Alex. T. Vaohem, master of the American
fishing schooner, " Mascotte," who entered Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, and was there
jthreatened by the Customs Official with seizure of his vessel if he attempted to obtain bait
"• fishing or to take a pilot

These are flagrant violations of Treaty rights of their citizens, for which the United States

^zpect prompt remedial action by Her Majesty's Government, and I have to ask that such

istructions may be issued forthwith to the provincial officials of Newfoundland and the

[agdalen Islands as will cause the Treaty rights of citizens of the United States to be duly

Respected.

For the losses occasioned in the two cases I have mentioned, compensation will here-
ifter be expected from Her Majesty's Govornment when the amount shall have been
«curately ascertained.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.
he Honourable C. Hardinge.

\iTelegram.) No. 126*

The Secretary of State to Lord Lansdowne.

iBt September, 188ff.

Beport should be made as to treatment United States' fisbina; boat *' Rattier."
I Alleged compelled report CaBtomstwhen seeking Shelbarne Harboar. Bespatoh
[foUowa by mail.

(Sd.) SECRETARY OF STATU.

No. 127.
(No. 195.) Mr. Stanhope to the Administrator.

Downing Stbnt, Ist September, 1886.

Mr LoBD, — I have the honour to transmit to yon, for oommonication to yi
Ministers, a oopy of a letter from the Foreign Offloe, with itn enoloaares, rospoctii
the alleged unfriendly treatment of the United States' fishing schooner "Battler
in Shelbnme Harbour, and I request that you will obtain from your GovernmoDti
report upon the case.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) EDWAKD STANHOPE.
The OrFicBB Administkbinq

The Government of Canada.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FoKBioN Offios, 26th August, 188C.
Sir,— I am directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid before L
Secretary Stanhope, a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Chargi (P affaires at Washini^toJ
encloeing a copy of the protest by Mr. Bayard against alleged unfriendly treatment of tU
United States' fishing schooner "Eatder," in Shelburne Harbour, and I am to request that]
report on the subject may be obtained from the I ominion Government.

I am, &o.,

Thb Undbs Sroretart of State,
Colonial OfSce.

(Sd.) P. W. CURRIE.

[Enclosare No. 3.]

JUr. Eardinge to the Earl of Iddealeigh.

iTwxATi No. 77.] Washinqton, 10th August, 1886.

Ht Lord, — I have the honour to transmit herewith to Your Lordship a copy of a nobl
which I have received from the Secretary of State, drawing the attention of tfer M.^jestj'J
Government to the alleged unwarrantable and unfriendly treatment experienced by tlul
American fishing schooner "Rattler," on the 3rd instant, upon the occasion of her b(
driven by stress of weather to seek shelter in the Harbour of Shelburne, N. S.

I have, &o.,

Thb Eabl or Iddbslbioh.
Ac, Ac,

(Sd.) CHARLES HARDINGK

[Bnolo3are No. 3.]

Mr, Bayard to Mr. Hardinge.

Department of State,

Washixotom, 9th August, 1886.
Si«,~I regret that it has become my duty to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Govern- 1
ment to the unwarrantable and unfriendly treatment, reported to me this day by tbtl
United States' Consul General at Halifax, experienced by the American fishing schoonefl
"Battler," of Gloucester, Mass., on the 3rd instant, upon the occasion of her being driven bn
jitiees of weather to find shelter in the harbour of Shelburne, N.S.

September, 1886.

) STANHOPE.

She WM deeply laden, and was off the harbour of Shelbume when she sought shelter in
itorm, and cast anchor just inside the harbour's entrance.

She was at once boarded by an officer of the Canadian cutter " Terror " who placed two

tn on board.

When the storm ceased, the " Rattler " weighed anchor to proceed on her way home,

• I' Hhen the two men placed on board by the "Terror" discharged t belt pistols as a signal, and

amanication to yo^ officer from the " Terror " again boarded the " Rattler " and threatened to seize the vessel

[ess the captain reported at the Custom House.

The vessel was then detained until the captain reported at the Custom House, after

your GovernmentB'''''^ *^® ^** permitted to sail.

The hospitality which all civilized nations prescribe has thus been violated, and the
ipulations of a treaty grossly infracted.
A fishing vessel denied all the usual commercial privileges in a port has been compelled
ctly to perform commercial obligations.

In the interests of amity I ask that this conduct may be properly rebuked by the
iremment of Her Majesty.

I have, &o.,

I Honourable Chables Hardinoe,
&o., &o., &o.

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD,

Bth August, 1886.

I to be laid before L
f aires at WashingJ
ily treatment of l
am to request I

'. W. CURRIE.

h August, 1886.

p a copy of a nobl
ion of Her Majest/il
Bxperienced by ti»l
ccasion of her beifljl
N. S.

No. 128.

Mr, Stanhope to the Administrator.

h. 202.J DowNmo Strsit, 9th September, 1886.

Ht Lobd, — ^I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from
lie Foreign Office, enoloeing a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at
Vashington with copy of a note from Mr. Bayard protesting against the action of
he commander of the Canadian schooner " F. B. Conrad " in forbidding the master
fthe United States' schooner " Golden Hind " to enter the Bay of Chaleur for the
jtorpose of renewing his supply oi fresh water.

I have to request that you will obtain from your Government with the least
Bible delay a report in reference to this matter; and that you will direct their

' ' attention to the last paragraph of the letter from the Foreign Office.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) BDWAKD STANHOPE.

heOrnoKR ADnNisTSRiNa
The Government of Canada.

S HARDINGE.

August, 1886.

r Majesty's Govern- 1
this day by tlnl
fishing schooner I

)r being driven bj |

[Enclosure No. 1.]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FoRBiON Office, 6th September, 1886.

Sik,— lam directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid before Mc.

cratary Stanhope, a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington enclos*

a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard protesting against the action of the officer of the Cana-

I schooner " F. £. Conrad " in forbidding the master of the United States' schooner

"Oolden Hind" to enter the Bay of Chaleur for the purpose of renewing his supply of fresh

ater at that place.

The warning ofFoftbe vessel under the circumstances stated would appear to be a dis-

jtinct breach of the Convention of 1818, and Lord Iddesleigh would therefore suggest that the

. Government should be requested to fuinish with the least possible delay a report

I case.

Lord Iddesleigh further suggests for the consideration of Mr. Stanhope, that in calling for

jtbe report in question it would be highly desirable to add that Her Majesty's Government

Destly hope the Dominion Qovemment will take prompt steps to prevent any infraction

124

of the Convention on the:r side, and that, if the facts stated by Kr. Bayard are oorreot, bU
-will be at once taken by the Dominion Qovernment to reprimand the officials oonoemed.

I am, &c.|

The Under Sboretary of Statb
Colonial Office.

(8d.) P. W. CURRI^

[Bnolosure No. 3.]
Sir. L. W«»t to tht Earl of IddeaUigh, ^

[Treaty No. 78.] Washinoton, 18th August, 1886.

Mt Lord,— I have the honour to transmit herewith to Your Lordship a copy of a nol
which I have received from the Secretary of State, protesting against the action of the oiSa
of the Canadian schooner " F. E. Conrad," in forbidding the master of the American soho
" Golden Hind," to enter the Bay of Ciialeur for the purpose of renewing his supply of fret
water at that place.

I have, &o.

Tub Earl of [odesi.eiob,
&o,, &c.,

(Sd.) L. SACKVILLE WEST.

&G.

[Eaoloinre No. 3 ]

Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

Wasuinoton, 17th August, 1886.

Sir, — An affidavit has been filed in this Department by Beuben Cameron, master of U
American schooner « Golden Hind," of Gloucester, Mass., setting forth that on or about tl
23rd of July, ultiiro, being out of water, he attempted to put into Fort Daniel, Bay
Ohaleur, to obtain a. tresh supply ; that at the entrance of the Bay, about four or five mSei
from land, the "Golden Hind" was boarded by an officer from the Canadian schoonei
*' F. E. Conrad," and by him ordered not to enter the Ba^ ot Chaleur ; that said offica
furnished Captain Cameron with a printed "Warning," with this endorsement writteal
thereon, "Don't enter the Ray of Chaleur;" and that in consequence of said act of thil
Canadian officer the " Golden Hind " was obliged to go to Tignish, Prince Edward Island, tol
obtain water, whereby the fishing venture was interfered with, and loss and ii^ury caused tol
the vessel and her owners. |

I have the honour to protest against this act of the officers of Her Britannic Majesty u I
not only distinctly unfrilndly and contrary to the humane usage of civilized nations, but u|
in direct violation of so much of Article I of the Convention of 1818 between the Unitedl
States and Great Britain as secures forever to American fishermen upon the British Norlkl
American coast admission to the bays or harbours thereof, for the purpose of obtaining waterT
And for all loss or injury which may be shown to have accrued by reason of theactiij
question, the Government of Uer Britannic Majesty will be held justly liable.

I have further the honour to ask with all earnestness that the Government of 1
Britannic Majesty will cause steps to be forthwith taken to prevent and rebuke acts ii|
violative of treaty and of the common rights of hospitality.

I have, &o.

The Honourable

Sir L. S. S

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

West, K.C.M.G..
&c., <&o.,

p. W. CURRIE.

Sth August, 1886.

IKVILLB WEST.

126

No. 129.

Mr. Stanhope to the Adminittrator.

lo, 203.] Downing Stbkit, 9th September, 1886.

Mt Lord,— I have the honour to tranBmit to you a copy of a letter from the
oreign Office, enclosiDg a copy of a deepatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Wash*
igtOD, with copy of a note from the United States' Saoretaiy of State calling atten<
onto causes of complaint alleged by the masters of several United States' fishing
kbcIb against the Captain of the Canadian cruiser " Terror."

I request you to obtain from Your Qovernment a report upon the subject of thi&
mplaint.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPE.
I Officer Administebino
The Goverument of Canada.

>ur; that said officeil

[Enclosure No. !■]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Foreign Office, 4th September, 1886.

Sir. 1 am directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid before Mr.

^cretary Stanhope, a copy of a despatch from Ber Idajesty's Minister at Washington,
Itucloeing a copy of a note from the United States' Secretary of State calling attention to
litiseB of complaint alleged by the masters of several United States' fishing vessels against
Siptain Quigley, of the Canadian cruiser " Terror," and I am to request tliat a report on the
bbject may be obtained from the Dominion Government.

I am, &c.,

(Sd.) r. W. CURRIE.

^HE Umdbb Seorrtarv of State,
Colonial Office.

■• BAYARD.

[Eaclosure No; 2]
Sir L. S. S. West to Earl Iddesleigh.

iTreftty No. 80.] Washington, 19th August, 1886.

My Lord, I have the honour to transmit herewith to Your Lordship copy of a note
ibich I have received from the Secretary of State, informing me of the causes of complaint
leged by the masters of several American fishing vessels against Captain Quigley, of the

adian cruiser " Terror."

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. SACKVILliE WEST.

BE Earl of Idpeslbigh, G.C.B.,

&c.,

AC,

&c.

[Enclosure No. 3.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

Washington, 18th August, 1886.

I Sir,— Grave cause of complaint is alleged by the masters of several American fishing ves-
Iwle, among which can be named the schooner "Shiloh"and "Julia Ellen" against the hostile
I and outrageous misbehaviour of Captain Quigley of the Canadian cruiser " Terror," who, upon
I the entrance of these vessels into the harbour of Liverpool, N.S., fired a gun across their bowa

to hasten their coming to, and placed a guard of two armed men on board each vessel, who

remained on board until the vessels left the harbour.

126

In my note to your Legation ot the 0th inat., I made earnest remonstranoea
another unfriendly act of Captain Quigley against the schooner " Rattler " of OlouMiti
Mass., which, being fully laden, and on her homeward voyage, sought shelter from stretij
weather in Shelburne Uarbour, N.S., and was there compelled to report at the Custom HoJ
and haye a guard of armed men kept on board. 1

8uoh conduct cannot be defenaed on any just ground, and I draw your attention toitjj
order that Her Britannic Majesty's Oovornment may reprimand Captain Quigley for
unwarranted and rude act.

It was simply impossible for this officer to suppose that any invasion of the fishing prjij
leges of Canada was intended by these vessels under the circumstances.

The firing of a gun across their bows was a moat unusual and wholly uncalled for exhibition
of hostility, and equally so was the placing of armed men on board the peaceful and law
craft of a friendly neignbour.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

The Honourable

Sir Lionel West, K.CM.Q.,
&c., &C.|

&o.

iTelegram.) No. 130.

The Administrator to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

14lh September, 1886.
Referring to your telegram of Ist September relative to fishing boat " Rattler",
facts are as folli ws: On morning of 4th August her oaptain called on CoUeotoroll
Customs, Hbelburne, aooompanied by chief o£Soor Fisheries Police cutter and reporttdl
bis vessel inwards laden with maokerel, for shelter. Afterwards chief officer informedl
Ocllector of Oastoms fishing boat found previous evening at anchor five miles dowil
harbour; two men from fisheries police cutter put on board and master required tol
report at Custom House in morning. Master attempted to put to sea at night botl
prevented by fisheries police officers.

(Sd.) A. G. RUSSELL.

No. 131.
The Administrator to Mr. Stanhope.

[No. 31.] Halifax, 2lBt September, 18S6.

SiB, — I have the honour to enclose herewith for your information copy of a cir- 1
cular No. 373 of the Canadian Customs in relation to the ooastiug trade of tht
Dominion.

I understand that a General Regulation dealing with this subject is now in coarse
of preparation by the Department of Customs for confirmation bv my Privy Coancil. '
I shall take care that a copy of this document is forwarded for your informatioa
whenever it is available.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) A. G. RUSSELL.
Th9 Right Honourable

ISdwabd Stamhopb,

&c, &o., &c

T. F. BAYARD.

(ptember, 18S6.

127

[lucloiure No. 1.]

fcularNo. 373.]

CCSTOMH DbPAKTMBNT,

Ottawa, 14th August, 1888.

StR,— Numorous seizures have been recently made by Ofllcors of the Special Agent's
^ch of this Department, which, with other evidence in the possoasion of the Department,

I to (iiow thiit great laxity exists on the part of ('ollectorn and other Customs Omoers, in
Lection with traffic going on in small open boats and fishing vessels between Canaaian
[foreign ports.

I I am directed by the Tlon. the Minister of Customs to call your attention to certaia
-oTionts of the Customs Law and Uegulutions bearing upon this subject, and to enjoin

he necessity for greater vigilance and a stricter enforcing of the law than you have
y been in the habit of iiiHisting upon.
I Section 3S of the Customs Act declares tliat it shall not be lawful, unless otherwise
jhorized by the Governor in Council, to import goods, wares or merchandise from any port
tliice out of Canada in any vessel wliich has not been duly registered and has not a oerti-
ite of registry on board.

Jsections 141 to 150 relating to the exportation of goods require that any vessel outward
|ind shall deliver to the Collector a proper entry and report of all goods on board, and pro-
Its officers giving clearances until such report and entry has been made, and fixes ponal-
\ for non-observance of these requirements.

I Section 1 7 gives authority to the Qovernor in Council to make regulations respecting
Lting voyages. These regulations you will find embodied in an Order in Council bearing
le the 17th of April, 1883, they declare what shall be considered a coasting trade, and
fit vessels only can be allowed to conduct such trade, viz. : Only British registered vessels
iboats wholly owned by British subjects, and such other boats and vessels as may be
[ned by the subjects of countries included in any treaty with Great Britain, by which the
Isting trade is mutually conceded.

As there is no reciprocal coasting trade existing between Great Britain and the United
ties, United States vessels cannot be allowed to in any manner participate ii such trade.
r->i3tcrs are not permittea to go on a foreign voyage without reporting ia the same
3 would be required from all vessels not coasters.

a vessels or boatj must not be allowed to go from place to place in Canadian
'lo purpose of making up or seeking a cargo, as suoli a course would be in viola-
lot irue coasting regulations.

The Collector of a port may assign to such vessels a landing berth at any one place
jiin the limits of his jurisdiction, but must not allow vessels to go from place to place in
ber to (ill up or take in her cargo.
No permits are to be given under any circumstances, by Customs Officers, under cover
which, or under pretext of which, any law or regulation can be evaded.
Stringent means must be takoL to confine all small or unregistered vessels within the
[let luuits allowed by law and regulations.

Vessels or boats of any kind or class, although of Canadian build, or owned by Canadians,
lich have been entered as personal property, or otherwise, and on which duty has been
Id ID any foreign port, must be considered strictly as foreign boats, and excluded from any
lilts that might attach to them Imd they not been so entered, as such entry changes their
|tionality as much so as if they bad been formally registered.

In order to insure the better protection of the re\'enue, it is absolutely neoessp.ry that
Jese instructions receive your closest attention, and '^hat all vessels irrespective of their
|tioDality be required to observe the same.

I have the honour to be. Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sd.) W. Q. PARMELEE,

Aasialant Commissioner.

No. 132.
The Administrator to Mr, Stanhope.

Fo<32.) Canada, Halifax, N.S., 21st September, 1886.

Sib,— I have tho honoar to enoloso herewith a certified copy of a minate of my
•vy Council, embodying a Heport of the Miaister of Customs for the Dominion ia

128

Tolation to the alleged improper treatment of the United States' fishing schoonj
*' Battler," in being required to report to the Collector of Castoms at Shelbnn
Nova Scotia, when seeking that harbour for ehelter.

The reply of the Collector to the enqniries addressed to him in respect totlJ
matter is appended to the Minister's Report, and in it the facts of the case, as -'
forth in my telegram of the 14th instant are given.

I have communicated your Despatch No. 195 of the Ist. instant forwarding
Bayard's protest concerning this case to my Ministers and requested to be furDi»ln
wiih a report thereon, which I shall forward for your information as soon as it
been received. \

I have, &c.,

The Eight Honourable

Edwabd Stanhope,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.)

A. G. RUSSELL.

rSnclesure No. 1.1
[No. 356G.]

Ckbtified Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Cmii
approved by His Exctllency the Administrator of the Government in Council, on the 1C|
September, 1886.

The Committee of Council have had before them a cablegram from the Right HonoiiJ
able the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated Ist September, 1886, as follows: —

" Report should be made as to treatment United States' fishing boat " Rattler," allejej
oompelled report Customs when seeking Shelburne Harbour. Despatch follows by mail.'

The Minister of Customs, to whom the cablegram was referred for immediate rep
caused a telegram to be forwarded to the Collector of Customs at Shelburne to the effect tlJ
it was "stated that United States' fishing boat 'Rattler' compelled report Customs wm
seeking Shelburne Harbour ; what '.vere circumstances ; answer by telegram, and report in M
by mail," and he submits the report, dated 6th September, instant, from Mr. Atwood, tlij
Collector of Customs at Shelburne.

The Committee advise tbat Your Excellency be moved to cable a copy of the report i
mentioned for the information of the Right Honourable the Secretary of State fort
Colonies.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McQEE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada,

LEDclosure No. 3.]

Custom House, •

Shelucbne, 6th September, 1886.

Sir,— I have to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of 4th instant, relative to schoone^
*' Rattler," and I wired an answer this morning as requested.

Un the morning of 4th ultimo, Chief Officer of "Terror," accompanied by Captain A.i
Cunningham, called at this office. Captain Cunningham reported his vessel inwards, as folj
lows, viz., " iScliooner * Rattler,' of Gloucester, 93 tons register, 16 men, from Fishing T
with 465 baireU mackerel, came in for shelter." I was afterwards informed by the ofiiMri^
cutter thftt they found the schooner the evening before at anchor off Sandy Point, five mils
down the harbour : two men from cutter were put on board, and the master required l'
report at Customs m the morning. 1 was also informed that the master. Captain Cunningham
made an attempt to put to sea in the night, by boisting sails, weighing anchor, &c., butnu
stopped by officers from cutter.

I am, &c.,

(Sd.)

The Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa.

W. W. ATWOOD,

Collector.

aMniaaaaSB

mamm

129

ites' fishing schooni
Btoms at Shelbn

n'm in respect lot.

CtBOf the 0886,88)

bant forwarding ^
S8ted to be furnisj
[>n as soon as it

. G. RUSSELL.

No. 133.
The Administrator to Mr. Stanhope;

Halifax, N.S., 25th September, 1886.

, Sir,— With reference to your despatch of the 6th ultimo, transmitting a copy <rf
lletter from the Foreign Office with a &)py of a note from Mr. Bayard protestiog
Vtinst the action of Captain Kent, of the Dominion crosier " General Middleton,"
[refasing Stephen B. fialkam permission to buy fish from Canadians, I have the
[oDoar to forward herewith a copy of an approved report of a Committee of the
rivy Council embodying a report of my Minister of Marine and Fisheriea on the

labject.

I have, &c.,
(Sd.)

A. G. BUSSELL.

<y Council for CaniA
in Council, on th M

'm the Right HonoJ

, as follows : I

)at " Rattler," alles(J
ih follows by mail.'
or immediate repor,
irne to the effect M
report Customs wid
'am, and report in m
from Mr, At wood, tbj

)y of the report ab
tary of State fort

J. MoGEE,
Council, Canada.

eptembor, 1886,
relative to sclioond

;ed by Captain .iFl
?ssel inwards, as fof
from FiahingBan]
aed by the officfiJ
idy Point, five niilM
master required ti
iptain Cunningham,]
mchor, Ac, but wJi

, LKnclosnre No. 11

p. 332G.]

[certified Copt of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada,
approved by His Excellency the Adninialrator of the Oovernment in Council on the 21«(
September, 18S6.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under their consideration a despatch
Idated 5th August, 1886, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies
Itransmitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office with a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard
Iprotesting against the action of Captain Kent of the Dominion cruiser " General Middleton "
|in refusing Stephen R. Balkam permission to buy fish from Canadians.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries to whom the despatch and enclosures were referred,
Isubmits the following report from the First Uthcer of the " General Middleton": —

Halifax, 25th August, 1886.

" I have the honour to state that when boarding several boats in 8t. Andrew's Bay I asked
IStephen R. Balkam, if the boat he was in was American. He replied that he thought she

I was, I informed him that if she was American he could not take fish from the weirs on the
side wi 6hout a permit from the Collector of Customs at St. Andrews or West Isles.

'" He asked permission to take the fish from the weirs in Kelly's Cove without a permit.

I I declined to accede to his request.
"Mr. Balkam went around the point in his boat and after accosting several others I met

I him again evidently trying to evade my instructions. I told him that he must not take the
lisli without permission from the Customs. He left for the American shore and I returned
! to the ' Middleton.'

" Mr, Stephen R. Balkam I have known for some years. He formerly belonged to St.
Andrews but is now living in Eastport. His business is to carry sardines from the English
I side to Eastport for canning puiposes."

The Minister is of opinion, in view of the above, that in warning Mr. Balkam, that if his
boat belonged to the United iStates he could not take herring from the weirs without first
having reported at tiie Custom House, Mr. Kent acted within the scope of the Hw and his
instructions.

The Committee respectfully advise that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy
of this minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies as requested
in his despatch of the 5th August last.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEB,

Clerkf Privy CouncHf Canada.

ATWOOD,

Collector.

14 6-d

130

No. 134.

Mr. Stanhope to the Administrator.

[No. 218.] Downing STREki', 6th October, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honor to tranemit to Your Lordship herewith a copy
a letter from the Foreign 0£Gice enclosing copy of a despatch from Her Majesti
Minister at Washington, wifli a note from the Secretary of State of the United Stti
calling attention to the alleged refusal of the Collector of Castoma at Port MtilgnnKgtTai
Nova Scotia, to allow the master of the United States' fishing vessel " Mollie Adai
to parchase barrels to hold a supply of water f)r the return voyage.

I have to request that you will obtain from your Government an early report
reference to this case.

I have, &o.,

The Q^ficsr Administering
Tne Government of Canada.

[Bn«Iosure No. 1.]

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FoREicaf OiTiCE, 4th Octobei), 1886.

Sm, — I am directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid before L
Secretary Stanhope, a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington enein
ing a copy of a note from the United States' Secretary of Stole, calling attention to ii
alleged refusal of the Collector of Customs at Port Mulgrare. Nova Scotia, to allow tld
master of the United States' fishing vessel " Mollie Adams " to purchase barrels to hold il
supply of water for the return voyage ; and I am to request that a report on the subject nun
be obtained from the Dominion Government.

I have, «kc.,

Tub UfciDER Seobrtary of State,
Colonial Office.

|8d.^

J. PAUNCBFOTE.

Sib,-

Bytl
lars '■
[8, h'
entrj
The"

inniBsid

(Sd.) EDWAED STANHOPE, ■ewom

»elth
npelle
lerpc
kdofi

rBncIosure No. 3.]
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.

[Treaty No. 82.] Washington, 11th September, 1886,

My Lord, — I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a note from the Secretary of I
State dated the 10th inbt., calling attention to the case of an American fishing vessel thel
"Mollie Adams", on account of the alleged refusal of the Collector of Customs at Pott I
Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, to allow the master of the " Mollie Adsmis " to purchase barrels to|
hold a supply of water for the return voyage.

ThB EaRI' of iDDESLBIOn,

&c,, &c.,

I have, &c.,
<ed.)

L. S. S. WEST.

&c.

131

D STANHOPE.

[EncloBure No. 3.J
Uiiited states' Secretary <tf State to Sir L. S. West.

Washington, 10th September, 1886.

c,— It is my duty to ask you to bring to the attention of Her Britannic Majesty's Q<\
uent the treatment lately experienced by an American fishing vessel, the " Molli«
ma," of Gloucester, Mass., at the hands of the Collector of Customs at Port Mulgrave, in
rait of Canso, No\& Scotia.
By the sworn statement of Solomon Jacobs, nuuster of the schooner " MoU'e Adams," it
lears tbat on the 31 st ult., whilst on his homeward voyage, laden with fish from the fishing
liiks, he was compelled to put into Port Mulgrave to obtain water, and duly made report
ifntry o-t the Custom House.

The water tank of the vessel having been burst in his voyage by heavy weather, he asked
(rmission^f the Collector to purchase two or three barrels to hold a supply of water for l^is
r on their homeward voyage of about 500 miles. The appliaatioa was refused and his
sel threatened with seizure if barrels were purchased. In consequence the vessel was
npelled to put to sea with an insufficient supply of water, and in trying to make some
kr port wherein to obtain water a severe gale was encountered which bt( pt away his deck
|id of fieh and destroyed two seine boatp.

This inhospitable, indeed, inhuman conduct on the part of the Customs Officer in question-
lould be severely reprimanded, and for the infraction of Treaty rights and commercial
mileges, compensation equivalent to the iqiuries sustained, will be claimed from Her
^jesty's Government.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD,
lie Honourable

Sir L. S. Whst, K.C.M.G.,

&c., &c., &0.

PAUNCBFOTE.

ftlegram.) No, 135.

Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Administrate.

6th October, 1886.
When may we expect anbwer to my despatch 196, " Battler ? "

(SJ.) SEOEETARY OF STATE, .

iJik^ram.)

No. 136.

Secretary of State for Colonies to Administrator.

10th October, 1886.
When may we expect answer to my despatch Magdalen Islanda ?

(Sd.) SECEBTARY OP STATE.

L. S. S. WEST.

No. 13t.

Mr. St«i/lhope to the Adminittrator.

Downing Stbbet, 12th October, 1886.

Mr Lord, — I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to Yoar
wornment, a copy of a letter with its enclosures from the Foreign Office, relative,

182

to the case of the United States' fishing vessel " Orittenden," and I reqaest that I
will move year Mioisters to farnisb me with an immediate report on the eabjeobj

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) EDWAED STANHOPE.
!I^ Officer Administebino

The Government of Canada.

[BncloBuie No. 1.]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

Foreign Offiob, 6th October, I88fi, I

Sir, — I am directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid before!
Secretary Stanhope, a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington enil
ingacopy of a note from the United States' Secretary of State calling attention to the outl
the United States' fishing schooner " Crittenden," which it is alleged put into Steep CreJ
in the Straits of Canso, for water, and was threatened with seizure in consequence, and ij
to request that a report on the subject may be obtained from the Dominion Gk)Temment|
soon as possible.

I am, &c.,

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEFOTE.
The Undbr Secretary op State,
Colonial Office.

[BncloBure No. 2 ]
Sir L. S. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.

[Treaty No. 86.] Wash.noton, 24th September, 188«.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith copy of a fu
note which I have received from the Secretary of State bringing to my attention the camj
the American fishing schooner " Crittenden," which he alleges put into Steep Creek, in t
Straits of Canso, for water, and which was threatened with seizure in consequence.

I have, &c.,

The Earl of Iddesleigh,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

[Bncloaore No. 3.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. WesL

Washington, 23rd September, 18S

Sir, — I have the honour to bring to your attention an instance which has been broughtlj
my knowledge of an alleged denial of one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention oflSI
in the case of an American fishing vessel.

Captain Joseph E. Graham, of the fishing schooner " A. B. Crittenden," of Gloucestt
Mass., states under oath, that on or about the 21st of July last, on a return trip from tl
open sea fishing grounds to his home port, and while passing through the Straits of CaaBOyk
stopped at Steep Creek for water. The Customs offioer at that place told him that if betiMkl
in water his vessel would be seized ; whereupon he sailed without obtaining the needed supplu
and was obliged to put his men on short allowance of water during the passage homenvdi I

I have the honour to ask that Her Britannic Majesty's Government cause investigitkr
to be made of th>: .eported action of the Customs officer at Steep Creek, and, if the faotili
as iitated, that h ^e promptly rebuked for his unlawful and inhumane conduct in denyinjUl
a vessel of a friendly nation a general privilege which is not only held sacred under lki|
maritime law of nations, but which is expressly confirmed to the fishermen of the Unitdl
States throughout the Atlantic coasts of British North America by the 1st Article orttel
<^nvention of 1818.

and I reqaost that]
port on the sabjeei

RD STANHOPfi

B, 6th October, 188^
ou, tobe laid befowJ

>r at Washington end

attention to the oinI

put into Steep Ore/

consequence, and li

ominion GovenuaenlJ

J. PAUNCEFOTB.

133

I It does not appear that the " A. B. Crittenden " suffered other damage by this alleged
etpitable treatment, but, reserving that pomt, the incident affords an illustration of th&
;itiou8 spirit in which the officers of the Dominion of Canada appear to seek to penalize
J oppress those fishinp vessels of the United States lawfully engaged in fishing which from
[fcause are brought within their reach.

I have, &c..

(Honourable
Sib L. Wbst, KC.M.G.,

&c., &o,, &a,

CSd.) T. F. BAYARD.

No 138.

Mr. Stanhope to the Adminiatrator.

lo,223.] DowiriNa Stbikt, 15th October, 1886.

Mt Lord, — With reference topreviooa correspondence relative to the North
nerioan fisheries qaestion, I have the honour to transmit to yon for the information
[yonr Government a copy of a letter with its enclosare from the Foreign Office on
iBubject.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPE.
OrriosR Adhinistibtno
The Government of Canada.

th September, 1888,
ewith copy ofafmtti
jy attention the ml
ito Steep CreeJ^ in f
lonsequence.

^ S. S. WEST.

[Enclosare No. 1.]

Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

FosEioy Officb, 5th October, 1886.

Sib,— With reference to my letter of the 9th August last, I am directed by the Secretary
fState for Foreign Affairs to transmit to you, to be laid before Mr. Secretary Stanhope, a
lopj of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington reporting that the United
ates' Senate Committee, for investigating the fisheries question, will leave shortly for Canada.

I am, &e.f

Under Seorbtary of St - tb,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.) J PAUNCEFOTE.

I September, 1886.
3h has been broughtlj
he Convention of IS

nden," of GloucMti
return trip from ti
le Straits of Catuoyh
Id him that if he toi
a«; the needed supplu
' passage homeiml]
it cause investigalir
b:, and, if thefactiL
onduot in denyiojUl
Id sacred under till
nuen of the Vmt
'he Ist Article ortbil

[Enclosure No. 2]
Sir L, Sackville West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.

Washington, 19th September, 1886.

Xt loRDr-With reference to Mr. Hardinge's despatch. No. 73 of this series, of the 26tb

f July last, I have the honor to inform Your Dsrdship that the Senate Committee, composed

^f benators Edmunds, Frye, Saulsbury, Morgan and George, to investigate the Fisheries

Mtion between Canada and the United States, will, it is said, leave shortly for the Domin*

> in order to prepare the report for the next Session of Congress, in December.

I am, &c.,

be Easl of Iddbslbioh,
&c., &c., &c.

(Sd.) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST.

■I, ' I V- i, 'I''' 'i'

liK

BlSd

«',

134

No. 139.
The Administrator to Mr. Stanhope .

[No. 1)6.] Halifax, N.S., 2'7th October, 1886.

Sir, — I have the honoar to transmit herewith a copy of an approved miQutel
the Privy Council of Canada, expressing the regret of my Goverameat at the aotil
of the Canadian cutter " Terror " in lowering the United States' flag from the Uoi^
■States' fishing schooner " SJarion Grimes," of Gloucester, Mass., while that vest
'was under detention at Shelburne, N.S , by the Collector of Customs at that port I
the infraction of the Customs Eegulations.

I have communicated a copy of this Order in Coanoil to Her Majesty's Mioijl^
at Washington.

^ I have, &o.,

The Bight Honourable

Edward Stanhopi:.

(Sd.) A. KUSSBLL.

^BxceU«

Sir,— I '

[Enclosore No. 1.]
f No. 1927.]

Certified Copy of a Report of a Committee of thi Honourable the Privy Council for Cam
approved by His Excellency the Administrator of the Oovernment in Council on the '.
October, 1886.

On a report dated 14th October, 1836, from the Honourable Mackenzie Bowell, for
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, stating that on Monday 11th October inst., the Unib
States fishing scnooner " Marion Grimes " of Gloucester, Mads., was under detention
Shelburne, Kova Scotia, by the Collector of Customs at that port, for an infraction of tl
<7ustoms Kegulations, that while so detained and under the surveillance of the Canad
Government cutter "Terror," the captain of the "Marion Grimes" hoisted the Unit<
States' flag.

The Minister further states that it appears that Captain Quigley, of the " Terror," conJ
sidered such act as an intimation that there was an intention to rescue the vessel, aniT
requested Captain Landry to take the fl ig down. This request was complied with ; an haurl
Ifiter, however, the flag was again hoisted, and on Captain Landry being asked if his vessell
had been released, and replied that she had not. Captain Quigley again requested that thai
flag be lowered. This was refused, when Captain Quigley himself lowered the Hag, actingl
under the belief that while the " Marion Grimes" was in possession of the Customs authori[
ties, and until her case had been adjudicated upon, the vessel had no right to fly the United!
States' flag.

The Minister regrets that he should have acted with undue zeal although Captain I
Quigley may have been technically within his right while the vessel was in the custody I
of the law. f

The Committee advise that Your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this minute, i
if approved, to the Right Honourable tho Secretary of State for the Coloaies and to Her
Majesty's Minister at Washington expressing the regret of the Canadian Government at t'
occurrence.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE.

Qerk, Privy Council, Canada.

No. 140.
Sir L. We&t to the Administrator.

[No. 22.] Washinoton, 28th October, 1886.

My Lord,- I have l'i<- honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith CDpv of a
note which I have received from the Secretary of Stato, together with copy of enclo-

135

1 October, 1888.
approved mioatel

omentatthoaoj
lag from the Unitl
., while that vesi
"09 at that port!

Majesty's MinisJ
A. KUSSELit

Oouneilfor Cam
f^uneii on the a

Jzie BoweU, for thJ
irmst., the Unifc
'nder detention u
n infraction of M
!e of the Canadia
oisted the JJniU

the "Terror," oonJ
ue the vessel, and
led with; anhourl
'Sked if his vessel!
■equested that the!
'd the flag,aotingl
Customs authori-f
■ to fly the United)

although Captain
> in the custody!

Py of this minute,
nies and to Ilerf
overnment at the

Lacking for aathentio information rcspoctin<;r the Canadian lawd regulating the
kind exportation of fresh herring from Grand Manan Island.

I have, &o.,

(Si.) L. S. SACKVILLB WEST.

^Excellency
Genebal Lord Alexander Eussgll,

&o., &o., &0. ■'.•.:• : • ' ' r

[Bncloaure Vo. 1.]

Department of State,

Wasuinoton, 27th October, 1886.

Sir,— I enclose copies of two letters received at this Department from Geo. Steele, Presi-
^t of the American Fishing Union, at Gloucester, Mass.

The object of these letters is to obtain autheptio information of the administration of

laiian laws regulating the sale and exportation of fresh herring from Grand Manan Island
dits vicinity, a trade which, the writer avers, has been carried on almost exclusively in
Jierican vessels for many years.

By the statements of the letter of Mr. Steele, dated 23th r)otober, it appears that,
liiough the vessels employed in this trade are duly registered in their home port as fishing
8, yet that so far as ftie proposed trade is concerned, they are not manned nor equipped,
(in any way prepared for taking fish, but their use is confined to the carriage of tish as

cliandise to ports in the United States.— a commercial transaction pur et simple.

May I ask the favour of an early response to the enquiries propounded by Mr. Steele.

I have, &c.

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.

e Honourable

SirL. S. S. West,K.C.M.G.,

&C., &C., &0.

[Enclosure No. 2.]

Office of Gloucester Mctital Fismxd Insdrancb Co., •

GLOucKsrEK, Mass., 18th October, 1886,

Sir, — Tho season is approaching when American vej^sels have been accustomed to buy
irring at the Grand Manan Island and vicinity and bring them to Boston, Gloucester, New
fork and Pliiladelphia.

The present position of the Dominion Governmnntas to that trade concerns our interests
eatly, and the fish trade desire to be informed whether that Government now considers
lepurchase of herring as open to American vessels eitlier when registei'ed or licensed with
tfmit to trade.

We do not wijh to explore their power of seizing or detaining these vessels or of inflict-
•g fine?, if they object to our vessels continuing in that business, we prefer to keep away
)ia these shores until the Dominion Governmant is better advised.

I apply to you for this information which our me"chants need, because I know of no
ither mode of obtaining it in a reliable ihape.

]' am, &o.,

(Sd.) GEO. STEELE,
lllie Honourable P,esident American Fishery Union.

T. F. Bayard.

&iC,f &c., &c.

P.8. — This trade in winter herring his been carried on in our vessels almost exclusively for
Iniany years and fifty or a hundred cargoes come in usually during the fall, winter and spring.
I They are largely consumed as fool and to some extent used as bait in our winter fishing
[wSeorges and the banks. It is very rare for a British vessel to bring herring to our ports.

136

[Eacloture No. 3.]

OfFIOK of OLODOEaTER MUTVAL FlSHINO IKSURANOE Co.,

Olouoistbr, Ma.ss., 25th October, 18S6.

SiB,->l have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 20th OctoJ
]fy original enquiry referred both to Tessels under license and to those sailing und^
xegiBter. Your letter satisfieB the enquiry as to those licensed for the fisheries.

We still desire to be informed as to wheth<>r vessels under registry of the United Sti
will be allowed to enter at Grand Manan ami other ports, and load and export herring t
United States. Such vessels will be noanned by » sailing crew on wages, and not by afii
oomplement of sharenaen, nor will they carry the fishing gear which such vessels use, '
fiahing under a fishing license.

The fishing interests I assure you appreciate the courtesy of your ofier to procure
infonnation seasonably for them.

I remain, &c,,

(Sd.) GEO. STEELE,

Freaident American Fishing Unm
Honourable T. F. Batabd,

l)jecl_

(Telegratn.)

Ko. 141.
Adminiatrator to the Secretary cf State for Colonies.

29th October, 1886.

(Sd.) A. RUSSELL.

" Battler " report goes by to-morrow's mail.

No. 142.
The Administrator to Mr. Stanhope.

tNo. n.}

Halifax, 29th October, 1886,

Sir, — I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved minute of tl
Frivy Council of Canada farniBhicg the report aeked for in yoar despatch No. 19S
the Ist September last respecting the alleged unfriendly treatment of the Unit*
States' fisbing schooner " Kattler " in being required to report to the Collector o
Customs, at Shelbume, N.S., when seeking that harbour for shelter.

I beg also to draw yoor attention to the statement of the Captain of
"Terror," appended to the above Order in Council, which gives the facts concernii
ffae oases of the "Sbiloh " and " Julia Plilen" a report as to which was requested i
your despatch No. 203 of the 9th ultimo.

1 have, &c.,

(Sd.) A. EUSSBLL.

The Bight Honourable

Edwabd Stanhopi,
&o., &o,, &c.

402^.

[fincloaare No. 1.]

Cbbtifibd Copt of a Report of a Commiiiee of He Ecnovrable the Privy Council for CanaM
approved by His Excellency the Administrator of the Government in Council on the 28al
October, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had their attention called by a cablegram f
the Bight Honourable Mr. Stanhope, as to when he may expect answer to despatch No. 19o|
«Eattler."

The Honourable Mr. Bowell, for the Minister of [Marine and Fisheries, to whomtt'l
papers were referred, submits for the infoimation of His Excellency in Council that having I
considered the statements, copies of which are annexed, of Captain Quigley of the Goveii>|

18t

^•8l;n4N0E Co.,
25th October, 18S6.
ter dated 20th Octol

a fisheries. ^ ""'''
ry of the United SI,
Id export herriD.toi

"Oh vessels ^J,™]
offer to procure i

EO. STEELE,
ncan FUhingUnm

» October, 1886.
-A. BUSSBLU

October, 1886.

jovedminutoofth
aeepatch No. 195 d
Jit of the Unit*
to the Collector
r.

'6 Captain of tiJ
•e facts concernin'
f» waa requested!

. fiUSSBLL.

int cutter "Terror" and of the Collector of Oustotns at Shalbume with reference to the
iject matter of the despatch, he is of opinion that these officers only performed their
lective duties in the case of the "Rattler," and that no just ground exists for the com-
bt put forward in Mr. Bayard's despatch of a '' violation of that hospitality which all '
liied nations prescribe," or of a " gross infraction of Treaty stipulations."
Tiie Minister states that it does not appear at all cert lin from the statements submitted
lUhis vessel put into Shelburne for a harbour in consoquenceofstress of weather. It does,
erer, appear that immediately upon the " Rattler's " coming into port, Captain Quigley
bis Chief Officer to inform the Captain of the "Rattler" that before sailing he must'
irt his vessel at the Custom House, and left on board the " Rattler " a guard of two men
) that no supplies were landed or taken on board or men allowe J to leave the vessel
g her stay in Shelburne Harbour. That at midnight the guard fired a shot as signal tO'
cruiser, and the First Officer at once again proceeded to the " Rattler," and found the
_i being hoisted and the anchor weighed preparatory to leaving port. The Captain beins-
itormed he must comply with the Customs regulations and report his vessel, he headed
ir up the harbour. That on the way up she became becalmed when the First Officer of
le "Terror" took the Captain of the " Rattler " in his boat and rowed him to the town,
the Collector ot Customs received his report at the unusual hour of 6 a.m,, rather than-
letain him, and the Captain with his vcbsoI proceeded to sea.

The Minister observes that under Section 25 of the Customs Act every vessel entering
poi tin Canada is required to immediately report at the Customs, and the strict enforce-
lent of this regulation as regards United States' fishing vessels, has become a necessity, in
lew of the illegal trade transactions carried on by United States' fishing vessels when enter-
ig Canadian ports under pretext of their Treaty privileges.
That under these circumstances a compliance with the Customs Act, involviag only (he -

of a vessel, cannot be held to be a hardship or an unfriendly proceeding.
The Minister, in view of the repeated groundless complaints of being harshly treated
that have been made during the present season by the captains of United States' fishing
Tessels, and in almc t every instance traceable to a refusal or neglect to observe the Customs
ngulations which it is proper to state are enforced upon other vessels as well as those of
the United States, submits herewith, a letter written by Captain Blake of the United States'
fiBhing schooner " Andrew Burnham," which appear in the Boston (Mass.) Herald, of the 7th
instant, and also the editorial comment thereon, made in a subsequent issue of the paper
referred to.

The Minister believes that the statemen ts made by Captain Blake are strictly accurate,
nd as applied to other vessels are substanti ated by the weekly boarding reports received by
the Fisheries Department from the different captains engaged in the Fisheries Protec-
tion Service. He, the Minister, therefore, respectfully submits that the reflections of Mr.
Secretary Bayard characterising the treatme nt extended to the captain of the " Rattler" as
unwarrantable and unfriendly is not merit ed in view of the facts as stated by Captain
. ey and Collector Atwood.

The Committee concur in the report of the Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and
idvise that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this Minute, if approved, to the
Right Honourable Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies,
All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

|ieport<

ntneilfor Canaki
ovncil on the Mt

a cablegram I
despatch No. I9J|

es, to whom i
luncil that barin;!
yof the Govern r

[Eacloiara So. 2. ]

CAPTAIN BLAKE'S LETTER.

A FISHRRMA^'s Tale.

What a Boston Skipper aaya of Sis Experience in Canadian Waters.

The following letter which appears in the Boston Herald conveys a different impression
to many statements that have appeared on the subject : —

So much has been written and printed about the experiences of American fishermen in .
Canadian waters, and the indignities put on them, I wish you would open your columns and.

138

g've your roa-lera an insight into the other side of tlie atory. I sailed from Boston f )r North
ly on Juno 16, not knowing just wliat the cutters would do or how tb" law would be inter-
pnted. I nosred the coast with fear and anxiety. The first land sighted was Whitehead, and
immediately cries came from aloft : '' Gutter in sight ahead I" I rushed to the deck, found
tiie vessel which proved to be the " Houlett," commanded by Capt. Lorway, nearing us rapidly.
At time of sighting the cutter we were standing inshore. She hoisted her flags to let ua
know what sne was, and we immediately " about ship " and put to sea to get out of her way,
for fear we might be placed on the prize list of the captures. We finally headed up for Port
Hulgrave in Canso, expecting to receive rough usage from the authorities, but to our surprise
found Collector Murray a perfect gentleman, wilhng to assist me as far as he could without
encroaching on the Canadian laws. From there we put in at Port Ilawkesbury and boarded
the cutter " Conrad," and asked the captain for instructions in regard to the three-milo
limit, and what privileges, if any, we had. 1 was answered, in a courteous and hearty way,
that he did not have them aboard, but would go ashore m a few moments and get me a
printed copy of the regulations, which he did, and assured us that if we followed them we
would be unmolested ; that he was there to see that the law was not violated, but not to
oause unnecessary annoyance. After receiving instructions from the Captain, thanks to him,
I went to the Custom House and entered my vessel, paying twenty-five cents. I found a very
pleasaiA gentleman in the collector, who did all in his power to relieve my mind and make
ua comfortable.

Souria was our next port of landing, where we also reported, and were well treated. From
there we went to Malpeque, where we found another gentleman in the collector. We met
the cutter " Houlett" at Casoumpec, and had several interviews with her commtnder, Cap-
tain Lorway, whom I found a quiet, just and gentlemanly otlioer. My vessel was one ot the
fleet ordered out of harbour by him. At that time it was as good a fish day as one could ask
for, and the instructions were plain that at such times we had no right to remain in harbour.
At no time is there much water to spare on the bar, and it is a common occurrence for ves-
sels to ground in going in or out, and that some did toufch was due to ignorance of
the channel or carelessness on the part of captains. iM^ the time the order was issued the
weather was fair, but before all the fleet could work out through the channel, one of the
sudden changes in weather, so much to be dreaded on such a coast, came, and the cutter
rescinded the order and the fleet returned. It has been printed in a Boston paper that,
owing to being (breed to sea by the cutter's orders in bad weather, my schooner, the '-Andrew
Buruham,' fouled two Englishmen and narrowly escaped serious damage. If true it would
look like a hardship. It was simply this : In getting under way, in a small and crowded
space, finding I would not have room, I dropped our starboard anchor. That not holding, we
let go the other, and it brought us up al' right ; not much in this to point to as an outrage
or danger from stress of weather. I bf 'ieve Captain Lorwav to be a man who would carry
out all the requirements of the Canadian laws, but I saw nothing in my experience in those
waters tha: couUl be considered ai being arbitrary, or taking a mean advantage of his official
authority to annoy anyone. Captain Lorway lias been a master, of vessels for twenty-five
years, is a man of hiih reputation as a seauiin, and as good a judge of whether the weather
is favourable for a vessel to go to sea as any man who walks a deck, and when he ordered the
fleet to spa he went himself, and I know he would not order a vessel to leave harbour if there
was any danger of loss of life or property. We reported at Cascumoec, and were treated
the same as at all other ports we touched at. If our vessels would attend to reporting at the
Custom House, the same as they do in our port«, no trouble would be met with.

It we hid " free fish" it would give the Canidians soma recompense for what our fisher-
men want, viz., the right ti go anywhare and evorwhere, use their harbours, ship men, get
provisions, land and mend our nets, buy salt and barrels, anJ ship our catch home by rail or
steamu- witiiont expense or annoyance, the same as we have heretofore.

If we had had that privilege this year, myself and vessel would have been $5,000 better
off this season, and all the fishermen in the bay would have been in the same boat with me.
I do not say that r am too lionest not to fiah within the tliree mile limit, nor do I believe
there is a vessel in the fleet who would not, if the cutter was out of sight. I made ■ vo trips
to the bay, botli of which were verv successful, and I lived up to the requirements of the law
as well as I knew how, and did not find them obnoxious, or to interfere with my success, and
everywhere 1 wer 1 1 was courteously treated by the officials — especially so by both the cut-
ters. Should it be a bay year next season, 1 hope to meet them again. Those who openly
preached that they would go where they pleased, do what they wanted to in spite of law or
cutters, shipped men, smuggled or openly fished inside of the limit, and indulged in the satis-
faction of dumniiig the cutter, the captain, the Government and everything else when they
knew they could do it with impunity, and that the man they were talking to could not resent
it by word or blow, wore looked after sharp and were not extended the courtesy that was
shown so many of us.

(ston f jr North
vould be later,
h'^hitehea'l.aad
tie deok, t'ouad
i-ing us rapidly.
flags to let ua
out of her way,
led up for Port
to our surprise

could without
7 and boarded
the three-mile
id hearty way,
and get me a
owed them we
id, but not to
thanks to him,

I found a very
lind and make

treated. From
Jtor, Wo met
iminder, Cap-
was one ot the
one could ask
lin in harbour,
•fence for ves-
> ignorance of
If A3 issued the
lel, one of the
ind the cutter
sa paper that,
I, the '-Andrew
true it would
and crowded
holding, we
as an outrage
would carry
3nce in those
of hid of&cial
twenty-five
the weather
ordered the
hour if there
vere treated
arting at the

our fisher^
lip men, get
16 by rail or

),000 better
t with me.
I I believe
e ' vo trips
of the law
uccess, and
)h the cut-
^ho openly
of law or
k the satis-
hen they
not resent
y that was

139

In the interest of fair-play I could not help writing you and asking you to give this to
your readers, if not taking up too much of your valuable space.

Very respectfully,

CAPT. NATHAN F. BLAKB,
Schooner " Andrew Bumham" of BoiUm,
Boston, 6th October, 1880.

., - [EnoIoBure Ko 3.] ... . ^ .

Extract from the Boston Herald, dated the 9tk October, 1880..

A FisHiNa Captain's Experibkcb.

The letter of Captain Nathan F. Blake, of the fishing schooner " Andrew Bumham " of
this city, which we published on Wednesday, would apparently indicate that the Canadiui
officials have not been disposed to push the requirements of their law quite as rigorously as
gome of our fishermen have maintained. Captain Blake s<iy3 that he has experienced not
the least trouble in his intorcnurso with the Canadian officials, but that, as he has treated
them courteously, they on their side have reciprocated in like terms. There is, undoubtedly,
a great deal of bitterness felt on both sides, and probably this bitterness has led both parties
to be ungracious in their own conduct, and to exa.^gorate the wrongs they have endured,
hardships frequently due to an unwiUingnoss to observe the re((ulrement3 of the law as these
are now laid down. If all American fishing captains exhibited the same courtesy and
moderation that Captain Blako has shown, we imagine that there would be very little trouble
in arriving at an equitable and pleasing uaderstandiag with Canada.

[EnclosDre No. 4.]

Shelbdrnb, 30th September, 18S6.

Sm, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, requesting the
circumstances connected with the boardmg of the vessels "Rattler," "Julia and Ellen," and
"Shilo."

In the case of the " Rattler," she came into Shelburne harbour on tho evening of the 4Ui
of August, at 6 o'clock She hoiug at some distanco from whore I was anchored, and it
being too rough to send my boat so far, I fired a musket signal for her to round to, which she
did ami came to an anclior alongside of my vessel.

I then sent the chief offlcer to board her. He reported she put in for shelter. The cap-
tain was then told by the chief officer to report his vessel before he sailed, and that he must
not lot hi< luon on shore, 'Und thit he would leave two men, who are always armed, on board
to see that he did not otherwise break tho law.

About midnight the captain hoisted his sails to leave port, thereby evading the Custom*
law requiring him to report (for which I refer yoa to Section 25 of the Customs Act) and
disregarding my instructions.

'J he watchmen fired a signal calling my attention to this act, when I sent the chief officer
to ^<^11 tho captain he must lower his sails aid report his vessel in the morning, otherwise he
Wv,^ld likely have his vessel detained.

He did so, and sailed up in company with tho chief officer at 4 o'clock a m. On the way
up it foil calm and the vessel anchored. The chief offiierwith my boat's creW, rowed him
up to the Custom House, where he reporte i at 6 a.m., and returned, passing out to sea at 8
a.m. The captain was only asked to xeport his vessel as all others do, but was not disposed
to do so.

In the case of the " Julia and Ellen," she came into the harbour of Liverpool on the 9th of
August, about 5 p.m. Being some distance from me I fired a blank musket shot to round her
to. When she anchored, £ boarded her and the captain reported that he came in for water.
I told him to report his vessel in the morning as it was then after Customs' hours, and that
he must not let his men ashore, and that I would leave two men on his vessel to see that my
instructions were carried out, and to see that he did not otherwise break the law.

In the morning at 8 o'clock, I called for the captain to go to the Custom House and told
him his men could goon and take water while he was reporting, so th;ithe would be all ready
to sail when he returned, which they did, and he sailed at noon.

140

In the case of the " Sbilo," she came into the harbour about 6 p.m., on the 9th of Augutt,
atliTerpool, and a signal was fired in her case the same aa the others.

When she anchored I boarded her, and the cantain reported he was in for water. I told
him it was then too late to report at the Customs till morning, and that he must not allow his
orew on shore, also that I would leave two men on board to see that he did not otherwise
break the law and that my instructions were carried out.

In the morning I called for the captain when taking the " Julia and Ellen's " captain
•shore. When there I told him, aa I did the other, that his men could go on taking water
while he was reporting, so that he could sail when he returned and not be delayed. Thia
they did not do.

'. , I have reason to know that it was not water this vessel oame in for. as several of the orew
lived there, and it was for the purpose of letting his men ashore and not for taking water
that he put in. He aiterwards emptied six barrels of water, stating they were sour, and fooled
all day filling them, delaying the time that he might get his orew on shore. I refused to allow
hia crew on shore for any other purpose than to take water, after completing which, the
weather being tine, I ordered him to sea in the evening.

The signals that were fired were not intended to make them oome to quickly, but aa a
signal for them to either round to or show their ensign.

After the '< Shilo " sailed, the harbour master informed me that she landed two men at
the mouth of the harbour, seven miles down, before she reported, and the evening she sailed
ahe called after dark and picked them up.

In many cases it isan 'understood thing between the captains and crews to let the men
aahore and then make out they deserted. In all cases where a vessel puts in for shelter, the
captain reports, and the rest of his crew are not allowed ashore, as the vessel only put in for
the privilege of shelter, and for no other purpose.

When she puts in for water, after reporting, the oaptain is allowed to take his boats and
the men he requires to procure water, and the rest remain on board, after which he is ordered
to sea. When m for repairs, he is allowed all the privileges he requires after reportinfr, and
when ready is ordered to sea. In all cases, except when in for repairs, I place men on board
to lee that the law is not violated, as many of tnose vessels put into the harbour and make
taking water and seeking shelter an excuse either to get men or land them, or to allow them
a chance to see their friends, or to get goods ashore if the vessel is on her way from American
ports to the fishing grounds, and have landed men here and at other ports on this coast in
my absence. In one case in this port a vessel, finding I was in the harbour, let men take a
IxMt and land, she going on her way home to the States. That is why I put men on these
▼easels, to keep them from breaking the law under cover of night.

I might remark here that the Collector of Customs at Liverpool informed me that the
"Shilo "on her previous voyage remainod in port five days after oeing ordered out, delaying
for the purpose of letting the men be with their friends.

Kow that they are not allowed all the privileges they once ei\joyed it is an outrage on
my part.

These are the facts connected with those vessels, which I reported to Captain Scott while
in Halifax sometime ago.

I treat all courteously but firmly, and find no trouble with any but a few who wish to
«Tade the law.

I am. Sir,

U^jnr John Tilton,

J>eputy Minister of Fisheries,
Ottawa.

(Sd.) THOMAis QUIQLEY,

Oovernment Cruiaer *' Terror,"

[E.VOLOSDRB No. 5.]

CasTOMS HouaB, Shelbcrnb, 6th September, 1886.

Sir, — I have to acknowk dge receipt of your telegram of 4th inst. relative to schooner
''Battler" and I wired an answer this morning as requested.

On the morning of 4th ulto., Chief Officer of '' Terror " accompanied by Captain A. F.
Cunningham called at this office. Captain Cunningham reported his vessel inwards as
follows: — viz.: "schooner 'Rattler' of Qloucester, U3 tons register, 16 men, from fishing
banks with 465 barrels mackerel : came in for shelter."

141

m's" captain

I was afterwards informed by the ofBoer of cutter that they found the schooner th*
evening before at anclior ofiP Sandy i'oint, five miles down the harbour. Two men from
cutter were put on board, and the master requ'red to report at Customs in the morning.

I was alflo informed that the master, Cui>tain Cunningham, madean attempt to put to saa

in the night, by hoisting sails, weighing anchor, &o.,
cutter.

I am, Sir,

To Commissioner of Customs,
OtUwa.

(Sd.)

but waa stopped by offloers from

W. H. ATWOOD, OolUetor.

No. u;^.

Tht Adminutrator to Mr. Stanhope.

Halifax, 30th October, 1886.

Sib, — With reference to yoar telegraphic measage of the 22nd August, aad to
your despatch of the 26th Aogast, tranBmittioga copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's
Charge d'Affairs at WashingtoD, with a note from Mr. Bayard, complaining oi tha
action of the Costoms OflSoer at Magdalen Inlands with reference to the American
fishing schooner " Masootte." I have tho honour to forward herewith a copy of an
approved Minute of the Privy Conn oil of Cttoada, embodyioga report of the Minister
of Marine and Fisheries on the sabjeot.

I have, &c.,

The Bight Honourable

Edwabd Stanhope.

&o., &o.,

(Sd.)

A. RUSSBLL;

&o.

No. 361^.

who wish to

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Certii'Ikd Copy of a Report o/ a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Couneil of Canadom
approved by Hia Excelltncy ih« Administrator of the Oovernment in CouneU on the 30th
October, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a telegram of the 22nd
August and a despatch of the 23th August last from the Right Honourable the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, traYismitting copy of a letter from Her Majesty's Minister at Washmg-
ton, enclosing a note from Mr. Secretary Bayard, complaining of the action of the Cust<Rns
Officer at Magdalen Islands with reference to the American fishing schooner " Mascotte."

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the correspondence was referred, observes
that Mr. Bayard, in his note to the British Minister at Washington, says: —

I am also in possession of the affidavit of Alex. T. Vachem, master of the American
iibtiiiig schooner 'Mascotte ' who entered Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, and was thera
threatened by the Customs Official with seizure of his vessel if he attempted to obtain bait
for ' ling or take a pilot." And from a report of the Customs Officer at Magdalen Islands,
a c of which, so far as it relates to the ca-ie in point, is hereto annexed, it appears that na
grounds exist for the complaint made by the master of the '' Mascotte."

The Minister states that Captain Vachem was served with a printed copy of tho
*' warning," and was in addition informed by the Collector that under the Treaty of 1818 1m>
had no right to buy bait or to ship men. He was not forbidden to take fish, but on the oontnuy
the Collector poir d out to him on the chart the places in which by the Convention of 1818,
he as a United Stones' fisherman, had the right to inshore fishing, anl one of the places so
pointed out to him was the Magdalen Islands.

Notwithstanding the "warning" and the personal explanation oftheC'iUector it appears
that Captain Vachem did go up the country and attempt to hire men and upon his return
informed the Collector that he could not get any. For this, clearly an iUejpd Act, ho was
not interfered Wi '> by the Collector.

142

The Minister further observes that the Convention of 1 8 1^!, while it gi'ants to United
States' fishermen the right of fishing in common with British subjects on the shores of the
Magdalen Islands, does not confer upon them privileges of trading or of shipping men, and it
tvas against possible acts of the latter kind and nov against fishing inshore, or seeking the
rightsof hospitality guaranteed under the Treaty, that Captain Vachem was v.amed by the
Collector.

With reference to the remark of the Colonial Secretary that " Her Majesty's Goverr aent
would recommend that special instructions should be issued to the authorities at the piaces
where the inshore fishery Las been granted by the Convention of 1818 to the United btates'
fishermen, calling their attention to the provisions of that Convention and warning them
that no action contiiry thereto may be taken in regard #d Jnited States' fishing vessels,"
the Minister states that the circular instructions issued to Collectors of Customs, recite the
articles of the Convention of 1818 whi-^h grant to United States' fishermen the right to take
fish upon the shores ol' the Magdalen Islands ai.d of '^eriain parts of the Coast of Labrador
and >>'ewfoundland, which instructions the Collector in question had received and the import
of which his report pbows him to be familiar with.

In atUition to this the Commander of the Fishery Protection steam«r "La Canadienne"
was ordered to vioit Magdalen Islands and explain fully to Collectors there, the extent of
tlieir powcfB.

The Minister in view of these instructions, printed and oral, does not deem it necessary
to send further special orders.

The Committee concurring in the foregoing report, advise that Your Excellency be
moved to transmit a copy hereof, if approved, to the Kight Honourable the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.,

[Enclosure No. 2,]

Custom House,
MaudA'LEN Islands, 28th August, 1886.

Sir, — I beg fo acknowledge the receipt of your telegram respecting captain of the
schooner " Mascotte's " report in reference to my having threatened him wiUi seizure.

I replied on receipt: " 'Mascotte' information Incorrect. Particulars per mail Tuesday."

Farticulars.

On the arrival of the captain I served him with a " warning ; " personally informed him
he could not buy bait or ship mon.

I say this to all American fishermen. He tried, however, to hire, went up the country to
hire, but could not hire a man.

I saw him and men go up and on bis return he told me he could not hire. I did not
oppose him. He intended halibutting at Seven Islands, Dominion. I found this out since. I
deny having said I would seize him if ha obtained bait, himself or crew. 1 did ncc use the
term but it suits the oaptain or owners to use it as it serves their meaning to make the report
good.

I particularly showed him wheie, on the chart, he had the right to fish inshore, to wit :
At the Magdalen Islands, Cape Pay, &c., as per Treaty in my hands then.

I think I was very lenient with him and all American fishermen calling here, knowing
their privileges.

I treat«d him so gentlemanly that I am surprised to hear he made the above inaccurate
report to you.

Your obedient servant,

(Sd.) J. B. F. PAINCHAUD.

Collector Customs.
The CoKmissioner of Customs,
Ottawa.

14)

ts to United
shores of the
g men, and it
' seeking the
Eimed by the

i Govtirr uent
at the ;.]acea
Jnited btates'
irarning them
hing vessels,"
ms, recite the
i right to take
)t of Labrador
nd the import

Canadienne "
the extent of

a it necessary

JJxcellency be
I Secretary of

BE,

, Canada..

(Telegram).

ust, 1886.

aptain of the

eizure.

lail Tuesday."

nformed him

le country to

l-e. I did not

lout since. I

nc'O use the

pe the report

Lore, to wit :

\te, knowing

inaccurate

ut atoms.

No. 144.
Secretary of State to Lord Lansdowne.

2nJ November, 18SG.
Please send properly authenticated copy of the Fishery Bill as soon as possible.

(Sd.) E. STANHOPE.

No. 145.

Mr. Stanhfpe to the Governor General.

Downing Stbbet, 4th November, 1886.

My Lobd, — I have the honcnr to acknowledsce the receipt of your despatch, No»
238, of the 29th of July last, enclosing a copy of an approved report of your Privy^
Gonncil, in reference to the Bill recently paesed by the Parliament of Canada, and
reserv^l by you for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, entitled " An Act
farther t«; amend the Act respectirg Fisbing by Foreign Vessels."

Her ]J^osty's Government, after having given their most attentive considera-
tion to thOTjuestion and to the views which have been urged by your Ministers, and
having, moreover, had the advantage of considering the representations which yoa
liave youreelf m^de upon fhe subject during your recent visit to this country, have
ccme to the couclusion that they would not be justified in advising lier Majesty to-
withhold her assent from the Bill in question.

They will, therefore, be prepared to submit the Bill to Her Majesty for confirma-
tion on receiving a transcript of it, properly authenticated in the usual form.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STAlfHOPE.
Governor General.

The Most Honourable,

The Marqdis op Lawsdowke, G.C.M.G.,
&o., &c., &c.

(Telegram.')

No. 146.

Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Administrator.

6th November, 1886.

United States' (itovernment protest againat proci'sedings of Canadian anthurities
in case of " Pearl Nelson " and • Everitt Steele." said to have put into Ariohat and
Shelburne respectively, for purposes sanctioned by "onvention. Particulars by post*
Send report as sooc as possible.

(Sd.) SECBETARY OF STATE.

No. 147.
Lord Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

Ottawa, 9lh November, 1886.

Sir, — With reference to Earl Granville's despatch of the ^th Juno last respoot-
ing the fisheries question, and enclosing copies of two letters from the Foreign Oilice

It.. . All

^
■■^t

144

-and ODo from the United States' Mioister in Loadon, addressed to the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, I have the honoar to transmit herewith a copy of an
-approved minute of the Privy Ooanoil of Canada concurring in a report of the
Minister of Justice dealing with the points raised by Sir. Phelps in his note of ihe
2ad Jane last on the subjact of the seizure of the United States' fishing vessel " David
J. Adams " near Digby, Nova Scotia.

I have, &c.,

The Bi^ht Honourable

Edward Stanhope,
&c., &c., &c.

[No. 273^.]

(Signed)

LANSDOWNB.

[EncloBare No. 1.]

^Certifibd copy of a Bepirt of Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for
Canada, approved by His Excellency the Administrator of the Oovemment in Council on
the 2nd November, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch, dated
24th June, 1886, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State f r the Colonies, respect-
ing the Fisheries Question, and enclosing copies of letters on the subject from the Foreign
•Office to the Colonial Office, and of one from Mr. Phelps to the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs.

The Minister of Justice to whom the despatch and enclosures were referred, submits a
report thereon, herewith.

The Committee concur in the said report and advise that Your Excellency be moved to
transmit a copy thereof, if approved to the Right Honourable the Secretary ot State for the
Colonies.

All which is submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JUHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Councilf Canada.

[Baclosure So. 2.]
To His Excellency the Adminialraior of the Government in Council.

Dei'aktment ok Jijsticb, Ottawa, 22nd July, 1886.

With reference to the despatch of the 24th June last, from 'the Secretary of
State for the Colonies to Your Excellency respectini; the fisheries question, and enolosiag
copies of letters on the subject from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, and of one
from Mr. Phelps to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the undersigned has the honour
to report as follows : —

The letter of Mr. Phelps seems designed to present to Earl Risebery the case of the
'' David J. Adams," the fishing vessel seized a short time ago near Digby, in the Province of
Nova Scotia.

Mr. Phelps intimates that he has received from his Government a copy of the report
of the Consul General of the United States at Halifax, giving full details and depositions
relating to the seizure, and that that report, and the evidence annnexed to it, appear fully
to sustain the points which he had submitted to Earl Rosebery at an interview which he had
had a short time before the date of his letter.

The report of the Consul General and the depositions referred to seem not to have been
presented to Earl Rosebery, and their contents can oaly be inferred from the statements
made in Mr. Phelps' letter.

These statements appear to be based on the assertions made by the persons interested
in the vessel by way of defence against the complaint under which she was seized, imt cannot
be regarded as presenting a full or accurate representation of the case. The undersigned
submits the facts in regard to this vessel, as they are alleged by those on whose testimony
the Gavernmsnt of Canada can rely to sustain thd seizure and detention.

14S

ferred, submits a

ice, and of one
Ibas the honour

The Off jce aa to the Treaty and Fishery Laws.

The "David J- Adairi ' was a United States' fishing vessel, whether, as alleged in her
behalf, her occupation ■r:.s deep sea fishing or not, and whether, as suggested, she had not
been engaged, nor was intended to be engaged, in fishing in any limit proscribed by the
Treaty of 1818 OP not, are qupdtions which do not, in the opinion of the undersigned, aflfect
the validity of the seizure '-.nd of the proceedings subsequent thereto, for reasons which will
be hereafter stated ; but in so far as thpy may be deemed material to the defence, they are
questions of fact which ■ emain to be proved in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Halifax, in which
the proceedings for the vessel's condemnation are pending, and in respect of which proof is
now being taken, and inasmuch as the trial has not been concluded (much less a decision
reached) it is perhaps premature for Mr. Phelps to claim the restoration of the vessel, and to
assert a right to damages for her detention, on the assumption of the supposed facts above
referred to.

It is alleged in the evidence on behalf of the prosecution that the " David J. Adams "
being a United States' fishing vessel, on the morning of the 5th of May, 18S6, was in what
is called the "Annapolis Basin," which is a harbour on the north-west coast of Nova
•Scotia. She was several miles within the basin, and the excuse suggested (that the captain
and crew may have been there through a misapprehension as to the locality) by the words of
Mr. Phelps' letter, " Digby is a small fishing settlement and its harbour not defined/' is
unworthy of much consideration.

Digby is not a fishing settlement, although some of the people on the neighbouring
shores engage in fishing. It is a town, with a population of about two thousand persons. Its
harbour is formed by the Annapolis Basin, which is a large inlet of the Bay of Fundy, and the
entrance to it consists of a narrow strait marked by conspicuous headlands which are little
more than a mile apart. The entrance is called " Digby Gut" and for all purposes connected
with this enquiry, the harboir is one of the best defined in America.

The " David J. Adams " was, on the morning r*" the 5th day of May, 1886, as has already
been stated, several miles wi bin the Gut. She was not there for the purpose of " shelter " or
" repairs " nor " lo purchase wood " nor " to obtain water." bhe remained there during the
.'ith and on the 6th May, 1885, she was lying at anchor about half a mile from the shore, at a
locality called " Clements ^/est."

On the morning of the 6th of May, 1 886, the Captain made application to the owners of a
fishing weir, near where he was laying for bait, and purchased four and a-half barrels of that
article.

He also purchased nd took on board, about two tons of ice. While waiting at anchor
for these purposes the name of the vessel's '• hailing place " was kept covered by canvas, and
this concealment continued while she afterwards sailed down post Digby. One of the crew
represented to the persons attending the weir that the vessel belonged to the neighbouring
Province of New Brunswick. The Captain told the owner of the weir, when the Treaty was
spoken of by the latter, that the vessel was under British register. The Captain said he
would wait until the next morning to get more bait from the catch in the weir which waa
expected that day. A t daybreak, however, on the morning of the 7th of May, 1886, the
Government steamer " Lansdowne " arrived off Digby, and the "David J. Adams" ,^ot under
way without waiting to take in the additional ipp'y of bait, and sailed down the Ba%in
towaids the Gut.

Before she had passed Digby she was boaidod by the First Officer of the " Lansdowne"
and to him the Captain made the following statement : That he had come to that place to
see his people, as he had formerly belonged there, that he had no fresh bait on board, and
that he was from the " Banks " and bound for Eastport, Maine.

The officer of ihe " Lansdowne " told him he had no business there, and asked him if he
knew the law. His reply was " Yes."

A few hours alusrwards, and while the "David J. Adams," was still inside the Gut, the
officer of the " Lansdowne," ascertaining that the statements of the Captain were untrue, and.
that bait had been purchased by him within the harbour on the previous day, returned to the
" David J. Adams," charged the Captain with the offence, and received for his reply the
assertion that the charge was false, and that the person who gave the information was a
" Uar."

The officer looked into the hold of the vessel and found the herring which had been
purchased the day befoie, and which, of course, was perfectly fresh, but the Captain declaimed
that this " bait " was ten days old.

The officer of the " Lansdowne " returned to his ship, reported the facts, and went again
to the " Adams," accompanied by another officer, who also looked at the bait. Both returned
to the " lansdowne " and then conveyed to the " Adams " the direction thit she should come
to Digby and anchor near the " Lansdowne." This was, in fact, the seizure.
Itj6-10

.ii'^l

146

These are the circumstances by which the seizure was, in the opinion of Mr. Fhalps,
" much uggravated," and which makes it seem very apparent to him that the seizure " was
not made for the purpose of enforcing any right, or redressing any wrong."

The fact that the seizure was preceded by visitacions and searches was due to the state-
ments of the master, and the reluctance of the officers of the " Lansdowne " to enforce the
law until they had ascertained to a demonstration that the ofience had been committed, and
that the Captain's statements were untrue.

The Offence as to Cuttoma^ Laws.

The " David J. Adams," as already stated, was in the harbour upwards of forty eight
hours, and, when seized, was proceeding to sea, without having been reported at any Customs
House. Her business was not such as to make it her interest to attract the attention of the
Canadian authorities, and it is not difScult, therefore, to conjecture the reason why she was
not so reported, or to see that the reason put forward that Dig' ly is but a small fishing settle*
ment and its harbours not defined," is a disingenuous one. Ii i going to the weir to purchase
bait, the vessel passed the Customs House at Digby, almost witliin hailing distance. When
at the weir, she was within one or two miles of another Customs House (at Clementsport),
and within about fifteen miles of another (at Annapolis). The master has not asserted that
he did not know the law on this subject, as it is established that he knew the law in relation
to the restriction on foreign fishing vessels.

rhe provisions of the Customs Act of Canada on this subject are not essentially different
from those of his own country. The captain and crew were ashore during the 5th and 6th of
May, 1886. The following provisions of the Customs Act of Canada apply : —

'•'The master of every vessel coming from any port or place out of Canada, or coastwise,
and entering any port in Canada, whether laden or in ballast, shall go without delay, when
such vessels is anchored or moored, to the Custom House for the port or place of entry where
he arrives, and there make a report in writing to the collector or other proper officer, of the
arrival and voyage of such vessel, stating her name, country and tonnage, the port of registry,
the name of the master, the country of the owners, the number and the names of the passen-
gers, if any, the number of the crew, and whether the vessel is laden or in ballast, and if laden,
the marks and numbers of every package and parcel of goods on board, and where th^/ same
was laden, and the particulars of any g x ds stowed loose, and where and to whom cor signed,
and where any and what goods, if any, have been laden or unladen, or bulk has been broken,
during the voyage, what part of the cargo, and the number and names of the passengers which
are intended to be landed at that port, and what and whom at any other port in Canada, and
what part of the cargo, if any, is intended to be exported in the same vessel, and what sur-
plus stores remain on board, as far as any of such particulars are or can be known to him."
—46 v., c. 12, s. 25.

" The master shall at the time of making his report, if required by the officer of Cutoma^
produce to him the bills of lading of the cargo, or true copies thereof, and shall make and
subscribe an affidavit referring to his report, and declaring that all the statements made in
the report are true, and shall further answer all such questions concerning the vessel and
cargo, and the crew and the voyage, as are demanded of him by such officer, and shall, if
required, make the substance of any such answer part of his report." — 46 V., c. 12, s. 28.

'' If any goods are unladen from any vessel before such report is made, or if the master
fails to make such report, or makes an untrue report, or does not truly answer the questions
demanded of him, as provided in the next preceding section, he shall incur a penalty of four
hundred dollars, and the vessel maybe detained until such penalty is paid." — 46 V., c. 12, a. 29.

Proceedings Following the Seizure.

These have been made the subject of a complaint by Mr. Phelps, although the explana-
tions which were given in the previous memorandum of the undersigned (in reference to the
letters of Mr. Bayard to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington) and in the report, on the
same subject, of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, laid before His Excellency the
Governor General on the 14th June, ultimo, coupled with a disavowal by the Canadian
Government of any intention that the proceedings in such v,.i3es should be unnecessarily
harsh or pursued in a punitive spirit, might have been expected to be sufficient. After the
seizure was made, the commander of the "Lansdowne" took the "David J. Adams"
across the Bay of Fundy to Saint John, a distance of about forty miles. He appears to have
had the impression that, as his duties would not permit him to remain at Digby, the vessel
would not be secure from rescue, which has in several cases occurred after the seizure of
fishing vessels. He believed she would be more secure in the harbour of Saint John, and
that the legal proceedings, which in due course would follow, could be taken there. He waa

Mr. Phelps,

eizure

was

to the state-
) enforce the
omitted, and

F forty eight
any Custonui
tntion of the
[vhy she was
shiag settle*
to purchase
,nce. When
ementsport),
3.336 rted that
w in relation

silly different
,h and 6th of

or coastwiae,
delay, when
entry where
•fficer, of the
t of registry,
f the passen-
and if laden,
ire the same
u cor signed,
been broken,
angers which
Canada, and
nd what sur-
wa to him."

r of Cutoms,
make and

nts made in
vessel and

and shall, if

2, 3. 28.

~ the master
e questions
alty of four
,c. 12, 8.29.

[he explana-

rence to the

port, on the

;llency the

Canadian

^necessarily

After the

Adams"

lars to have

the vessel

seizure of

• John, and

He wa»

147

immediately directed, however, to return with the vessel to Digby, as it seemed more ia
order, and more in compliance with the statutes relating to the subject, that she should be
detained in the place of seizure, and that the legal proceedings should be taken in the Vice-
Admiralty Court of the Province where the offence was committed. It does not seem to be
claimed by the United States' authorities that any damage to the vessel, or that any injuiy
or inconvenience to any one concerned was occasioned by this removal to Saint Johi', and by
her return to Digby, occupying as thejr did but a few hours, and yet this circumstance seems
to be relied on as aggravating " the seizure," and as depriving it of the character of a seiauro
made " to enforce a right or to redress a wrong."

Another ground of complaint is that in Digby "the paper alleged to hi the legal
precept for the capture and detention of the vessel was nailed to her mast in sudh a manner
as to prevent its contents being read, and the request of the captain and of the United States'
Consul General to be allowed to detach the writ from the mast, for the purpose of learning
its contents, was positively refused by the Provincial official in charge ; that the United
States' Consul General was not able to learn from the commander of the ' Lansdowne ' the
nature of the complaint against the vessel, and that his respectful application to that effect
was fruitless."

1 . As to the position of the paper on the mast. It is not a fact that it was nailed to the
vessel's mast " in such a manner as to prevent its contents being read." It was nailed there
for the purpose of being read, and could have been read.

2. As to the refusal to allow it to be detached. Such refusal was not intended as a dis-
courtesy, but was legitimate and proper. The paper purported to be, and was, a copy of the
writ of summons and warrant which were then in the Eegistry of the Vice- Admiralty Court
at Halifax. It was attached to the mast by the Officer of the Court, in accordance with the
rules and procedure of that Court. The purposes for which it was so attache! did not admit
of any consent for its removal.

3. As to the desire of the Captain and of the United States' Consul General to ascertain
tlie contents of the paper. The original was in the Registry of the Court, accessible to every
person, and the Registry is Avithin eighty yards of the Consul General's Office. All the
reasons for the seizure were made known to the Captain days before the paper arrived to be
placed on the mast, find before the Consul General arrived at Digby. These reasons were
not only matters of public notoriety, but had been published in the newspapers of the Pro-
vince, and in hundreds of other newspapers circulating throughout Canada and the United
States. The Captain and the Consul General did not need, therefore, to take the paper from
the mast in order to learn the causes of the seizure and detention.

4. As to the application of the Consul General having been fruitless. The fact has tran-
spired that he had reported the seizure and its causes to his Government before the applicar
tion was made. It has been already explained in the previous memorandum of the
undersigned, and in the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the application
was for a specific statement of the charges, and that it was made to an offioer who had
neither the legal acquirements nor the authority to state them in a more specific form than
that in which he had already stated them. The Commander of the " Lansdowne " requested
the Consul General to make his request to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and if he
had done so the specific statement which he desired could have been furnished in an hour.

It is hoped that the explanation already made, and the precautions which have been
taken against even the Jippearance of discourtesy in the future, will, on consideration, be
found to be satisfactory.

Incidents of the Customs Seizure.

Mr. Phelps presents the following views with respect to the claim that the "David J-
Adai-QS " besides violating the Treaty and the statutes relating to " fishing by foreign vessels,"
is liable to be detained for the penalty under the Customs Laws.

1. That this claim indicates the consciousness that the vessel could not be forfeited for
the offtnce against the Treaty and Fishery Laws. This supposition is groundless. It is by
no means uncommon, in legal proceedings, both in Canada and the United States, for such
proceedings to be based on more than one charge, although any one of the charges would, in
itself, if sustained, be sufficient for the purpose of the complainant. The success of this
litigation, like that of all litigation, must depend not merely on the rights of the parties but
on the proof which may be adduced as to a right having been infringed. In this instance it
ajjpears, from Mr. Phelps' letter, that the facts which are to be made the subject of proof are
widely in dispute, and the Government of Canada could, with propriety, assert both its claims
60 ihat both of them should not be lost by any miscarriage of justice in regard to one of them.
This was, likewise, the proper course to be taken in view of the fact that an appeal might, at
any time, be made to i-he Government by the owners of the " David J. Adams " for remission
166— lOj

s ^^

i!i'**a

148

of the forfeiture incurred in respect of the Fishery Laws. The following is a section of the
Canadian Statute relating to finning by foreign vessels : —

" In cases of seizure under this Act the Governor in Council may direct a stay of pro-
ceedings, and in cases of condemnation, may relieve from the penalty, in whole or in part,
and on such terms as are deemed right." — 31 V., c. 61, s 19.

It seemed necessary and proper to make at once any claim founded on infraction of the
Customs Laws, in view of the possible termination of the proceedings by executive interfer-
ence under this enactment. It would surely not be expected that the Government of Canada
Bhould wait until the termination of the proceedings under the Fishery Acts before asserting
its claim to the penalty under the Customs Act. The owners ot' the oflFending vessel, and all
concerned, were entitled to know, as soon as they could be made aware, what the claims of
the Government were in relation to the vessel, and they might fairly urge that any which
were not disclosed were waived.

2. Mr. Phelps' remarks that this charge is " not the one on which this vessel was seized,"
and " was an after thought." The vessel was seized by the commander of the " Lansdowne "
for a violation of the Fishery Laws beiore the Customs authorities had any knowledge that
such a vessel had come into the port, or had attempted to leave it, and the (.'ommander was
not aware at that time whether the "David J. Adams " had made proper entry or not. A
few hours afterwards, however, the Collector of Customs at Digby ascertained the facts, and
on the facts being made known to the head of his Department at Ottawa, was immediately
instructed to tal:e such steps as might be necessary to assert the claim for the penalty which
had been incurred, "he Collector did sc.

3. Mr. Phelps asserts that the charge of breach of the Custom.s .aw is not the one "which
must now be principully reli' a on foi- condemnation." It is tru« that condemnation does
not necessarily follow. 1 he ^jenalty prescribed is a forfeiture o our hundred dollars, on
payment of wnioh the owners are entitled to the release of the vesual.

If Mr. Phelps means by the expression just quoted, that the Customs' offence cannot be
relied on, in respect to the penalty claimed, and that the vessel cannot be detained until that
penalty is paid, it can only be said that in this contention the Canadian Government does
not concur. Section 29 of the Customs' Act, before quoted, is explicit on that point.

4. It is also urged that the offence was at most " only an accidental and clearly technical
breach of a Customs House regulation, by which no harm was intended and from which no
harm came, and would in ordinary cases be easily condoned by an apology, and, perhaps,
payment of costs." What has already been said under the heading, " The Offence (as to
Custom Laws)," presents the contention opposed to the offence being considered as " acci-
dental." The master of the " David J. Adams " showed by his language and conduct that
what he did, he did with design and with the knowledge that he was violating the laws of the
country. He could not have complied with the Customs Law without fi U3trj,ting the pur-
poses for which he had gone into port. As to the breach being a " technical " one, it must
be remembered that with thousands of miles of coast, indented as the coasts of Canada are,
by hundreds of harbours and inlets, it is impossible to enforce the Fishery Law without a strict
enforcement of the Customs Laws. This diflBcuhy was not unforeseen by the framers of the
Treaty of 1818, who provided that the fishermen should be " under such restrictions as might
be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish, * * • or in anv other manner
wh&lever abusing the privileges reservedio them." No naval force which could be equipped
by the Dominion would of itself be sufBcient for the enforcement of the Fishery Law.s.
Foreign fishing vessels are allowed by the Treaty to enter the harbours and inlets of Canada,
but they are allowed to do so only for specified purposes. In order to confine them to those
purposes it is necessary to insist on the observance of the Customs Laws, which are enforced
bjr oflBcers all along the coast. A strict enforcement of the Customs Laws, and one conf-istent
with the Treaty, would require that, even when coming into port for the purposes for which
such vessels are allowed to enter our waters, a report should be made at the Customs House,
but this has not been insisted on in all cases. When the Customs Laws are enforced against
those who enter for other than legitimate purposes, and who choose to violate both the
Fishery Laws and Customs Laws, the Government is far within its right, and should not be
asked to accept an apology and payment of costs. It may be observed here, as affecting Mr.
Phelps' demand for restoration and damages, that the apology and costs have never been
tendered, and that Mr. Phelps seems to be of opinion that they are not called for.

5. Mr. Phelps is informed by the Consul General at Halifax that it is " conceded by thfr
Customs authorities there that fore i fishing vessels have for forty years been accustomed to
go in and out of the bay at pleasuie, and have never been required to send ashore and
report when they had no business with the port, and made no landing, and that no seizure
had ever before been made, or claim against them for so doing." Nothing ot this kind i.s,
or could be conceded by the Customs authorities there, or elsewhere in Canada. The bay
referred to, the Annapolis Basin, is like all the other harbours of Canada, except that it

ection of the

a stay of pro-
le or in part,

Fraction of the
utive interfer-
lent of Canada
efore asserting
vessel, and all
the claims of
tiat any which

el was seized,"
" Lansdowne "
nowlcdge that
amiuander was
ry or not. A.
the facts, and
s immediately
penalty which

;he one "which
lemnation does
[red dollars, on

ence cannot be
ained until that
vernment docs
b point.

early technical

from which no

and, perhaps,

Offence (as to

red as " acci-

id conduct that

the laws of the

rating the pur-

'" one, it must

f Canada are,

ithout a strict

ramers of the

tions as might

other manner

be equipped

Fishery Law.s.

ts of Canada,

hem to those

are enforced

|ne conf-istent

ses for which

toms House,

reed against

te both the

ihould not be

affecting Mr.

never been

eded by the

customed to

ashore and

t no sei/.uve

|this kind is,

'I'he bay

cept that it

149

is unusually well defined and land locked, and furnished with Customs Houses. Neither
-there, nor any where else, have foreign fishing vessels been accustomed to go in and out at
pleasure without reporting. If they had been so permitted the fishery laws could not have
been enforced, and there would have been no protection against illicit trading while the
Reciprocity Treaty of 1 854 and the fishery clauses of the Washington Treaty were in force, the
Conventi<3n of 1818 being of course suspended, considerable laxity was allowed to United
Statert' fishing vessels,— much greater than the terms of those treaties entitled them to, but
the Consul General is greatly mistaken when he supposes that at other times the Customs
laws were not enforced, and that seizures of foreign fishing vessels were not made for omitting
to report. Abundant evidence on this point can be had.

I n 1 839, Mr. Vail, the Acting Secretary of State (United States) reported that most of the
seizures (which then were considered numerous) were for alleged violations of the Customs
Laws. (Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington. Vol. 6, p. 283, Washington Edition.)
From a letter of the United States' Consul at Charlottetown, dated J9th August, 1870,
to the United States' Consul General at Montreal, it appears that it was the practice
of the United States' fishermen at that time to make regular entry at the port to
which they resorted. The Consul said " here the fi3h»rmen enter and clear, and take out
permits to land their mackerel "rom the collector, and as their mackerel is a free article in
this Island, there can be no illicit trade." In the year 1S70, two United States' fishing
vessels, the " H. W. Lewis " and the " Granada " were seized on like charges in Canadian
waters.

What Mr. Phelps styles " a Customs House regulation " is an Act of the Parliament of
Canada, and has for many years been in force in all the Provinces of the Dominion. It is
one which the Government cannot at all alter or repeal, and which its oflBcers are not at
liberty to disregard.

6. It is suggested, though cot asserted, in the letter of Mr. Phelps, that the penalty
cannot reasonably be insisted on, because a new rule has been suddenly adopted without
notice. The rule, as before observed, is not a new one, nor is its enforcement a novelty.
As the Government of the United States chose to put an end to the arrangements under
which the fishermen of that country were accustomed to frequent Canadian waters with so
much freedom, the obliaation of giving notice to those fishermen, that their rights were there-
after, by the action of their own Government, to be greatly restricted, and that they must
not infringe the laws of Canada, was surely a duty incumbent on the Government of the
United States, rather than on that of Canada. This point cannot be better expressed than
in the language reported to have been recently used by Mr. Bayard, the United States*
Secretary of State, in his reply to the owners of the " George Gushing," a vessel recently-
seized on a similar charge. " You are well aware that questions are now pending between
this Government and that of Great Britain in relation to the justification of the rights of
American fishing vessels in the territorial waters of British North America, and we shall
re. vX no effort to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. In the meantime it is the
duty and manif»^st interest of all American citizens, entering Canadian jurisdiction, to ascer-
tain and obey the Ihws and regulations there in force. For all unlawful depredations of
property or commercial rights this Government will expect to procure redress and compen-
sation for the innocent sufferers."

Inierpr elation of the Treaty.

Mr. Phelps after commenting in the language already quoted from his letter, on the
claim for the Customs penalty, treats, as the only real question in the case, the question
whether the vessel is to be forfeited for purchasing bait to b^ used in lawful fishing. In
following his argument on this point, it should be borne in mind, as already stated, that, in
80 far as the fact of the bait having been intended to be used in lawful fishing is material to
the case, that is a fact which is not admitted. It is one in respect of which the burden of
proof is on the owners of the vessel, and it is one on which the owners have r^* et obtained
an adjudication bv the tribunal before which the case has gone.

Mr. Phelps admits "that if the language of the Treaty of 1818 is to be interpreted
literally, rather than according to its spirit and plain intent, a vessel engaged in fishing would
be prohibited from entering a Canadian port for any purpose whatever, except to obtun
wood or water, or to repair damages, or to seek shelter."

It is claimed on the part of the Government of Canada that this is not only the language
of the Treaty of 1 8 1 8, but " its spirit and plain intent." T.> establish this contention, it should
be sufHcient to point to the clear, unambiguous words of the Treaty. To those clear and
unambiguous words Mr. Phelps seeks to attach a hidden meaning, by suggesting that certain
" preposterous consequences " might ensue from giving them their ordinary construction.
He says that with such a construction a vessel might be forfeited for entering a port " to post

1. 113!

M'l

150

a letter, to send a telegram, to buy a newspaper, to obtain a physician in case of illnes'?, or a
■argeon in case of accident, to land or bring oQ a passenger, or even to lend assistance to the
inhabitants, &o.

There are probably few treaties or statutcB, the literal enforcement of which might not
in certain circumstances produce consequences worthy ot being described as preposterous.

At most this argument can only suggest that in regard to this Treaty as in/egard to
every enactment its enforcement should not be insisted on where accidental hardships or
" preiiosterous consequences are likely to ensue. Equity, and a sense of natural justice, would
doubtless lead the Government with which the Treaty was made to abstain from its rigid
enforcement for inadvertent offences, although the right so to enforce it might bo beyond
question. It is for this reason that inasmuch rs the enforcement of this Treaty, to some
extent, devolves on the Government of Canada, the Parliament of the Dominion has in one
of the sections already quoted of the statute relating to "Fishing by foreign Vessels"
(31 Vic, cap. 61 , H. 19) entrusted the Executive with power to mitigate the severity of those
provisions when an appeal to Executive interference can be justified. In relation to
every law of a penal character the same power for the same purpose is vested in the Execu-
tive. Mr. Phelps will find it difficult, however, to discover any authority among the jurists of
Ills own country or of Great Britain, or among the writers on International Law, lor the position
that against the plain words of a treaty or statute, an interpretation is to be sought which
will obviate all chances of hardship and render unnecessary the exercise of the Executive
power before mentioned.

It might fairly be urged against his argument, that the Convention of 1818 is less open
to an attempt to change its plain meaning than even a statute would be. The latter is a
declatation of its will by the supreme authority of the State, the former was a compact
deliberately and solemnly made by two parties, each of whom expressed what he was willing
to concede, and by what terms it was willing to be bound. If the purpose for which the
United States desired that their fishing vessels should have the right to enter British Ameri-
can waters included other than those expressed, their desire cannot avail them now, nor be
a pretext for a special interpretation, after they assented to the words «'and for no other
purpose whatever." If it was " preposterous " that their fishermen should be precluded from
entering Provincial waters "to post a letter " or for any other of the purposes which Mr.
Phelps mentions, they would probably never have assented to a treaty framed as this was.
Having done so, they cannot now urge that their language was " preposterous " and that its
effect must be destro; ed by resort to "interpretation "

But that which Mr. Phelps calls " literal intejpretation" is by no means so preposterous
as he suggests, when the purpose and object of the treaty come to be considered. While it
was not desired to interfere with ordinary commercial intercourse between the people of tli&
two countries, the deliberate and declared purpose existed on the part of Great Britain, and
the willingness existed on the part of the United States to secure, absolutely and freo from
the pos-sibility of encroachment, the fisheries of the British possessions in America, to the
people of those possessions, excepting as to certain localities in respect of which special
provisions were made. To t ffect this it was not merely necessary that there should be a joint
declaration of the right which was to be established, but that means should be taken to pre-
serve that right. For this purpose a distinction was necessarily drawn between United
States' vessels engaged in commerce and those engaged in fishing. While the former had
free access to our coasts, the latter were placed under a strict prohibition.

1 he purpose was to prevent the fisheries from being poached on, and to preserve them
to "the subjects of His Britannic Majesty in North America" not only for the pursuit of fish-
ing within the waters adjacent to the coast (which can under the law of nations be done by any
country) but as a basis of supplies for the pursuit of fishing in the deep sea. For this purpose
it was necessary to keep cut foreign fishing vessels, excepting in cases of dire necessity, no
matter under what pretext they might desire to come in. The fi->heiies could not be pre-
served to our people if every one of the United States' fishing vessels that were accustomed
to swarm along our coasts could claim the right to enter our harbours, "to pest a letter, or
send a telegram, or buy a newspaper, to obtam a physician in case of illness, or a sur^'eon in
case of accident, to land or bring off a passenger, or even to lend assistance to the inhabit-
ants in fire. Hood or pestilence," or to " buy medicine " or to " purchase a new rope." 'Jhe
slightest acquaintance with the negotiations which led to the Treaty of 181S, and with the
state of the fishery question preceding it, induces the belief that if the United States' negoti-
atois had suggested these, as purposes for which their vessels should be allowed to enter our
waters the proposal would have been rejected as " preposterous," to quote Mr. Phelps' own
words. But Mr. Phelps appears to have over-looked an important part of the case, when he
suggested that it is a "preposterous " coDairuction of the treaty which would lead to the
purchase of bait being prohibited. So far froiu such a construction being against "its spirit
and plain intent," no other meaning would accoid vsiiu that spirit and intent. If we adopt

of illnesi?, or a
sistance to the

hich might not
\ preposterous.
%s in regard to
I hardahijis or
1 justice, would
n from its rigid
ight be beyond
reaty, to some
nion has in one
reign Vessels"
svority of those
In relation to
i in the Execu-
ig the jurists of
lor the position
e sought whicli
the Executive

8 is less open
he latter is a
vas a compact
, he was willing
for which the
British Ameri-
m now, nor be
I for no other
precluded from
)se8 which Mr.
)d as this was.
" and that its

o preposterous
■ed. While it
, people of the
at Britain, and
land frei) from
erica, to the
which special
puldbea joint
taken to pre-
iween United
former had

Jreserve them
lursuit of fish-
i done by any
' this purpose
necessity, no
I not be pre-
accustomed
a letter, or
la sur^'eon iii
Ithe inhabit-
Irope." The
lid with the
fates' negoti-
I to enter our
Phelps' own
fse, when he
head to the
It "its spirit
If we adopt

151

one of the methods, contAnded for by Mr. Phelps, of arriving at the true meaning of the
treaty, namely, having reference to the " attending circimstances," &o., we find that eo-
far from its being considered ly tlie framers of the treaty that a prohibition of the right to
obtain bait would be a " preposterous " and an " extreme instance," a proposition was m ide
by the United States' negotiators that the proviso should read thus : Provided, " however^
that American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such hays and harbours, for the pur-
poses only of obtaining shelter, wood, water and bait," and the insertion of the word " bait"
vas resisted by the British negotiators and struck out. After this how can it be contended
that any rule of interpretation would be sound which would give to United States^ fishermen
the very premiasion which was sought for on their behalf dvring the negotiations, success-
fully resisted bg the British representatives and deliberately rejected by the franura of the
convention 1

It is a well known fact that the negotations preceding the Treaty had reference very
largely to the deep ^ea fisheries, and that the right to purchase bait in the harbours of th&
British possessiors, lor the deep sea fishing was ono which the United States' fishermen were
intentionally excluded from. Referring to the difficulties which subsequently arose from an
entorcement of the Treaty, an American author says : "It will be seen that most of thos»
difficulties arose from a change in the character of the fisheries. Cod being caught on tlia
banks were seldom pursued within the three mile limit, and yet it was to cod, and perhaps
halibut, that all the early negotiations had reference."

"The mackerel fishing had now sprung up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and had proved ex-
tremely profitable. This was at that time an inshore fishery."— (Schuyler's American Diplo-
macy, page 411.)

In further amplification of this argument the undersigned would refer to the views set
forth in the memorandum, before mentioned, in the letters of Mr. Bayard, in May last, and to
those presented in the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, approved on the 14th
Juno, ultimo.

While believing, however, that Mr. Phelps cannot, by resort to any such matters, success-
fully establish a different construction for the Treaty from that whicli its words present, tho
undersigned submits that Mr. Phelps is mistaken a<4 to the right to resort to any matters out-
side the Treaty itself to modify its plain words. Mr. Phelps expresses his contention thus:
'* It seems to me clear that the Treaty may be considered in accordance with those ordinary
and well settled rules, applicable to all written instruments, which, without such salutary
assistance, must constantly fail of their purpose. By these rules the letter often gives way
to the intent , or rather is only used to aseertain the intent, and the whole document will bo
taken together, and will be considered in connection with the attending circumstances, tbo
situation of the parties and the object in view, and thus the literal meaning of an isolated
clause is often shown not to be the meaning really understood or intended. " It may bo
readily admitted that such rules of interpretation exist, but when are they to be applied?
Only when "interpretation" is necessary. When the words are plain in their ordinary
meaning, the task nf interpretation does not begin, Vattel says, in reference to the " Interpro-
tation of Treaties : "

''The first general maxim of interpretation is that, it is not allowable to interpret what
has no nted of interpretation. When the deed is worded in clear and precise terms ; when
its meaning is evident, and leads to no absurd conclusion, there can be no reason for rofusing
to admit the meaning which such deed naturally presents. To go elsewhere in search of
conjectures, in order to re^trict or extend it, is but an attempt to elude it."

Those cavillers who dispute the sense of a clear and determinate article are accustomed
to seek their frivolous subterfuges in the pretended intentions and views which they attribute
to its author. It would be very often dangerous to enter with them into ti.e discussion of
those supposed views th^t are pointed out in the piece itself. The following rule is better
calculated to foil such cavillers and will at once cut short all i icanery. If he who couldf
and ought to have expfained himse'f clearly and fully, has not done it, it is the worse for
him ; he cannot be allowed to introduce subsequent restrictions which he has not expressed.
This a maxim of the Roman Law : Pactionem obseuram iis nocere in quorum fuit po testate
legem apertius eonicribere. The equity of this rule is glaringly obvious and its necessity i»
not less evident." (Vattel's " Interpretation of Treaties" Liv. II, Cap. 17.)

Sedgewich, the American writer, on the " Construction of Statutes," (and treaties are
constructed by much the same rules as statutes), says, at page 194 : "The rule is, as we shall
constantly see, cardinal and universal, that if the statute is plain and unambiguous, there is
no room for construction or interpretation. The Legislature has spoken, their intention
is free from doubt, and their will must be obeyed. ' It may be proper,' it has been said in
Kentucky, in giving a construction to a statute, to look to the effects and consequences,
when its provisions are ambiguous, or the Legislative intention is doubtful. But when the
law is clear and explicit, and its provisions are susceptible of but one interpretation, its con-

153

eequ^^nces, if evil, can only be avoided by a change of the law itself, to be effected by legifllative
and not judicial action. So too it ia said by the Supreme Court of the United States, whem
a law is plain and unambiguouB, whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, the
Legislature should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently
no room is left for construction."

At the tribuDal of Arbitration at Geneva, hold under the Washington Treaty in 1872, a
similar question arose. Counsel for Her M^osty's Government presented a supplemental
argument in which the ordinary rules for the interpretation of Treaties were invoiced. Mr
Evarts, one of the Counsel for the United States, and afterwards Secretary of State, made a
supplemental reply, in which the following passage ooourd : " At the close of the special
argument we find a general presentation of canons for the construction of Treaties, and some
general observations as to the light, or the controlling reason, under which these rules of the
Treaty should he construed. These suggestions may be briefly dismissed. It certainly
would be a very great reproach to these nations, which had deliberately fixed upon three
propositions, as expressive of the law of nations in their judgment for the purposes of this
trial, that a resort to general instructions, for the purpose of interpretation, was necessary.
Eleven canons of interpretation drawn from Vattel are presented in order, and then several
of them, as the case suits, are applied as valuable in elucidating this or that point of the
rules. But the leurned Counsel has omitted to bring to your notice the firut and most general
rule of Vattel, which being once understood, would, as we think, dispense with any
consideration of the subordinate canons, which Vattel has introduced, to bo used only in case
his first general rule does not apply. This first proposition is that " it is not allowable to
interpret what has no need of interpretation," ( Washington Treaty Papers, Vol. 111. pp.
446-7.)

In a letter of Mr. Hamilton Fish to the United States' Minister in England, on the same
subject, dated 1 6th April, 1872, the following view was set forth : —

" Further than this it appears tome that the principles of English and American law (and
they are substantially the same) regarding the construction of Statutes and Treaties and of
written instruments generally, would preclude the seeking of evidence of interest outside the
instrument itself. It might be a painful trial on which to enter, in seeking the opinions and
recollections of parties to bring into cofiflict the differing expectations of those who were
engaged in the negotiation of an mstrument." — (Washington Treaty Papers, Vol. II, page 47."?.)

But even at this barrier, the difficulty in following Mr. Phelps' argument, by which ho
seeks to reach the interpretation he 'esires, does not end after taking a view of the Treaty
which all authorities thus forbid. Ue says : " Thus regarded, it appears to me clear that the
words ' for no other purpose whatever,' as employed in the Treaty, mean ' for no other pur-
pose inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty.' "

Taken in that sense the words would leave no meaning, for no other purpose would bo
consistent with the Treaty, excepting those mentioned.

He proceeds, " or prejudicial to the interests of the Provinces or their inhabitants." if
the United states' authorities are the judges as to what is prejudicial to those interests, the
Treaty will have very little value. If the Provinces are to be the judges, it is most prejudicial
to their interests that United States' fishermen should be permitted to come into their har-
bours on any pretext, and it is fatal to their fishery interests that those fishermen, with whom
they have to compete at such a disadvantage in the markets of the United States, should be
allowed in enter tor supplies and bait, even for the pursuit of the deep sea fisheries. Before
concluding his remarks on this subject, the undersigned would refer to a passage in the
answer on behalf of the United States to the case of Her Majesty's Government, as presented
to the Halifax Fisheries Commission in 1877 : " The various incidental and reciprocal advan-
tages of the Treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are
not the subject of compensation, because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on
the inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can
4it any time be deprived of thin by the enforcement oj existing laws, or the re-enactment oj
former oppressive Statutes."

Mr. f helps has made a lengthy citation from the Imperial Act, 59 Geo. HI, cap. 38, for
the purpose of establishing : —

1st. That the penalty of forfeiture was not incurred by any entry into British ports, unless
accompanied by fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prohibited limits.

2nd. That it was not the intention of Parliament, or its understanding of the Treaty, that
any other entry should be regarded as an infraction of the provisions of that Act.

As regards the latter point it seems to be effectually disposed of by the quotation which
Mr. Phelps has made. The Act permits fishermen of the United States to enter mto the
bays or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America for the purposes named in
the Treaty, "and for no other purpose whatever," and after enacting the penalty of forfeiture,
in regard to certain offences, provides a penalty of £200 sterling agaiast any person other

by log'mlative
States, where
ed terms, the

consequently

a,ty in 1872, a
supplemental
nvoked. Mr
^tate, made a
f the special
,ies, and some
e rules of the

It certainly
.d upon three
rposes of this
ras necessary.
1 then several

point of the
1 most general
Qse with any
jd only in case
ot allowable to
, Vol. ill. pp.

i, on the same

rican law (and
I'reaties and of
ast outside the
e opinions and
hose who were
1. II, page 473.)
it, by which be
V of the Treaty
clear that the
no other pur-
pose would bo

labitants." If
interests, the
ost prejudicial
into their har-
n, with whom
es, should be
eries. Before
assage in the
, as presented
procal advan-
supplies, are
uch rights on
and who can
enactment of

|I, cap. 38, for

[ports, unless

Treaty, that

ptation which
Iter into the
^es named in
fof forfeiture,
lersou other-

153

wise olFenrling against the Act. It cannot, theroforo, be .sucoeasfuliy contended th.it
rarliatnent intended to permit entry into the British American waters for the purchase of
bait or for any other than the purposes specified in the Treaty.

As to the first ^)oint it is to be observed that the penalty of forfeiture was expressly

itronounoed as applicable to the oflonce of fishing or preparing to fi^li. It may be thit for-
eiture is incurred by other illegal entry, contrary to the Treaty and contrary to the Statute.
It may also be contended that preparing within the prohibited limits to fi'ih in any place ia
the onence at which the penalty is aimed, or it may be that the preparing within these
wia<(rs to fish, is evidence of preparing to lUh witfiin the prohibited waters under the Imperial
Stittute, and ospoci'.Uy under the Canadian Statute which places the burden of proof on the
defendant.

The undersigned does not propose, at this time, to enter into any elaborate argument to
slinw the grounds on which the penalty of forfeiture is available, because that question is one
which is more suitable for determination by the courts, to whose decision it has been referred
iu tiio very case under consideration.

The decision in the case of the " David J. Adams " will be soon pronounced, and as the
Govornment of Canada will be bound by the ultimate judgment of competent authority on this
question, and cannot be expected to acquiesce in the view of the United States' Government,
without such julgment, any argument of the case in diplomatic form vvoald be premature
and futile.

In order, however, to show that Mr. Phelps is in error when he assumes that the practi-
cal construction hitherto given to the Treaty is in accordance with his view*", it is as well to
Bta'e that in the year 1815 the Commander of one of Her Majesty's ships of war seized four
United States' fishing vessels, (see Sabine on Fisherirs), and again in 1817 the Imperial
Govornment acted on the view that they had the right to Hehe foreign vessels encroachingon
the fishing grounds. Instructions were issued by Great Britain to seize foreign vessels fishing
or at anchor in any of the harbours or creeks in the British North American poisessione, or
within their maritime jurisdictions, and send them to Halifax for adjudication. Several
vessels were seized and information was fully communicated to the Government of the
United States. This, it will be remembered, was not only before the Treaty, but before the
Imperial Act above referred to.

The following were the words of the Admiralty instructions then issued: "On your
meeting with any foreign vessel fishing or at anchor in any of the harbours or creeks in His
Maje ty's North American Provinces, or within our maritime jurisdiction, you will seize and
send such vessel so trespassing to Hilifax for adjudication, unless it should clearly appear
that they have been obliged to put in there in consequence of distress, acquainting me with
the cause of such seizure, and every other particular, to enable me to give all information to
the liord's Commissioners of the AdmiraUy."

Under these instructions eleven or twelve American fishing vessels were seized in Nova
Scotia on 8th June, 1817, in consequence of their frequenting some of the harbours of that
Provmce.

In 1818 the fishing vessels " Nabby " and " Washington" were seized and condemned for
entering and harbouring in British American waters.

In 1839 the " Java," " Independence," " Magnolia " and " Hart" were seized and confis-
cated, the principal charge being that they were within British American waters without
legal cause.

In 1810 the " Papineau" and " Mary" were seized and sold for purchasing bait.

In the spring of 1819 a United States' fishing vessel named the " Charles " was seized and
condemned in the Vice- Admiralty Cnurt in New Brunswick for having resorted to a harbour
of that Province after warning and without necessity.

In the year 1871 the United States' lishmg vessel "J. H. Nickerson" was seized for hav-
ing purchased bait within three marine miles of the Nova Scotia shore, and condemned by
the judgment of Sir William Young, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, and Judge of *^q Court of
Vice- Admiralty. The following is a passage from his judgment: " The vessel ..^atin not
to obtain water or men, as the allfgition says, but to purchase or procure bait (whic' . as I
take it, is a preparing to fish), and it was contended that they hai a rii^ht to do so, and that
no forfeiture accrued on such entering. The answer is, that if a privilege to enter our har-
bours for bait was to be conceded to American fishermen it ought to have been in the Treaty,
and it is too important a matter to have been accidentally overlooked. We know, indeed,
from the State papers, that it was not overlooked, that it was suggested and declined. But
the Court, as I have already intimated, does not insist upon that as a reason for its judgment.
What may be fairly and justly insisted on is, that beyond the four purposes specified in the
Treaty — shelter, repairs, water and wood — here is another purpose or claim, not specified,
while the Treaty itself declares that no such other purpose or claim shall be received to justify
an entry. It appears to me an inevitable conclusion that the <* J. H. Nickerson " in entering

if"

riii

151

the Bay of Ingonisli fur the purpose of procuring bftit, while there, became liable to forfeiture
and upnn the true construction of the Treaty and Acts of Parliauiunt was legally seixed."
(Vide Halifax Com., Vol. Ill,, pp. 33'J8, Washington Edition).

In view of these seizures and of this deoition it is dilBcult to undorstand the followi-ig
MkBuagPH in the letter of Mr. Pholps : •* The practical construction given to the Treaty, down
to the present time, has been in entire accord with the conclunions thus deduced from the
Act of Parliament. The Britisii Government has repeatodly refused to allow iiuorference
with American fishing vessels, unless for illegal fishing, and has given explicit orders to tho
centrnry.'-

" .ludicial authority upon the question is to the same til'oct. That the purchaso of bait
by American iishermen in the Provmoial ports has been a common practice is woU known,
but in no case, so far as I can ascertain, has a seizure of an American vessel ever boen
enforced on tho ground of tho purchase of l)ait. or of any other supplies. On tho hearing
before the ^lalifax Fishery Commission in 1S77-7S this question was discussed and no case
oould bo produced of any such condemnation. Vessels shown to have been condemned
were in all cases adjudged guilty either of fishing or preparing to fish, within tho prohibited
lunits."

Although Mr. Phelps is under the impression that " in the hearing before the Ilalifajt
Fishery Commission in 1877 this question was discussed ;nd no case could bo produced of
any such condemnation,'' the fact appears in the records of that Commission, as published by
the Government of tho United States, that on a discussion which there nroso, the instancen
above mentioned were nearly all cited, and the judgment of Sir William Young in tho ra'<Pof
the "J. II. Nickerson " was presented in full, and it now appears among tlie papers of that
Oimmis-ion (see Vol. III., Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission, page 3oOS,
Washington edition). Iho decision in the case of the "J. H. Nickerson " was subsequent to
that in the case of the " White Fawn " mentioned to the exclusion of all the other coses
referred to by Mr. Phelps. Whether that decision should be re affirmed oi not is a question
xnore suitable for judicial determination than for discussion here.

Bight of the Dominion Parliament to Make Fishery Enactments.

Mr. Phelps deems it unnecessary to point out that it is not in the power of the Canadian
Parliament to alter or enlaije the provisions of the Act of the Imperial Parliament, or to
^ve to the Treaty a construction or legal effect not warranted by that Act.

No attempt has ever been made by the Parliament of Canada or by that of any of the
Provinces to give a " construction " to the Treaty, but the undersigned submits that tb»
right of the Parliament of (^anada, with the Royal assent given in the manner provided in the
constitution, to pass an Act on this subject to give that Treaty efifect, or to protect tbo
people of Canada from the infringement of the Treaty provisions, is clear beyond question.
An Act of that Parliament duly passed, according to constitutional forms, ha^ as much the
force of law in Canada and binds as fully offenders who may come within its jurisdiction, as
any Act of the Imperial Parliament.

The efforts made on the part of the Government of the United States to deny and refute
the validity of Colonial statutes on this subject have been continued for many years, and in
every instance have been set at naught by the Imperial authorities and by the judicial
tribunals.

In May, 1870, this vain contention was completely abandoned. A circular was issued b?
the Treasury Department at Washington, in which circular the persons to whom it was sent
were authorized and directed to inform all masters of fishing vessels that the authorities ol
the Dominion of Canada had resolved to terminate the system of granting fishing licenses to
foreign vessels.

'The circular proceeds to state the terms of the Treaty of 1818, in order that United
States' fishermen might be informed of the limitation thereby placed on their privileges. It
proceeds further to set out at large the Canadian Act of 1868, relating to fishing by foreign
vessels, which has been hereinbefore referred to.

'Ihe fishermen of the United States were by that circular expressly warned of the nature
of the Canadian statute which it is row once more pretended is without force, biit no intima-
tion was given to those fishermen that these provisions were nugatory, and would be resisted
by the United States' Government. Lost there should be any misapprehension on that
subject, however, on 9th ,Iune of the same year, less than a month after that circular, another
circular was issued from the same Department, stating again the terms of the Treaty of J 818,
and these containinj; the following paragraph : —

" Fishermen of United States are bound to respect the British laws for the regnL-ttion
and preservation of the fisheries, to the same extent to which they are applicable to Britisii
and Canadian fishermen." The same circular, noticing the change made in the Canadian

obi

vel

able to forfeiture
) legally aei/.eil."

[1(1 the followitjg
the Treaty, down
e<luoe(l from the
low inf^iference
Loit ordt'.H to tlw

purchase of bnit
36 is well known,
iressel ever been
. On the hearing
ussed and no case
been condemned
lin the prohibited

Deforo the Halifax
Id bo producod of I
n, as published by
•080, the instances
)ung in the rase of I
he papers of that
lission, page H^'J'*,
was subsequent to
U the other cases
I not is a question

tnts.

rer of the Canadinn
Parliament, or to

lat of any of the
J submits that the
ler provided in the
)r to protect the
' beyotid (luestion.
Ihai a-i much the
I its jurisdiction, a»

lo deny and refute
lany years, and in
by the judicial

alar waa issued by
I whom it was sert
the authorities of I
Wishing licenses to

[•der that United!
tir privileges. It I
Lhing by foreign

Led of the nature]
le, but no intiiua-
lould be resided I
Ihension on that I
Icircular, another I
) Treaty of J 8 18, 1

the regnlfttioni
iicable to British I
In the CanaJiaol

Fishery Act of 1868, hy the Amendment of 1870, makes this observation : "It will be
observed that the warnmg formerly given is not required under the amended Act, but that
vessels trespassing ate liable to seizure without such warning."

The Canadian Statute of 1886.

Mr. Fhelps is again under an erronous impression, with regard to the statute introduced
at the last seusion of the Dominion Parliament.

He is informed that "since the seizure the Canadian authorities have pressed, or are
pressing through the Canadian Parliament, in much haste, an Act, which is designed, for the
first time in the history of the legislation under this Treaty, to make the facts upon which the
American vessels have been seized illegal, and to authorize proceedings against them therefor."

The following observations are appropriate in relation to this passage of Mr. Phelps'
letter:-

1. The Act which he refers to, was not pressed with haste. It waa passed through the
two Houses in the usual manner, and with the observance of all the usual forms. Its pas-
sage occupied probably more time than was occupied in the passage through the Congress of
the United States, ol a measure which possesses much the same character, and which will be
referred to hereafter.

2. 'J he Act has no bearing on the seizures referred to.

3. It does not make any Act illegal which was legal before, but declares what penalty
attaches to the ofiTences which were already prohibited.

It may be observed, in reference to the charges of "undue haste" and of " legislating for
(he first time in the history of the legislation under the Treaty," that before the Statute re-
ferred to had become law the United t^tates' CongrcFH passed a Statute containing the follow-
ing section :—

" That whenever any foreign country whose vessels have been placed on the same foot-
ing in the ports of United States as American vessels (the coastwise trade excepted) shall
deny to any vessels of the United States any of the commercial privileges accorded to national
vessels in the harbours, ports, or waters of such foreign country, th3 President, on receiving
tatisfartory information of the continuance ol such discriminations against any vessels of the
United States, is hereby authorized to issue his proclamation, excluding, on aad after such
time as be may indicate, from the exercise of such commercial privileges in the j>orts of the
United States as are denied to American vessels in the ports of such foreign country, all
vessels of such foreign country of a similar character to the vessels of the United States thus
discriminated against and suspending such concessions previously granted to the vessels of
such country, and on and after the date named in such proclamation for it to take effect,
ii the master, officer or agent of any vessel of such foreign country excluded by said pro-
clamation from the exercise of any commercial privileges shall do any act prohibited by said
proclamation, in the ports, harbours, or waters of the United States for or on account of such
vessel, such vessel, and its rigging, tackle, furniture and boats, and all the goods on board
shall le liable to seizure and to forfeiture to the United States, and any person opposing any
officer in the United States in the enforcement of this Act, or aiding and abetting any other
person in such opposition', thall forfeit eight hundred dollars, and shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years. " Sec : 17 of Act No. 85 of Congres-j, 1886.

This enactment has all the features of hostility which Mr. Phelps has stigmatized as
"unprecedented in the history of legislation under the Treaty."

Enforcement of the Act3 Without Notice.

Mr. Phelps insisted upon what he regards as "obvious grounds of reason and justice "
and " upon common principles of comity, " that previous notice should have been given of
the "new and stringent restrictions" it was intended to enforce.

It has already been shown that no new restrictions have been attempted. The case of
the "David J. Adams" is proceeding under the Statutes which have been enforced during
the whole time when the Treaty had operation.

It is true that for a short time prior to the Treaty of Washington, and when expectations
existed of such a Treaty being arrived at, the instructions of 1870, which are cited by Mr.
Phelps, were issued by the Imperial authorities. It is likewise true that under these instruc-
tions the rights of Her Majesty's subjects in Canada were not insisted on, in their entirety.
These instructions were obviously applicable to the particular time at which and the particular
circumstances under which they were issued by Her Majesty's Government.

!':1

16S

.ij

But it i° obviously unfair to invoke them now, under wholly dififerent circumstances, as
eHtablishing a '■ practical construction " of tho Treaty, or as atibrding any ground for claiming
tliat the indulgence which they extended should be perpetual.

The fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington were annulled by a notice from tho
Government of the United States, and, as has already been urged, it would seem to have
been the duty of that Government, rather than of the Government of Canada, to have warned
its wn people of the consequences which must ensue. This was done in 1870 by the cir-
culars from the Treasury Department at Washington, and might well have been done at this
time.

Mr. Phelps has been pleased to stigmatize " the action of the Canadian authority in
seizing and still detaining the < David J. Adams ' as not only unfriendly and diacourteous,
but altogether unwarrantable."

He proceeds to state that that vessel " had violated no existing law," although his letter
cites the statute which she had directly and plainly violated, and be states that she " had
incurred no penalty that any known statute imposed," while he has quoted at large the
words which inflict a penalty for the violation of that statute. He declares, it seems impos-
sible for him to escape the conclusion that " this and similar seizures were made by the
Canadian authorities for the deliberate purpose of harassing and embarrassing the American
fishing vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment," and that the injury is " very much
aggravated by the motives which appear to have prompted it."

He professes to have found the real source of the difficulty in " the irritation which has
taken place among a portion of the Canadian people, on account of the termination by the
United States' Government of the Washington Treaty," and in a desire to drive the United
States, by " harassing and annoying their fishermen, into the adoption of a now Treaty, by
which Canadian fish shall be admitted free," and he declares that " this scheme is likely
to prove as mistaken in policy as it is unjustifiable in principle."

He might, perhaps, have more accurately stated the real source of the difflculty had he
suggested that the United States' authorities have long endeavoured, and are still endeavour-
ing, to obtain that which, by their solemn Treaty, they deliberately renounced, and to
deprive the Canadian people of that which by Treaty the Canadian people lawfully acquired.
The people oi the British North American Provinces, ever since the year 1818 (with the
exception of those periods in which the Reciprocity Treaty and the Fishery clauses of the
Washington Treaty prevailed) have, at enormous expense, and with great diflSculty, been
protecting their fisheries against encroachments by fishermen of the Un ted States, carried
oa under every form and pretext, and aided by such denunciations as Mr. Phelps has thought
proper to reproduce on this occasion. They value no less now than they formerly did the
rights which were secured to them by the Treaty, and they are still indisposed to yield those
rights, either to individual aggression or official demands.

The course of the Canaiiian Government since the rescission of the Fisherj clauses of
the Washington Treaty has been such as hardly to merit the aspersions which Mr. Phelps
hii8 used. In ord<. r to avoid irritation, and to meet a desire which the Government repre
eented by Mr. Phelps professed to entertain for the settlement of all questions which c mid
re-awaken controversy, they conceded, for six months, after the expiration of those clauses,
all the benefits which tue United States' fishern-en had e lyed under them, although during
that interval the Government of the United States enforced against Canadian fishermen the
Jaws which those fishery clauses had suspended;

Mr. Bayard, the United States' Secretary of State, has made some recognition of these
facts in a letter which he is reported to have written recently to the owners of the " David J.

Adams." He says

" More than one year ago I sought to protect our citizens engaged in fishing from
results which mightattend any possible misunderstanding between the (Governments of Great
Britain and the United states, as to the measure of their mutual rights and privileges in the
territorial waters of British North America. After the termination of the Fishery Articles of
the Trei'ty of Washington, in June last, it seemed to me then, and seems to me now, very
hard that differences of opinion between the two Governments should cause loss to honest
citizens, whose line of obedience might be thus rendered vague and uncertain, and their pro-
perty be brought into jeopardy. Influenced by this feeling I procured a temporary arrange
nicnt, which secured our fishermen full enjoymont of all Canadian fisheries, free froni
anolestation, during a period which would permit discussion of a just interns tional settlement
of the whole fishery question ; but other counsels prevailed, and my efforts further to protect
fishermen from such troubk as you now suffer, were unavailing."

" At the end of the interval of ' x months, the United States' authorities concluded to
refrain from any attempt to negotiatvj for larger fishery rights for their people, and they have
continued to enforce their Customs laws against the fishermen and people of Canada.

Ihl

157

umstances, as
id for claiming

ttice from the
aeem to have

have warned
170 by the cir-
n done at this

a authority in
discourteous,

lOUgh his letter
that she "had
,ed at large the
it seems impos-
e made by the
ig the American
r is " very much

ation which has
(lination by the.
rive the United
i new Treaty, by
cheme is likely

difficulty had he

1 still endeavour-
lounced, and to
kwfuUy acquired,
ir 1818 (with the
■y clauses of the
t difficulty, been
pd States, carried
lelpshas thought
formerly did the
ed to yield those

isherj clauses of
iich Mr. Phelps
rernment repre
jns which c mid
pf those clauses,
[although during
|in fishermen the

ignition of these
St the " David J.

[in fishing from

nments of Great

^^rivileges in the

[hery Articles of

J me now, very

[o loss to honest

\ and their pro-

Iporary arrange

^ries, free from

pnal settlement

fther to protect

concluded to
, and they have |
madft.

The least they could have been expeobed to do under these circumstances was to leave
to the people of Canada the full and unquestioned enjoyment of the rights secured to them
by Treaty.

The Government of Canada has simply insisted upon those rights, and has presented to
the legal tribunals its claim to have them enforced.

The insinuations of ulterior motives, the imputations of unfriendly dispositions, and the
singularly inaccurate representation of all the leading features of the questions under dis-
cussion may, it has been assumed, be passed by with little more comment. They are
hardly likely to induce Her Majesty's Government to sacrifice the rights which they have
heretofore helped our people to protect, and they are too familiar to awaken indignation or
surprise.

The undersigned respectfully recommends that the substance of this memorandiun, if
approved, be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, lor the information of
iter Majesty's Government.

(Sd.) JNO. S. D. THOMPSON,

Minister of Justice.
Ottawa, 22nd July, 1886.

No. 148.

Lord Lansdoione to Mr. Stanhope.

CA^ADA, Government House,

Ottawa, 9th Nov., 188G.

Sir, — In accordance with the request contained in your telegram of the 2n(l

instant, 1 have the honour to forward herewith a certified copy of the

^"f N^'ee^"" ^ ^''^ entitled, "An Act further to amend the Act respecting Fishing by

" "■ ■ Foreign Veseols," which was passed by the Parliament ct Canada last

session.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

The Right Honourable

Edwahd Stanhope.
&c., &c., &c.

{Telegram.) No. 149.

Sir L. S. West to the Governor General.

Washington, D.C, 17ih November, 1886.
"My despatch No. 22, of 28th ultimo, am instructed to ask you for information
desired for communication to United States' Government."

(Sd.; WEST.

No. 150,
Mr. Stanhope to the Governor General.

I [No. 24 1.]

Downing Street,

22nd November, 1886.

Mr Lord, — With reference to my telegram of the 6th instant, I have the honour
I to transmit to' you, for communication lo your Government, copies of two letters from
the Foreign Officio, with tLeir encloriuicB, res'peoling the alleged pioooedin_:B ot Ihd

■:4

Ctinadian authorities in the ca«e of the United States' fiilii.^g vestela " Pearl Nelson"
and " Bveritt Steele."

I shall, no doubt, be favored shortly with the ret t on the subject requested in
ray ielegram.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPE.

Govsrnor General,

The Most Honourable

The Marquis of Lansdownb, G.C.M.G.,

&C., &G., &C.

[Bnelosure No. 1.]
The Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

Foreign Office, 4th November, 1886.

Sir,— I am directed by the Earl of Id. ^eigh to transmit to you a copy of a despatch
from Her Majesty's Minister at Washiugto.-, remonstrating against the action of the Can-
adian authorities in det;ining the United States' fishing vessel "Everitt Steele," which is
alleged to have entered Shelburne Harbour for shelter, water, and repairs.

I am to request that u will move Mr. Secretary Stanhope to ask for an imme ,te
report from the Cauadiati ixovernment upon the circumstances of this case ; and I am to
suggest that the opportunity might perhaps be talten to urge upon tlie Dominion Govern-
ment the great importance of issuing stringent instructions to all officials connected with the
fisheries to tlie effect that great care should be taken not to interfere with the privilege'<
expressly reserved to American fishermen under Article I of the Convention of 1818.

I am, <&c.,

The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.) J. 1 AUNCEFOTE.

:■>..;.. 1

[Enclosure No. 2.]
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddealeigh.

[Treat) No. 90.] Washington, 20th October, 18S6.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith copy of a note whicli
I have received from the Secretary of State, bringing to the notice of Her Majesty's drovern-
ment the case of the United States' fishing vessel " Everitt Steele," which is alleged to have
entered the Port of Shelburne, Nova Sootia, for shelter, water and repairs, and to have been
detained by the captain of the Canadian cruiser " Terror."

I have, &c.,

The Earl of lonESLEiOH,
&c., &c., &c.

(Sd.)

L. S. S. WEST.

[BacIoBtire No.3.]
Mr, Bayard to Sir L. West.

Washington, 19th October, 1886,

Sir, — The " Everitt Steele," a fishing vessel of Gloucester, Mass., in the United States,
of which Chas. E. Forbes, an American citizen, was mister, was about to enter, on the 10th of
September, 1886, the harbour of Shelburne, Nova Sootia, to procure water, and for shelter
during repairs. She was hailed when entering the harbour by the Canadian cutter '• Terror,"
by whose Captain, Quigley, her papers were taken and retained. Captain Forbes on arriving
off the town anchored and went ,with Captain Quigley to the Custom House, who asked

159

irl Nelson "
feq^uested in

HOPE.

iber, 1886.
f a despatch
of the Can-
lie," which is

an imine .te
and I am to
inion Govern-
ected with the
the privileges
f 1818.

DEFOTE.

bber, 1886.

If a note which
Tosty'a orovern-
lleged to have
Ito have been

WEST.

Iber, 1886,

Inited State:?,
the 10th of
fd for shelter
ler '• Terror,"
Is on arriving
who asked

him whether he reported whenever he had come in. Captain Forbes answered that he had
always reported with the exception of a visit on the 25th of March, when he was driven into
the lower harbour for shelter by a storm and where he remained only eight hours. The
collector did not consider that this made the vessel liable, but Captam Quigley refused to
discharge her ; said hf would keep her until he heard from Ottawa, put her in charge
of policemen and detained her until next day, when at noon she was discharged by the
collector.

But a calm having come on she could not get to sea, and by the delay her bait was
spoiled and the expected profits of her trip lost.

It is scarcely necessary for mt to remind you, in presenting this case to the considera-
tion of your Government, that when the north-eastern coast of America was wrested from
France in a large measure Jby the valour and enterprise of New England fishermen the7
enjoyed in common with other British subjects, the control of the fisheries with which that
coast was enriched ; and that by the Treaty of Peace of 1783, which, as was said by aa
eminent English judge when treating an analogous question, was a treatv of" Separation,'*
this "T^ht was expressly affirmed. It is true that by the Treaty of 1818, the United States
renounced a portion of its rights in these fisheries, retaining, however, the old prerogatives of
visiting the bays and harbours of the British north-eastern possessions for the purpose of ob-
taining wood, water and shelter, and for objects incidental to those other rights of territoriality
Eo retained and confirmed. What is the nature of these incidental prerogatives, it is not, in
considering this case, necessary to di ;• uss. It is enough to aay that Captain Korbes entered the
harbour oi Shelburne to obtain shelter and water, and that he had as much right to be there,
under the Treaty of 18 IS, confirming in this respect the ancient privileges of American
fishermen on those coasts, as he would have had on high seas, carrying on, under shelter of
the flag of the United States, legitimate commerce. The Government which you so honour-
ably represent has with its usual candour and magnanimity conceded tliat when a merchant
I vessel of the United States is stopped in time of peace by a British cruiser on the grounds of
j being a slave trader, damages are to be paid to this Government, not m^^rely to redress the
injuries suffered, but as an apology for the insult offered to the ilag of the United States,
1 But • ;' now presented to you is a much stronger one than that of a seizure on the high
1 6ea€ .1 i, ■■! I J unjustly suspected of being a slaver. When a vessel is seized on the high seas
on suv."!. iispicion, its seizure is not on waters where its rights, based on prior and conti-
nuous ownership are guaranteed by the sovereign m.ikiiig the seizure. If in such case the
property of the owners is injured, it is, however wrongful the Act, a case of rare occurrence
on seas comparatively unfrequented, with consequences not very iar reaching ; and if a blow
is struck at a system of which euch vessel is unjustly supposed to be a part, such system is
I one which the civilized world execrates.

But seizures of the character of that which I now present to you have no such
I features. They are made in waters not only conquered and owne i by American fishermen,
but for the very purpose for which they were being used by Cap ain Forbes, guaranteed to
them by two successive Treaties between the United States and Gi .^at Britain. These fisher-
men also, I may be permitted to remind you, were engaged in no nefarious trade. They
pursue one of the most useful and meritorious of industries; they gather from the seas,
I without detriment to others, a food which is nutritious and cheap for the use of an immense
population; they belong to a stock of men which contributed, before the revolution, most
I essentially to British victories on the north-eastern Atlantic ; and it may not be out of place to
JEay they have shown since that revolution, when serving in the navy of the United
I States, that they have lost none of their ancient valour, hardihood and devotion to their flag.
I The indemnity which the United States has claimed, and which Great Britain has con-
I ceded, for the visitation and search of isolated merchantmen seized on remote African seas
Ion unfounded suspicion of being slavers, it cannot do otherwise now than claim, with a gravity
JBhich the importance of the case demands, for its fishermen seized on waters in which they
Ihave as much right to traverse for shelter aa have vessels by which they are molested. This
Ishelter, it is important to observe, they will, as a class, be debarred from if annoyances such
m I now submit to you are permitted to be inflicted on them by minor officials of the
iBritish Provinces.

Fishermen, as you are aware, have been considered, from the usefulness of their occupa-
jtion, from their simplicity, from the perils to which they are exposed, and from the small
l')uantity of provisions and protective implements they are able to carry with them, the
Itards of civilized nations, and it is one of the peculiar glories of Great Britain that she has
luken the position, a position now generally accepted, that even in time of war, they are not to
lie the subjects of capture by hostile cruisers. Yet in defence of this immunity, thus generously
liwarded by humanity and the laws of nations, the very shelter which they own in these
jfeas, and which is ratified to them by two successive Treaties, is to be denied to them, not, I
°"i confident, by the act of the wise, humane and magnanimous Government you represent,

" t!

160

but by deputies of deputies permitted to pursue, not uninfluenced by local rivalry, these
methods of annoyance in fishing waters which our fishermen have as much right to visit on
lawful errands as those officials have themselves. For let it be remembered that by annoy-
ances and expulsions such as these, the door of shelter is shut to American fi^^hermen as a
class.

If a single refusal of that shelter such as the present be sustained, it is a refusal of shelter
to all fishermen pursuing their tasks in those inhospitable coasts. Fishermen have not funds
enough, or outfit enough, nor I may add, recklessness enough, to put into harbours where,
perfect as is their title, they meet with such treatment as that suflered by Captain Forbes.

To sanction such treatment, therefore, is to sanction the refusal to the United States
fishermen as a body of that shelter to which they are entitled by ancient right, by the law of
nations, and by solemn Treaty. >or is this all. That Treaty is part of a system of mutual
concessims. as was stated by a most eminent English Judge in the case of Sutton v. Sutton,
(I Nyl V. r. 675), which I have already noticed, it was the principle of the Treaty of Peace
and of th?^ Treaties which followed between Great Britain and the United States, that the
** subjects of the two parts of the divided empire should be, notwithstanding the separation,
protected in the mutual enjoyment " of the rights these Treaties affirmed. If, as 1 cannot
permit myself to believe, Great Britain should refuse to ciiiiiens of the United States the
enjoyment of the plainest and most undeniable of these rights, the consequences would be so
serious that they cannot be contemplated by this Government but with the gravest concern.

I have, &c.,

The Honourable

Siu L. West, K.C.M.G.,

(Sd.) T. F BAYARD.

Ac,

&c., &0.

[Enclosure No. 4.]
The Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.

Foreign Office, 4th November, 1886.

Sir,— I am directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid before Mr.
Secretary Stanhope, a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington con-
taining a protest from Mr. Bayard againt the action of the Customs oflScials at Arichat in the j
case of the 4 merican fishing vessel '' Pearl Nelson," and I am to request that the Canadian
Govern: aent may be asked to furnish a report on the subject.

I am, &c,,

The UnierSecketary of State,
Colonial OfiSce.

(Sd.)

J. PAUNCEFOTE.

[Eaclosare No. 6.]
Sir L. West to the Earl oj Iddesleigh.

£Treaty No. 91.]

Washington, 21st October, 18S6.

My Loru,— In connection with my preceding despatch, I have the honour to enclose to j
Your Lordship herewith copy of a further note which I have received from the Secretary d'\
8tate, together with copy of the document which accompanied it, drawing the attention of JJerl
Majesty's Government to the case as therein set forth of the United States' fishing vesself
"Pearl Nelson," which it is alleged, has been subjected to treatment by the CustouisJ
officials at Arichat (N.S.) inconsistent with the national law of ordinary amity and hospit;ility.|
and also plainly violative of treaty rights under the Convention of 1818 between Uicat|
Britain and the United States.

I have, &c,,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

The Earl of Iddesleioii,

&o., Sec, &C.

161

rivalry, these
ht to visit on
latby annoy-
ihermen as a

Hisal of shelter
lave not funds
iibours where,
tain Forbes.
United States
, by the law of
Item of mutual
tton V. Sutton,
'reaty of Peace
tates, that the
the reparation,
If, as 1 cannot
lited States the
ces would be so
ravest concern.

f BAYARD.

vember, 1886.

)e laid before Mr.

Washington con-

at Arichat in tlie

Ihat the Canadian

luNCEFOTE.

Ictober, 1886.
lur to enclose tol
Ithe Secretaryo.l
] attention oi Herl
les' Hshing vesseil
w the Cusiouisl
■andho'^piti'lil;'!
between GicRl

5. S. WE^T.

[Eaclosure No. 6.]
Mr. Bayarji to Sir L. West.

WiSHiNaTON, 20th October, 1886.

Sir,— Permit me to ask you to draw the attention of jour Government to the case set
forth in the enclosed affidavit of Murdoch Kemp,masteroftiie American fishing vessel "Pearl
Nelson," of Provincetown, Mass., which has been subjected to treatment by the Customs
officials at Arichat, Nova Scotia, inconsistent with the international law of ordinary amity and
bosptality, and also plainly violativeof treaty rights under the Convention of 1818, between
Great Britain and the United States.

The vessel in question was compelled by stress of weather to seek shelter in the harbour
of Arichat, N.S., and arrived late at night when the Custom House was closed. Before the
Custom House was opened the next day the captain went there, and after waiting over an
hour, the collector arrived and the usual inward report was made and permission asked to
land the clothing of a sailor lost overboard, whose family resided in that vicinity.

He was then u. ormed that his vessel was seized for allowing his crew to go ashore the
night before, before reporting at the Custom House.

The cruel irony of this was apparent when the Collpf-^or knew such repoiLwaa impossible
and that the landing of the crew was usual find customary, and that no charge of smuggling
had been suggested or was possible under the circumstances.

To compel the payment of a fine or a deposit of $200, yhich is practically the same in its
results, was harsh and unwarranted and was adding a price and a penalty to the privilege
of shelter guaranteed to American fishermen by treaty.

This vessel was a fishing vessel, and although seeking to exercise no commercial
privileges was cooipelled to pay commercial fees, such as are applicable to trading vessels ;
but at the same time was not allowed commercial privileges.

I beg you will lose no time in leijresen ting the wrong inllicted upon an unofifending
citizen of the United States, and procure the adoption of such orders as will restore the money
so compelled to be deposited.

I am, &n.,

(Sd) T. F. BAYARD.

The Honourable SirL. West, K.C.M.G.,
&c , &c., &c.

[Boclosure No. 7.)
Schooner "Fearl Nelson" U. S. A., District of Massachusetts.

Ij Murdoch Kemp, of Provincetown, Massachusetts, a citizen of the United States, on
my oath do say : '1 hat I was master and part owner of tho schooner "Pearl Nelson," a vessel
of the United States, duly licensed,— 1886, for the fisheries, and holding a permit to touch
and trade during the existeloce of said license.

I further say that the crew of tlie said vessel were shipped on wages at Provincetown and
Boston for a fishing voyage to the Grand Bai... s and return to Provincetown for discharge,
tjaid echooTier with license and permit as aforesaid, sailed May 29th, 1886, from Province-
town, and on her passage home touched at Arichat, Cape Breton, driven in there by strtss
of weather; sailed by the wind from Banquereau and blowing fresh, a heavy sea runnmg, and
foggy, made Point Michaux, nine miles from Arichat. The vessel was deep, h^ dorys floated
on deck in her lee waist, wind being about west. I concluded to make a harbour and wait
lor better weather and wind.

I anchored the vessel in Arichat Harbour at 11 p.m., September 7th, 1886.

I had lost a man » n the Grand Banks named James ."ampson, who belonged to Aiichat,
and I wanted to land his effects if the Customs officer would allow me to. Some of my
crew belonged in that neighborhood. William Batino, my cook, and nine others of my crew
took boats eft' the deck and went ashore without asking my permission. I saw them, but
had never known that was any objection. I had been in this and other British and American
porta frequently, and witnessed the landing from my own and other vessels crews, but never
before heard such landing was illegal or improper. These men took nothing with them from
Jbfi vessel, nor carried away anything but the clothes they wore.

From the time I left Provincetown I had been into no port anywhere. Next morning
after my arrival in Arichat, at 8.30 o'clock, I went ashore to enter at the Custom House, and
found it closed. I called at 9 o'clock and it was not open. I went again at 10 o'clock, and
166—11

162

found the Collector opening the office door. I made the regular inward report to him, and
requested permission to land the clothes of James Sampson, who had been lost from my vessel
on the Qrand Banks.

He told me he bad sent a man for me. After I got there this man came in the office and
was holding tny papers, and told the man to go back and take charge of the vessel.

I asked him why he held my papers. He replied he seized her because I had allowed
my men to go ashore before reporting at the Custom House ; that all he could tell me was,
he said he would telegraph to Ottawa and find out what to do with me, and he did telegraph
immediately. About 5 o'clock, p.m., the Collector received an answer and told me to dnpositi
$200 and the vessel would be released. The Collector would not allow me to land this dead
man's clothes until after I had paid the $200 liue. I gave the clothes to the shop-keeper to
be given to Sampson's widow or friends. I caaxe out of Arichat about 11 a.m. on the 8th of
September, IS^G, having "bought there one bushel of potatoes, with the Collector's permit,
and arrived (at) Province town, 14th September, 1886.

I sailed from Arichat with all my crew on board, and had not at any time intended to
leave any of my crew at that port. They were hired men, shipped to be discharged on
return at Provincetown, and on our arrival there were all paid oil and discharged. Some of
the crew that went ashore at Ariohat returned aboard as early as 7 o'clock, and all were
aboard about the time the vessel was seized. I gave them no money there and had none
myself. I further say I did not enter Arichat with any intention of violating any law of the
Dominion of Canada, nor for any business, but solely because of the stress of weather that
had driven me there. It was mere kindness only that prompted me to offer to land Sampson's
clothes there where his friends could get them. There was no profit to the vessel, crew or
myself expected ?n so doing, or attempted to be gained in entering the port of Arichat other
than shelter from the stress of weather we had been under from Banquereau. If any revenue
law of Canada was violated by my vessel, or by myself, the same was donf* through ignorance
and inadvertence, and not with any intention to defraud the revenue or offend the law.

Personally appeared before me, Murdoch Kemp, at Provincetown, State of Massachu-
setts, U.S.A., this 27th day of September, 1886, wlio subscribed and made oath to the
foregoing.

[SBAI..]

(Sd.) Jamks Gifpord,

Notary Public.

(Sd.) MURD(tCH KEMP.

No. 151.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General.

London, 26th November, 1886.

If DO agreement with the United States has been reached before next fishing
season, the Admiralty has agreed to give due support to the Fisheries police by the
presence of a cruiser. Instructions are now being considered.

(Sd.) SECRETARY OF STATE.

No. 162.
The Governor General to Mr. Stanhope.

[No. 282.]

Ottawa, 29th November, 1886.

Sir, — With reference to your telegraphic message of the 6th inst., asking to be
furnished with a report in the case of the " Pearl Nelson " and " Everitt Steele," I
have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy
Council of Canada, embodying a report of my Minister of Marine and Fisheries to
'^ivhicb is appended a copy ot the oorrespondence which has passed between tho

163

;o him, and
1 my vessel

9 office and
1.

lad allowed
ell me was,
li telegraph
i to doipositi
id this dead
p-keeper to
n the Sth of
tor's pennit,

intended to
icharged on
i. Some of
and all were
dhftd none
y law of the
(veather that
id Sampson's
i3sel, crew or
^richat other
'any revenue
gh ignorance
lio law.
of Ma33achu-
> oath to the

KESMP.

^r, 1886.
lext fishing
[olice by the

,, 1886.

Iking to bo
I Steele," I
[the Privy
lisheries to
1t\7eoa tho

Commissioner of Customs for Canada and the United States' Consol General at
Halifax relating to the case of the American Bohooner " Pearl Nelson."

I have, &c,,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNBL
The Right HoDoarable,

Edward Stanhopk,

436<7 (A.)

[Eacloaure No. 1.]

Certified Copv of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada^
approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council on the lith JVboem&er, 1886*

The Committee of the Privy Council are in receipt of a telegram from the Right Hon-
ourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the word? " United States Qovernmenb
protest against proceedings of Canadian authorities in case of ' Pearl Nelson ' and ' Evehtt
Steele,' said to have put into Ariohat and Shelburne respectively, for purposes sanctioned
by conveution.— particulars by post, send report soon as possible."

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the telegram was referred, submits a
copy of a letter addressed by the Commissioner of Customs for Canada to the Consul Qeneral
of the United States at Halifax, and also a copy of lit. Phelan's reply thereto.

The Minister also submits that it is clear from Captain Eempt's affidavit that he was guilty
of an infraction of tho Customs regulations in allowing men to land from his vessel before
she had been reported, and the Minister of Customs having favourably considered Captain
Kempt's representations as to his ignorance of the Ctistoms regulation, requiring tha*; vessels
should be reported before landing either men or cargo therefrom, has remitted the fine of
$200 which had been imposed in the case of the American schooner " Pearl Nelson."

The Minister further submits that it would appear from the report of the Collector of
Customs that his remark that " lie would seize tho vessel " had reference solely to her violation
of the Customs law, and that no evidence is given of any desire or intention of denying to the
Captain of the " Pearl Nelson " any treaty privileges he was entitled to enjoy.

The Committee, concurring in the above, respectfully recommend tliat Your Excellency
be moved to transmit a copy of this minate, if approved, to the Right Honourable the
Secretary of State for the Colonies. \

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.)

JOHN J. McGEE,
Clerk Privy Council^ Canada.

[Bnc'.osure No. 2. J

Ottawa, i2n«i '^>maetom, 1886

Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter ol me 11th in».., re
seizure of the American schooner " Pearl Nelson," for a refraction of the Customs laws, Jka,

The Commissioner of Customs' report in connection wito this maUer, which bfM befm
approved by the Minister of Customs, reads as fa^ows : —

" The undersigned having examined this caso, has come fe» the conclusioa that the
captain of the vessel did violate the provisions oi sections 25 and IHOof the Cwtoms Act,
1883, by landing a number of his crew before going to the Custom House to ^wp^wt, Tb*». Ua
plea oi' having come into port solely from ' stress of wea'-ier ' is inconsist^m with the u i i«b^
stances, and is denied by the Collector of Custom>, who reports that ' «he night wa» on* «C
the finest and most moderate experienced there this summer,' and that ' his crew ware
lauded early in the morning.' That even if the 'stress of weather' plea was sustained^
la ts, it would not exempt him from tho legal requirement of reporting his vessel beiwo
* breaking bulk ' or landing his crew, audit is evident that there was nothing to hinder his
reporting as the crew appear to have had no difSculty in handling the vessel's boats. That
it was very easy for the crow, or any of them, to have taken valuable contr^iand goods
asliore on their persons, in the absence of any Customs Officer at the landing; piaoe. Inas-
mucli, however, as there is no charge of actual smuggling preferred against lUic vessel, the
166 -Hi

*
.!ii

164

undersigned respectfully recommends that the deposit of 9200 be refuaded, deducting there-
from any expenses incurred."

(Sd.) J. JOHNSON.

I trust the above may be considered a satisfactory answer to your letter referred to.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) W. G. PARMELEE,

Assistant Commissioner.
M. E. Phelan, Esq.,

Consul General of the United States, Halifax, N. S.

rBnclosure No. 3.1
United Status' Consulate General,

Halifax, 2nd November, 1886.

Sib, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 22nd
ultimo, concerning the action of the Custcms Department of Canada in the case of the
American schooner ''Pearl Nelson," and to say I was much pleased at the decision arrived
at in that case. I have informed the Government of the United States that the fine, in the
case referred to, was ordered to be refunded.

I have also to say that the Department of State, in acknowledging the receip,t of a des-
patch from me, setting forth that you had placed all the papers, in the cases of theAmerican
BOhooners " Crittenden " and " Holbrook," in my hands for perusal, said, " the attention of
Mr. Parmelee, in referring the matter to you, is appreciated. It shows a proper spirit."

I trust the Department of Customs will pass on the other cases as soon as possible.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) M. H. PHELAN,

Consul General.

No. 163.

The Governor General to Mr. Stanhope.

[No. 283.] Ottawa, 29th November, 1886,

Sib, — I have the honour to transmit herewith, a copy of an approved Minute of
the Privy Council of Canada, furnishing the report abked for in your telegraphic
mesbage of the 6th November, with reference to the detention of the AmericaQ
eohooner « Bveritt Steele " at Sbelbarne, N.S , for an infraction of the Customs regu-
lationa of the Dominion.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.
Tbb Bight HoDOurable

Edwabd Stanhope,

&c, &c., &o.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Cbbttvied 'Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada,
approved by His IheeeUency the Governor General in Ccuncil on the 18th Ifovember, ls86.

The Committee of the Privy Council are in receipt of a telegram from the Right Honour-
able the Secretaiy of State for the Colonies, in the words : " United States' Government
protest again proi^eedingsof Canadian authorities incase of 'Pearl Nelson' and <£veritt

165

itlng there-
NSON.
red to.

.EE.
saioner.

er, 1886.

of the 22nd

case of the

jision arrived

le fine, in the

seipjt of a des-
theAmerican
I attention ot
sr spirit."
, possible.

General.

Dr, 1886.

3d Minute of
telegraphic

te Americaa
iBtoms regu-

)WNE.

ifor Canada,
oember, lt86.

g'' ht Honour-
overnment
\nd 'Everitt

Steele,' said to have put irtc Ariohat and Bhelburne, respectivelv, for purposes aanctioned by
Convention. Particulars >y post. Send report as soon as possible."

The Minister of Maiine and Fisherids, to whom the telegram was referred, submits, that
the schooner "Everitt Steele" appears, from the report of the Collector of Customs at
Shelburne, to have been at that port on the 25th of March last, and sailed without reporting.
On her return to Shelburne in September, she was detained by the Collector of Customs for
an infraction of the Customs law.

The captain having assured the collector that he had been misled by the deputy harbour
master, who informed him his vessel could remain in port twenty-four hours without
entering, and that he had no intention of violating the Customs regulations, this statement
was reported to the Minister of Customs at Ottawa, when the vessel was at once allowed to
proceed to sea, and that no evidence is given of any desire or intention of denying to the
captain of the " Everitt Steele " any Treaty privileges he was entitled to ei\joy.

The Committee, concurring in the above, respectfully recommend that Your Excellency be
moved to transmit a copy of this minute, if approved, lo the Kight Honourable the Secretary
of State for the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.)

JOUN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

No. 154.

Mr. Stanhopt to the Governor General.

[No. 260.] Downing Street, 2nd December, 1886.

Mt Lord, — With reference to yoar despatch of the 9lh ultimo, I have the honour
to transmit to yoa, for commanioation to Your Lirddhip'ii Government, the enclosed
Order of Her Majesty in Coancilof the 26th altimo, aasenting to a Reserved Bill of
the Legislature of Canada, entitled " An Act further to amend the Act respeoting
Fiehing by Foreign Vessels."

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPB.
Governor General the Most Honorable

The Mauquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G.,

&c., &o., &c.

[Enclosare No. 1.]
At the Court at WixDaoR, tub 26tii Day of Novbmbbr, 1886.

Present :
THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY,

Lord President,
Earl of Rosslyn,

Viscount Cross,

Lord Stanley of Preston.

Whereas by an Act passe i in the 30th year of Her Majesty's Reign, entitled "An Act
for the IJnion of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the Government thereof and
for purposes connected therewith," it is amongst other things enacted that a Bill reserved for
the signification of The Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two
years from the date on which it was presented to the Governor General for The Queenls
Assent, the Governor General signifies by Speech or Message to each of the Houses of the
Farhament or by Proclamation that it has received the Assent of The Queen in Council.

And whereas on the 2nd day of June, 1886, the Governor General of Canada reserved a
certain Bill passed by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, entitled " An Act further
to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels" for the signification of Her
Majesty's pleasure thereon. And whereas the said Bill so reserved as aforesaid has beea

166

lud before Her Majesty in Council, and it ia expedient that the said Bill should be aaiented
o by Her Miyesty. . o . ,>

Now therefore, Her M^jcBty, in pursuance of the said Act and in exercise of the Powers
thereby reserved to Her Mtyesty aa aforesaid, doth by this present Order by and with the
advice of Her Majesty's Privy Council declare Her assent to the said Bill.

And the Right Honourable Edward Stanhope, one of Her Mtgesty's Principal Secretariea
of State, is to sive the necessary directions herein accordingly.

' (Sd.) C. L. PEEL

No. 155.

re
U
er

Htlj

The Governor General to the Miniater at Washington.

[No. 81.]

Ottawa, 3td December, 1886.

Sib,— With reference to yoar telegram ot the Itth alt., oallioff attention to yoar
despatch No. 22 of the i^f^th October lant, transmitting a copy of a letter from the
Secretai y of State of tbe United States, with its enclosures, requesting to be farniabed
with aathentio information respecting tbe Canadian laws regulating tbe sale and
exportation of frcbb herring from Grand Uanan Island, I have tbe honor to iOTward
herewith, for communication to Mr. £ayard, a copy of an approved report of a Com-
mittee of tbe Privy Council to which 13 appecded a copy of tbe Castoms laws of
Canada containing the desired information.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.
The Honourable

SiB L. S. West, K.O.M.G ,

&o., &c., &o,

TbI

[BndoBure No. 1.]

Certified Copt of a Beport of a Commitlte of the Honovrahle the Privy Council for Canada,
approved by Hta Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the 24<A JVope7n6er, 18:6.

The Committee of the Privy Council having had their attention called, by a telegram
dated 18th November, inst., from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, to his foimer
despatch of the 28th October, ultimo, enclosing a copy of a note from the Honourable Mr.
Bayard, and enclosures, asking lor authentic infoi mation respecting the Canadian laws
regulating the sale and exportation of fresh herring from Grand Manan Island.

'Ihe Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom said despatch was referred for early
report, states that any foreign vessel " not manned or equipped nor in any way prepared for
taking fish " has full liberty of commercial intercourse in Canadian ports upon the same con-
ditions aa are applicable to regularly registered foreign merchant vessels, nor is any restriction
imposed upon any foreign vessel dealing in fish of any kind different from those imposed upon
foreign merchant vessels dealing in other commercial commodities.

That the regulations under which foreign vessels may trade at Canadian ports are con-
tained in the Crdtoms law of Canada (a copy of which is herewith) and which
Chap. 32 render it necessaiy, among other things, that upon arrival at any Canadian port a
StotQt^* vessel must at once enter inward at the Customs House, and upon the coniple-
*^' tion of her loading clear outwards for her port of destination.

The Committee recommend that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this
minute, together with a copy of the Customs laws as containing authentic information res-
pecting Canadian laws regulating the sale and exportation of fresh herring, to Her Majesty's
Minister at Washington, for the information of the Honourable Mr. Bayard, Secretary of
fitate for the United States.

(Sd.) J. J. McGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council,

167

) assented

lie Powers
, with the

fieoretariea
PEEU

', 1886.
Lion to your
er from ibo
be farniBbed
the Bale and
r to loTward
rt of a Com-
>mB laws of

OWNE.

No. 156.
The Governor General to Mr, Stanhope.
[No. 286.] Ottawa, 4th Deoembor, 1886.

SiB —In reply to your despatch of the 12lh October last, transmitting a copy of
a letter, with its enclosures, from the Foreign Office requesting to be ftirniahed with -i.
report in the case of the Unite! States' fiihing vessel" Oiittenden," I have the honour
loTorward herewith a copy ol an approved Minute of the Privy Council of Canada,
embodying a report of my Minister of Marine and PisberioB, to which is appended a
statement of the CuBloms Officer at Steep Creek, on the subject.

I have, Ac, _ „..,„

(Sd.) LAN3D0WNE.

The Rigbt Honourable

Edward Stanhopb.

&o., &c., &c.

^ilfor Canada^
|?oi>ewi5er,18:6.

by a telegram
Ito his foimer
lonourable Mr.
Canadian laws

^ed for early
prepared for
Ithe same con-
\ny restriction
Imposed upon

lorts are cnn-

1) and wliicb

Inadian port a

the coniple-

copyoftlm
jrmation ros-
ier Majesty's
[Secretary ot

\Council,

LNo. 4aijr.]

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Trrtifikd Copv of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Oouncil for Canada,
^provTbyHiaElcellenc!, the Governor General in Council on the Uth November, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated

12th October, J 886, from the Secretary of State for the Colomep, transmitting a copy of a

letter from Mr. Bayard, United States' Secretary of State, to the British Mmister at Wash-

rX^ rights guaranteed bv the Convention of

18*8, in the case of the American fishing schooner "A. R. Ciittenden" by the Custom*

OflRcer at Steep Creek, in the Straits of Canso, N.S. . , , * j

S^Mini^ter of Marine and Fi8herie8,to whom thedespatch and enclosure were re^^^^^

submits a statement of the Customs Oflicer at Steep Creek, and observes that the Captain

S the ''Crittenden " violated the Customs laws by neglecting to enter his vessel as requested

by the Customs Officer, and in landing and shipping a man, clearly exceeded any treaty

^"ttu'rappear\tt fL^emarlcTade by the Customs Officer « that he would seize the
vessel '^hadrKnce solely to the Captain's violation of the Customs regulations, and the
StersubSts cannot be^onstrued "into a denial of any treaty privilege the master was

'"" The CommUtee, concurring in the above, respectfully recommend that Your Excellency
be moved to ^form the Right Honorable the Secretary of State for the Colonies m the sense
ot the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency s approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Encloaure No. 2.]

Steep Crhek, 1st November, 1886.
^,B Ynnrs of the 2Rth of October came to hand today, and in reply, cari state to you

now out of the way, about ^^^^^^^^X [S^^^ ^.^n the same day with his effects, and on

,\i"

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^/ '^4%..

1.0

1.1

1.25

l^|Z8 ||2.5

■so '"^~ ImlBBf

^ 1^ 1 2.2

-^ iiiiii

1.6

u lift

us
us

wui.

1.4

-►

/Ife

^*^'

*?■

Hiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y, MS80

(716) 87^-4503

'4^

'<>

'<?.

t/u

168

also of some of the crew, which he forwarded to the Department. I was in the office at the
time when Collector Bourinot received a telegram from the Department to release the
schooner " Crittenden," on the deposit of four hundred dollars.

I have, Ac,

(Sd.) JAMES H. CARR.

Pro Colleetcr.
Hie Dbpott Mnr.sTBR of I^bbmu^

Ottawa. ■■'■ ■

/ -■■■■ ■■ -' No. 167. ■^^'■. ■ ■ ■ '^^ •■^'

■\ ' ■ ^ ^"

Governor General to Mr. Stanhope.

[No. 288.] Ottawa, Tth December, 1888.

Sib,— I have the honoar to forward herewith, for yoar information, a coc -^ of a
despatch fi om Iler Majesty's Minister at Washington, transmitting a copy of a letter
from the Secretary of citate of the United States, with its enolosares, asking to be
faraished wiih authentic information respeoting Canadian laws regulating the sale
and exportation of fresh herring from Grand Manan Island, together with a copy of
ttty reply thereto.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) LiLNSDOWXB.
The Right HonooraUe

Idwabd Stanhopb, ^ >

Ac., Ac., Ac.

Ifo. 168.

Governor General to Mr. Stanhope,

{No. 290.] OrtAWA, f th December, 1886.

SiB,— I have the honoar to forward herewith, for yoar information, a copy of a
letter from the Departmeat of Fisheries, statiDg that the United States' ashing
▼easel <' Highland Light," seiced on the Ist September last, for fishing within the
three-mile limit, was condemned and ordered to be sold on the 12th Inst., by the
Tice-Admiralty Coart at Charlottetown, P.B.I.

It is understood that no ^ofenee was enterei to the suit.

I have, &o..

The Bight Honourable

Edwabd Stanhopi.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

[■■filMaN No. 1.}

Department of PUheriee to tht Governor &enera¥$ Secretary.

Ottawa, 7th Decc rjber, 1886.

Sib,— I have the honoar to state, for the information of His Excellency the (Governor
^neral, that this Department was advised by telegraph, under date the Ist instant, from
Ur. E. J. Hodgson, Q.C., the counsel for the Government in the case of The Queen vs. the
fchooner " Highland light," seized on (he ist September last, for fishing within the three-

iuile limit, that the Vice-Admiralty Court at Gharlottetown, PriQoe Edward I«Iaad, had con-
demned the vessel referred to, and ordered her to be sold on the 12th instant.
The Department understands that no defence was entered to the suit.

I have, &c.,

'Captain H. Strbatfbild,

Military Secretary,
, Government Houst, Ottawa.

(Sd.) JOHN TILTON,

Deputy Mini$ier of Ftaheritt.

No. 159.

Mnister at WashingUm to the Governor General.

[No. 102.] WASHiNQTOir, 8th D&oember, 1886.

Mt lioaD, — I have the honoar to aeknowledge the reoeipt of Yonr BKoelleney's
-despatoh No. t»l of the 3rd instant, and to inform Your Exoellenoy that ia obedionoe
to the instraotions of Her Majosty'rt Government I have commanioatod the informa-
tion therein contained respecting the herring fisheries of Grand Minan Island to the
United States' Goverament.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. SA0K7ILLE WEST.
His Exoellenoy ,

The Marquis of Laksdowne, G.C.M.G.
&c., &o., &o.

No. 160.
Colonial Ofice to the Governor General,

[No. 272.] DowNiMQ Strut, 16th Daoember, 1886.

Mt Lord, — With reference to my despatch, No. 213, of the 6th October, I have
tbe honoar to transmit to yoa a copy of a letter, with its enolosares, from the Foreigo
Office relative to the case of the United States' fishing vessel " Mollie Adams."

I request that yoa will obtain from yoar Government, and forward to me as
soon as possible, a report on the oircamstaooos of tbe oase.

I have, &c..

■Governor General

The Most Honorable

The Marquis of Lansdownb, G.G.M.G.,
&o,, Ac, &o.

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPJl

LB&elodtira ITo. I.]
the Foreign Office to the ColonM Ojffiee. ^ „

FoBBioH Offiob, I5th December, 1889.

Sir, With reference to my letter of the 4th of October, I am directed by the Earl of

Iddesleigh to transmit to you, to be laid bisford Mr. Secretary Stanhope, a copy of a Despatoh
from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington enclosing a copy of a lurther note nrom the United
States' Secretary of State protesting against the action of the Canadian authorities with
regard to the United States' fishing schooner '' Mollie Adams."

1TO

I am to request that the Dominion Qovernment maybe asked to fiirnish a report as soon
as possible upon the allegations now made by the master of the United States' vessel, as well
as the previous note from Mr. Bayard on the subject enclosed in my letter of the 4th of
October lir.t.

I am, &o.,

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEFOTE^
llie Undba Seoretaby of State,

Colonial Office. *

[Bnclosure No. 3.]
Sir L. Wett to th« Earl of lidesletgh. ^

CTreaty No. 99.] Washinqton, 2nd December, 1886.

Mt lord,— I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith a further note which
I have reeeived from the Secretary of State complaining in the usual strong terms, of the con-
duct of the Canadian authorities in the case of the American fishing schooner " MoUie Adams,"
the captain of which vessel states in a letter to the Secretary of State, copy of which is
enclosed, that he had 17 men on board whom he had rescued from the British schooner
« Neskilita " of Lockeport (N. S.)

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLE W^ST.
The Earl of IddesleigL.

Etc., Eto., Etc.

[Enclosure Nc« 3.]
Nr, Bayard to Sir L. S. West.

Dbfabtmbntof State,

Washinotox, Ist December, 1886.

Sir, — As possessing an additional and very disagreeable bearing upon the general subject
of the harsh treatm<-nt of American fishingveesels during the seat^on by the local authorities of
the Maritime Piovinces of Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada, I have the honour to send you
herewith a copy of a letter addressed to me under date of the 12th ultimo, by Captain
Solomon Jacobs, master of the American fishing Fchooner "MoUie Adams," of Gloucester,
Uass. You will share, I doubt not, the regret I feel at such churlish and inhospitable treat-
ment of a vessel which had freely and with great loss and inconvenience rendered such essen-
tial service to the suifering aud imperilled crew of a Nova Scotia vessel. But for his generous
act, Captain Jacobs would have had no occasion to put into Malpeque,or, subsequently when
short of provisions, into Fort Medway. As his narrative shows, the local authorities of Mal-
peque treated him with coldness and rudeness, making no provision to receive the Nova
Scotian crew he had saved from such immediate danger, even causing him to incur a pecu-
niary burden in completion of his humane rescue, and even treating the landing of the pro-
perty so saved from the wreck of ^e Nova Scotian vessel on her own shores, as not lawful
for an American fishing vessel "within the three-mile limit."

The treatment of Captain Jacobs at Port Medway is a fitting sequel to that received by
him at Malpeque. Having undergone fourteen days' detention in the latter port, and having
abared his purse and slender stock of provisions with the men he had rescued, he put to sea,
when, his supplies falling short by reason of his charitable action, he asked leave to purchase
at Port Medway half a barrel of flour, or enough provisions to take his vessel and crew home.
With full knowledge of the cause of Captain Jacob's dearth of provisions, even this the Col-
lector at Port Medway absolutely refused and threatened Captain Jacobs with the seizure of
his vessel " if he bought anything whatever." The urgent need of supplies in which Captain
Jacobs stood is shown by the fact that although the run with favourable weather from Port
Midway to his home port, Gloucepter, Mass., only occupied three days, his crew were on half
rations for two days and without food for one day of that time. It is painful to conjecture
what might have been their distress had the " MoUie Adams " encountered storms or head
irindB.

171

»port as soon
vessel, as well
of the 4th ot

!EFOTE^

tber, 1886.

ter note which
mB, of the con-
tfollie Adams,"
py of which is
itish schooner

LE W15ST.

imber, 1886.

Seneral subject
authorities of
■jur to send you
10, by Captain
■ of Gloucester,
pspitable treat-
\ed such essen-
jrhis generous
jquently when
lorities of Mai-
jive the Nova
J incur a pecu-
Kng of the pro-
Tas not lawful

[,t received by
tt, and having
|he put to sea,
[e to purchase
Id crew home.
1 this the Col-
Ihe seizure of
Ihich Captain
lier from Port
[were on half
lo conjecture
Irms or head

I am confident that Her Majesty's Government, than which none has more generously
fulfilled the obligations of the unwritten code of seafaring humanity, will hasten to rebuke
the treatment ot Captain Jacobs at the hands of the local authorities of Nova Scotia, by ezhi*
biting gratitude for his act in caving 17 of their own people from death, and tendering him
oom^nsation for the delays and expenses he has undergone through the breaking up of hi»
legitimate fishing venture. The closing part of Captain Jacob's letter may serve to show the
irresponsible and difi'erent treatment he was subjected to in the several ports he visited,
where the only common feature seems to have been a surly hostility.

At Port Hood, for instance. Captain Jacobs being sick, his brother landed and reported
in hii stead, and, after paying the regular fee, was told that his report was a nullity, and that
the vesssel would be liable to penalty for unauthorized landing of her crew, unless her Cap-
tain reported in person, who although ill he was compelled to do, and the fee was thereupon
levied a second time. This is a small matter measured b" the amoimt of the fee, but it is
surely discreditable, and has a tendency which cannot be too much deplored. In my late
correspondence I have treated of the necessary and logical results of peimitting so irritating
and unfriendly a course of action, and I will not therefore now enlarge on this subject.

I have, iiCf

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD.

[Bnclosare No. 4.]
Mr. Solomon Jwobs to Mr. Bayard,

Oloucbster, 12th November, 18S6.

Sir,— I would most respectfully ask your attention to the following facts, as showing the
spirit and manner of the application of law on the part oi the ofSoiala of the Domioion of
(>uiada.

On or about the 26th September, when off Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, I fell in with
the British schooner " Neskilita," of Lockeport, Nova Scotia, which had run on Malpeque
Bar in making the harbour. It was blowing very heavy, sea running high. The crew was
taken off by my vessel about twelve o'clock at night. There were seventeen men in all. We
took care of them and fed them for three days. The " Neskilita " became a total wreck. We
saved some of the material.

The cutter "Critic," Captain McLaren, one of the Canadian cruisers, was lying in the
harbour of Malpeque. The Captain boarded my vessel, and I reported to him the facts of the
vrreck and the condition of the men. They had saved a portion of their clothing. He
neither offered to care for the vnrecked crew, to feed them nor to give them any assistance
whatever. Having some of the wrecked material on board I asked the Captain of the cutter
for permission to land it. He referred me to the local collector. I went to the collector and
he referred me back to the Captain oi the cutter. As the cutter had gone out the Captain
of the " Neskilita " assumed the responsibility and took' the things ashore. The Captain ot
the cutter told me that I could put the saved material on board a Nova Scotia vessel if I
went outside of the three-mile limit to do it.

I endeavoured to get eome of the people on shore to take the wrecked crew, but no one
would do it unless I would be responsible for their board. Finally I gave the crew $60, enough
to pay their passage home on the cars and also gave them provisions to last during their
journey. Malpeque is a barred harbour and it is only in smooth water that it is sale to go
out over the bar, and my vessel drawing 14 feet of water and there was only 14 feet of water
on the bar, it was impossible for me to go out. By being detained in port in disposing of this
wrecked crew, I lost over 10 days of valuable time before 1 could get out to fish and during
that time the fleet took large quantities of mackerel. Having to feed so many on my vessel
left me short of provisions and in a short time aftei wards I put into Port Medway and stated
the circumstances, and asked permission to buy half a barrel of flour or enough provisions to
take my vessel and crew home. This was absolutely refused and the Collector threatened me
that if I bought anything whatever he would seize my vessel. I was obliged to leave without
obtaining and came home in three days on short rations, a distance of 300 miles. The wind and
weather being favourable we had a good passage, but yet we were without provisions for one
day before we arrived home. I wish to state most emphatically that the Officials differ in
their construction of our rights. Fees are differe»»t in every port, and as there is no standard
of right fixed by our own Government, the fishermen are at the mercy of a class of officials
hoetue to them and their business, and with but little knowledge of law or its application.
For instance, at Souris, P.E.I., 15 cents is charged for reporting ; at Port Mulgrave, N.S., 50
cents is charged. At Port Hood, I being sick, my brother went to the Custom House to

Vl2

.i f«(

report. The official charged him 25 cents and told him that unless the captain reported in
person the report was invalid, that men ft>om the vessel would not be allowed ashore unless
the captain reported. In the afternoon of the same day I was able to go to the office and
was charged 25 cents for my report, making SO cents.

In the matter of anchorage fees, &o., at Port Mulgrave, N.S., I paid $1.50 ; at Malpeque,
$1.00; at Sydney, $1.17. At some ports we have to pay anchorage fees every
time we go in, as at Halifax. At others twice for the season. Now I would most respectfully
Btate that the official service tiiroughout is actuated, apparently, from a principle of annoyance,
wherever and whenever it can be so applied : that there is only harmony of action in this
regard alone, and that local laws and regulations are enforced against us, without regard
to any rights we may have under treaty.

That the effect to this enforcement is not to promote, but to interfere and to limit by
iii\just pains, fees and penalties the right of shelter, obtaining wood and water, and making
of repairs, guai'an teed by the Treaty of 1818 ; that, instead of the restriction contemplated,
the local laws make a technical obligation that is without their province or power, and
«nforce penalties that should never been admitted or allowed by our Government. And I
would pray that in the case recited, and many others that can be shown, if required, we may
be protected from looal laws and their enforcement that abridge our rights and have never
received the sanction of the two great contracting powers in the construction and agreement
of the Treaty of 1818.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) SOLOMON JACOBS.

[Bnelosore No. 6.]

North Sydney, C. B., 13th October, 1886.
"Sfollie Adams," 117 tons. Gapt. Jacobs to Harbour Commissioners. To amount of

Received pajrment.

Jmrbour dues, $1.17.

(Sd.)
Dominion of Canada Hakbocr Dubs.

M. J. THUAN.

Malpeqvb, p. E. I.; 1886.

Received from Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner "HoUie Adams," of 117 tons
register, the sum of one dollar, being harbour dues at this port.

(Sd.) EDWARD LARKINS,

Marbour Matter.

ToHiNiON OF Canada Habboub Duks.

Port Muixibavb, N. S., 30th August, I8F$.

Received from Soloman Jacobs, master of the schooner « Mollie Adams," from North
Bay, 117 tons register, the sum of $1.50 cents, being hirbour dues at this port.

(Sd.) DUNCiJT G. GILLIES,
^ --i-v— -^ » Harbour Maattr.

i Seal. [

No. 161.
Mr, Stakhope to thie Oovarnor Gttural.

f No. 274.1 DowNiNQ SiauT, 16th Deoeciber, 1886^

* *Mt Lord, — I have the honour to transmit to Tour Lordahip, for commanioatioa
to your Government, a copy of a letter from the Foreign Offlje, with it» eaclosareH,
respecting the alleged improper ooaduotof aalhoritiei ia the D;>mLaioa in dcMltog

113

reported in
hore unless
) office and

^t Malpeque,
fees every
respeotfully
if annoyance,
otion in this
ihout regard

to limit by
, and making
ontemplated,
r power, and
lent. And 1
lired, we may
id have never
nd agreement

JACOBS.

tober, 1886.
To amount of

THUAN.

, E. I.} 1886.
I." of 117 tons

[NS,

Ur Matttr.

Igust, 18F6.
I." from Korth

[iLlES,
ur Maattr.

iber, I886i

imanioatioa

eaclosai'c^*
la ia d«»Uog

with the United States' fishini; vewiols « Lanra Sayward " and " Jennie Seaverns,'*
and I reqneet that I may be farDii^bed with a report on the aabjeot for commanioation
to the Government of the United States.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) EDWARD STANHOPE.
His Exoellenoy

Tbk (Jovebnob Genkbal.

[Enolosnre No. 1.]
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FoRBioN OrncE, 8th December, 1886.

SiK, — ^I am directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to transmit to you copy of a despatch from
Her Miyesty'a Minister at Washington enclosing notes which he has received from Mr. Bayard
protesting against the conduct of the Dominion authorities in their dealings with the United
States' fishing ves8«^ls, " Laura Sayward " and "Jennie Seaverns," and I am to request that
Mr. Secretary Stanhope will procure a report on these cases from the Canadian Government
with a view to its communication to the Government of the United States.

I am, &Q,y

The Ukdbr Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.

(Sd.) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

[BnelOBure No. 2.1

Sir L, West to Lord Jddealeigh.

[Treaty No. 96.] Washimotok, 12th November, 1886.

Mt Lord,~I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship, herewith, copy of a note
which I have received from the Secretary of State, together with copies of the statements
accompanying it, describing the inhospitable and inhuman conduct of the Collector of the
Port of Shelbume, Nova Scotia, and the conduct of Captain Quigley, commanding the Cana-
dian cruiser " Terror," in their dealings with the American fishing veboels " Laura Sayward "■
and "Jennie Seaverns."

I have, &c., •

^Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.
Thi Eabl of Iddeslvioh, G.C.B.

&c., &o , &c.

[ EnclosQre No. 3.]

Jfr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

Department of State,

Washington, 11th November, 1886.

Sir,— I have the honour to enclose herewith copies of the statements with affidavits from
Captain Hedeo Rose, master of the schooner " Laura Sayward," of Gloucester, Mass., and of
Captain Joseph Tupper, master of the schooner "Jennie Seaverns," also of Gloucester, for-
warded to me by the Collector of the Port of Gloucester, under date of 5th inst.

The first impressively describes the inhospitable and ir human conduct of the Collector
of the Port of Shelbume, N.S., in refusing to allow Captain Bose to buy sufficient food for
himself and his crew to take them home, besides utmecessarily ret <ining his papers and thus
preventing him, with a wholly inadequate supply of provisions, from proceeding on his
T(qr»ge

The second complaint i» of Captain Quigley, commanding the Canadian cruizser "Terror,"
I in not only, preventing Captain Tupper from Uunding to visit his relatives in Liverpool, N.S.,.

-tail

174

but even forbidding his relatives from coming on board his vessel to see him, and likewise
placing a guard on ooard of her to ensure that result.

While I need not comment further than I have done already in previous notes on the
unjust and unwarrantable aots of the Dominion o£3oiaU of late towards our fishermen, of
which the instances now presented are but repetitions, I must notice the new phase of
Captain Quigley's abuse of authority in actually making Captain Tapper a prisoner on board
of nis own vessel, and in preventing his relatives, whom he states he had not seen for many
years, from meeting him.

Such conduct, apart from all its legal and international aspects, is wholly unworthy of
any one entrusted with the execution of v, public duty and inconyistent with the national
reputation for humiuiity and courtesy of an officer in Her Majesty's service.

I have, &o.,

The Honorable

Sir L. S. West, K.C.M.G.,

(Sd.)

T. F. BAYARD.

&c.

[Enclosure No. 4.]

I, Medeo Rose, Master of schooner " Laura Say ward," of Gloucester, being duly sworn, do
depose and say that on Saturday, 2nd October, being then on Western Bank on a fishing
trip, and being short of provisions, we hove up our anchor and started for home. The wind
was blowing almost a galeirom the north-west and being almost dead ahead, we made slow pro-
gress on our voyage home. On Tuesday, 5th October, we made Shelburne,N. S., and arrived in
that harbour about 8 p.m . on that day short of provisions, water, and oil to burn. On Wed-
nesday I sailed for the inner harbour of Shelbume, arriving at the town about 4 p.m. On
going ashore I found the Custom House closed, and hunted up the Collector and entered my
vessel, and asked permission from him to buy ,7 pounds sugar, 3 pounds coffee, ^ to 1 bushel of
potatoes and 2 pounds of butter or lard or pork, and oil enou/|h to last us home, and was
refused. I statec' to him my situation, short of provisions and a voyage of 25U miles before,
and pleaded with him for this slight privilege, but it was of no avail. I then visited the
American Consul and asked his assistance, and found him powerless to aid me in this matter.
The Collector of Customs held my papers until the next morning although I asked for them
as soon as I found I could not buy any provisions, say about 1 } hours after I entered, but he
refused to give them to n .e until the next morning. Immediately on receiving my papers on
Thursday morning I started for home, arriving on Sunday. I think the treatment I received
harsh and cruel, driving myself and crew to sea with a scant supply of provisions, we having
but little flour and water, and liable to be buffeted about for days before reaching home.

(Sd.)

MEDEO ROSE.

Mass., Essex, 8.S.,

13th October, 1886.

Personally appeared Medeo Rose and made oath to the truth of the above statement.

Before me,

[SEAL]

(Sd.) Aaron Fabsons.

Notary Public

[Bncloaore No. 6.]

I, Joseph Tupper, Master of the schooner "Jennie Seaverns," of Gloucester, being duly
sworn, do depose and say that ou Thursday, 28th October, while on my passage home from a
fishing trip, the wind blowing a gale from S.E., and a heavy sea running, I was obliged to enter
the harbour of Liverpool N.S. for shelter. Immediately on coming to anchor, was boarded by
Captain Quigley of Canadian cruiser " Terror," who ordered me to go in shore at once and enter
at the Customs House, to which I replied that such was my intention. He gave me pormisaion
to take two men in the boat with me, but they must remain in the boat and not step on
shore. I asked Captain Quigley if I could, after entering, visit some of my relations who
resided in Liverpool, and whom I had not seen for many years. This privilege was denied
me. After entering, having returned to my vessel, some of my relatives came off to see me.
When Captain Quigley saw their boat alongside of my vessel, he sent an officer and boat's

id likewise

tes on the
shermen, of
J, phase of
er on board
n for many

mworthy of
ihe national

^ARD.

1*76

crow who ordered them away, and at sundown he placed an armed guard on board of our
vessel, who remained on board all night, and was taken off just before we sailed in the
morning.

I complied with the Canadian laws and had no intention or desire to violate them
in any way 5 but to be made a prisoner on board my own vessel, and treated like a suspioioos
character, grates harshly ujpon the feelings of an American seaman, and I protest against such
treatment, and respeolfulfy ask from my own Government, protection from such uniuat.
unfriendly and arbitrary treatment.

(Sd.) JOSEPH TUPPBR.
Mass. Essix, s.s. )

4th Nov., 1886. )

Personally appeared Joseph Tupper and made oath to ihe truth of the above statement.

Before me,
[I^S.] (Sd.) Aaeon Parsons, N.P.

iuly sworn, do
t on a fishing
le. The wind
made slow pro-
, and arrived in
irn. On Wed-
it 4 p.m. On
,nd entered my
1 10 1 bushel ot
liome, and was
miles before,
ten visited the
» in this matter,
aked for them
intered, but he
my papers on
aent 1 received
iions, we having
[hing home.
ROSE.

) statement.

ARSONS.

Try Puhlic

pr, being duly
Le home from a
lt)liged to enter
Las boarded by
[once and enter

tte permission
n not step on
frelations who
le was denied
1 off to see me.
Wand boats I

No. 162.
Sir L, West to the Marquis ofLantdowne,
[No. 101.] WASHiNaTON, 17th December, 1888.

Vidt US . ^^ Lord, — I have the honoar to transmit to Your Ezcellenoy here-
Home of Rep. ^'*''*» copies of the correspondence relating to the rights of Aiierican
resenutivesBx. fishermen in British North American waters, which has been presen-
Doc.No.i9,49th tedtoCoDirress.

Congress, 2nd ° T Uq»t« *«

Session. ^ b&ve, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVLLLB WEST.
His Excellency

The Mabquis of Lamsdowne, KC.M.G.,
&o., &o., &o.,

No. 163.
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mt. Stanhope,

[No. 296] Ottawa, 20th December, 1886.

Sib, — I had the honoar of receiving your despatch No. 244 of the 22nd November,
in regard to the cases of the " Everitt Steele" and " Pearl Nelson" recently detained
at Sbelburne and Arichat, Nova Scotia, for non-compliance wiUi the Caetoms BegaU-
tioDS of the Dominion.

2. The circumstances under which the conduct of these vessels attracted the
attention of the Customs authorities were set out in the Pi ivy Conn-
cil Orders of the Ist and 18th November, certified copies of which were
forwarded to yoa under cover of my Despatches Nob. 282 and 283 of
the 29th of November.

a. The information contained in these documents was obtained in order to comply
with the I'cquest for a report on these two oases which you had addressed to me by
telegram (jp. a previous date.

I have now carefully examined the fuller statements made by Mr. Bayard, both as
to the facts and as to the considerations by which the conduct of the local officials
should, in his onlnion, have been governed. Ton will, I think, find on reference to the
Privy Council Orders already before you, that the arguments advanced by Mr. Bay-
ard have been sufficiently met by the observations of my Minister of Marine and,
Fisheries whose reports are embodied in those orders. ,

Nos
153.

4. It is notdispated tbal the "Rverett Steele" wm in Shelbarne harbour on the>
25th March, and sailed thenoe without reporting. In oontieqaenoe of tbia omisaion*
on the Master's part, his vessel was, on her return to Shelborne in September, detained
by the Collector. The Master having explained that his presence in the harbour had
biseii occasioned by stress of weather ana that his failure to report was inadvertent,
and this explanation having been telegraphed to the Minister at Ottawa, the vessel
was at ODoe allowed to proceed to sea ; her release took place at noon on the day
following that of her detention.

5. In the case of the *< Pearl Noleon " it is not denied that nine of her crew were
landed in Ariohat harbour at a late hour on the evening of her arrival and before the
Master had reported to the Oastom House. It is obvious that if men were to be
allowed to go on shore under such circumstances without notification to the authori*
ties, great facilities would be offered for landing contraband goods, and there can be
no question that the Master by permitting his men to land was guilty of a violation
of sections 25 and IHO of the Customs Act. There seems to be reason to doubt his
statement that he was driven into Aricbat by stress of weather, but be this as it may
the fact of his having entered the harbour for a lawful purpose would not carry with
it a right to evade the law to which all "vessels frequenting Canadian ports are
amenable. In this case as in ibai of the " Everett Steele " already referred to, the
statement of the Master that his offence was due to Inadvertence was accepted and
the fine imposed at once remitted.

1 observe that in his despatch relating to the first of these oases ,Mr. Bayard insists
with much earnestness upon the fact that certain " Prerogatives "of access to the
territorial watei^ of the JL)ominion were specially reserved under the Convention of
1818 to the fishermen of the United States, and tht.t a vessel entering a Canadian
harbour for any purpose coming within the terms of Art. I of that (Convention has
as much right to be in that harbour aa she would have to bo upon the high seas, and he
proceeds to institute a comparison between the detention of the " Everett Steele "
and the wrongful seizure of a vessel on the high seas upon the suspicion of being en-
gaged in the slave trade.

Mr. Bayard further calls attention to the special consideration to which from the
circumstances of their profession tbe fishermen of the United States are, in his
opinion, entitled, and he dwells upon the extent of the injury which would result to
them if thoy were debarred from the exercise of any of the rights assured to them
by Treaty or Convention.

I observe also that in Sir Julian Paunoefote's letter enclosed in your despatch
it is stated that tbe Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wishes to urge upon the
Dominion Grovernment the great importance of issuing stringent instructions to its
officials not to interfere with any of the privileges expressly reserved to United
States' fishermen under Article I of the Convention of 1818.

I truot that the explanations which 1 have already been able to give in regard
to tbe cases of thede vessels, will have satisfied yon that the facts disclosed do not
show any necessity for the issuing of instructions other than those already circulated
to the local officials entrusted with the execution of the Customs and Fishery Laws.

There is certainly no desire on the ^rnrt of my Government (nor I believe does
the conduct of the local officials jnstify the assumption that such a desire exists) to
cvrtail in any respect the privileges enjoyed by United States' fishermen in Canadian
waters. Ic cannot, on the other hand, be contended that because these privileges
exist and are admitted by the Government of the Dominion, those who enjoy them
are to be allowed immunity from the regulations to which all vessels resorting to
CSanadian waters are without exception su^ected under the Customs Act of 1883 and
the different statutes regulating the fisheries of the Dominion.

In both of the cases under consideration there was a clear and andoabted viola-
tion of the law and the local officiaU would have been culpable if they had omitted to
notice it. That there was no animus on their part or on that of the Qinadian Oov-
erament, is, I think, clearly proved by the promptitude with which the circumstances i
were investigated and the readiness shown to overlook the offence and to remit the

r crew were
id before the
I were to be
the authori-
thore can be
)f a violation
to doubt his
his as it may
jt carry "wiih
in ports are
lorred to, the
accepted and

Bayard insiets
' access to the
Convention of
Dg a Canadian
lonvention haa
'h seas, and he
^rett Steele"
an of being en-

hich from the
|es are, in his
oold result to
^Bured to them

your despatch
jirge upon the
Irnotions to its
Ived to United

live in regard
lolosed do not
kdy oiroalated
liehery Laws.
1 believe does
Wre exists) to
i in Canadian
ise privileges
lo enjoy them
\ resorting to
It of 1883 and

Lubted viola-
id omitted to
knadian Oov-
iroumstances
[to remit the

177

Ca i r? ml7fly '7° "^ P'^f ''!"• forthooming that the offence had been uninten-
tionallycomm, ed In support of ihi« view I would draw your atl.ntinn to the
KnoloBur. No. K? n.^S^? S«u'"!"^ ^o "y.^^^^P^^o^ /o. 282 of the 29th of Novora-
3 of No. 162. '>«'• I ot Mr. Phelan the Consul General for tbo United Safes at Halifax
who has czprossed his own Eatisfuction at the action of the aiithoriti««
ViLTJt^:n7r' Nf on " and who also refers to a communicatiorreSe tS
bj h.m from tho Dopartmont of St..»te in which it is stilted that tho conduct of the
Aasistant Comm,sH,onor of Customs in doaliog with two other cases of a somewha?
Bimiltir complexion " bhows a proper spirit." somewnat

I have, &o,,

The Right Honorable ^^^'^ LiNSDOWNB. ,

Edward Stanhopi.

No. ]fl4.
Sir L. West to Lord Lansdowne.

22nd Dooeraber, 1886.

StatifoTF.m ijri!?"^"^' '° ^°'°P''«««o ^itj instructions from the Secretary of
fiaSl.! ^^•^^'^'" ^Jf'fs. a, (;Opy of a no'o with a proposal for an arrangement of the

(Sd.) WEST.

No. 165.
Sir L. West to Lord Lansdowue.
[No. 109.J Washington, 22nd December, 1886.

the Earl orT!iHr!"-'*^1'f' '° to telegraphic instructions which I have received from
the L.arl of Iddeslcgh I have the honour lo enolof=e to Tour Excellency herewith
mT^bv Mr"Bav .?d'" '^l^^'T'^ f . «'«te to Mr. Phelps which has be^''^ vTn to
51 cstion. ^ ''''*° ''°''*'''"' ** P'^P^**"' ^°'' '*^® settlement of the fisheries

I have, &o.,
I His Excellency ^^^'^ ^' ^- SACKVILLB WEST.

Tho Marqdis of Lansdowne, K.C.M.G.,
iVc. &c. &c.

[Bnclosure No. 1.]
JUr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps.

IWn 4^0 1 DePARTMBNT OF StATE,

'^ °' *^''--' Washingtox, 15th November, 1886.

IVnr.?^fTJ^f ^^^f"" (°'' *''^'".« "^acJ^erel has now cloaed, and I understand the Marine Police

llln f^^ ,tf"t«'-'?1.7lf ' '" ?""«^ ^°'^^ '^"^^"°* ^^ ^^^"^ withdrawn, ho that no farther
I ccasion for the adnuni&tration of a strained and vexatious construction of the Convention of
11818 between the United states and Great Britain, is likely for several months at least
k.nS'?^ H " ^^\ °^<'o^"Parative serenity, i earnestly hope that such measures will be
topted by those charged with the administration of the respective Governments as will

178

prevent the r<>n<>wal of the proooedingg witnessed durinu the past fishing seaaon in the ports
and harboiiis of Nova Srotia, and at other pointH in the Maritime Provinces of the Dominion,
by which cili/'Mis of the United States engaged m oj)ensea fishing were subjected to much
unjust and unfriendly treatment by thci local authorities in those regions, and thereby not
only suffered serious lois in their logitiuiate pursuit, but, by the fear of annoyance, which was
conveyed to others likewise employed, the general business of open-sea tishing by citizens of
the United States was importantly injured.

My instructions to you during the period of these occurrences have from time to time
set forth their regrettable churacter, and thoy have also been brought promptly to the notice
of the lioprescntative of Uer Majesty's Government at this capital.

These rupresentations, candidly and fully made, have not produced those results of
ohocking the unwarranted interference (frequently accompanied by rudeness and an, unneces-
sary demonstration of force) with the rights of our fishermen guaranteed by express treaty
stipulations, nnd secured to them — as 1 confidently believe — by the public commercial laws
and regulations of the two countries, and which are demanded by the laws of hospitality to
which all friendly civili/ed nations owe allegiance. Again I beg that you will invite Her
Majesty's counsellors gravely to consider the necessity of preventmg the repetition of con-
duct on the part of the Canadian oiiioials which may endanger the peace of two kindred and
friendly nations.

To this end, and to ensure to the inhabitants of the Dominion the efficient protection of
the exclusive rights to their inshore fisheries, as provided by the Convention of 1818, as well
as to prevent any abuse of the privileges reserved and guaranteed by that instrument forever
to the citizens of the United States engaged in fishmg, -and responding to the suggestion
made to you by the Earl of Iddesleigh in the month of September last that a modus vivendi
should be ngfced upon between the two countries to prevent encroachment by American
fisheruieij upon the Canadian inshore fisheries, and equally to secure them from ull molef tu-
tion when exercising only their just and ancient rights, — I now enclose the draft of a
memorandum which you may propose to I/)rd Iddesleigh, and which, 1 trust, will he found
to contain a satisfactory basis for the solution of existing difficulties and assist in securing an
assured, just, honourable, and, therefore, mutually satisfactory settlement of the long vexed
question of the North Atlantic fisheries.

I am encouiaged in the expectation that the propositions embodied in the memorandum
referred to will be acceptable to Her Miyesty's Government, because, in the month of April,
1806, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, sent forward to Mr. Adams, at that time United
State-j' Minister in London, the draft of a protocol which in substance coincides with the
first article of the proposal now sent to you, as you will see by reference to Vol. I of the
United Stales' Diplomatic Correspondence for 1866, page 98 et seq.

1 find that, in a published instruction to Sir F. Bruce, then Her Majesty's Minister in the
United States, under date of May 1 1, 1860, the Earl of Clarendon, at that time Her Majesty's
Secretaiy of State for Foreign Affairs, approved them, but declined to accept the final
proposition of Mr. Seward's protocol, which is not contained m the memorandum now for-
warded.

Your attention is drawn to the great value of these three propositions, as containing a
well-defined and practical interpretation of Article I of the Convention of 1H18, the en-
forcement of which co-operatively by the two Governments, it may reasonably be hoped,
will efficiently remove those causes of irritation of which variant constructions hitherto
have been so unhappily fruitful.

In projiosing the adoption of a width of ten miles at the mouth as a proper definition of I
the bays in which, except on certain specified coasts, the fishermen of the United States ai-e [
not to take fish, I have followed the example furnished by France and Great Britain in their
Convention signed at Paris on the 2nd of August, 1839. This definition was referred to and j
approved by Mr. Bates, the Umpire of the Commission under the Treaty of 1853, in the easel
of the United States' fishing schooner " Washington," and has since been notably approved!
and adopted in the convention signed at The Hague in 1882, and subsequently ratified inl
relation to fishing in the North Sea, between Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great!
Britain, and the Netherlands. I

The present memorandum also contains provisions for the usual commercial facilitiesl
allowed everywhere for the promotion of legitimate trade, and nowhere more fully than iQl
British ports and under the commercial policies of that nation. Such facilities cannot with
any show of reason be denied to American fishing vessels when plying their vocations in
deep-sea fishing grounds in the localities open to them equally with other nationalities. The!
Convention of 18J8 inhibits the " taking, drying or curing fish " by American fishermen in
certain waters and on certain coasts, and when these objects are effected, the inhibitory
features are exhausted. Everything that may presumably guard against an infraction ol

179

[1 the ports
) Dominion,
,d to much
hereby not
o, which was
y citizens of

ne to time
to the notice

le reHultB of
I an unneoes-
tpreBB treaty
jnercial laws
lospitality to
[I invite Her
,ition of con-
} kindred and

.protection ot
t 1818, as well
rutnent forever
the BUggestion
modus Vivendi

by American
jmall molei'U-
the d-fvft ot a

will be found
t in securing an
the long vexed

le memorandum

imonth of April,

^t time United

^cides with the

to Vol.1 of the

b Minister in the
[e Uer Majesty s
Iccept the tinal
Vndnm now for-

[as containing*
If ] HI 8, the en-
lably he hoped,
Vtions hitherto

per definition of
hited States ate
I Britain in their
1 referred to and
l853, in the easel
Itably approved
"ntly ratified ml
Franco, Great!

kercial facilities!
[re fully than in|
lies cannot wita
■eir vocations in
lionalities. 'll}j
\a fishermen iq
I, the inhibitor
In infraction ol

these proviBlons will be recognized and obeyed by the Government of the United States,
but should not be pressed beyond its natural force.

By its very terms and necossary intendment, the same treaty rooognizes the continuance
permanently ot the accustomud rights of American iishermen, in those places not embraced
m the renunciation of the treaty, lo prosecute the business as freely as did their fotefatUers.

No construction of the Convention of 1818 that strikes at or impedes the opon sea lish-
ing by citizens of the United States, can bo accepted, nor should a treaty of friendship be
tortured into a means of such offence, nor should such an end be accomplished hy indirec-
tion. Therefore, by causing the same port regulations and commercial rights to bo applied
to vessels engaged tlierein as are enforced relative to other trading oraft, we propose to
prevent a ban from being put upon the lawful and regular business of open sea fishing.

Arrangements now exist between the Governments of Great Britain and France, and
Great Britain and Germany, for the submission in the first instance of all oases ot seizure to
the joint examination and decision of two discreet and able ooinmanding otUcers of the navy
of the respective countiies, whose vessels are to bo sent on duty to cruise in the waters to
be guarded against encroachment. Copies of these agreements are herewith enclosed for
reference. The additional feature of au Umpire in case ofadifferen i opinion, is bor-
rowed fro ii the terms of Article 1, of the Treity of -June 5, 1351, between « United States
and Ureat Britain.

Tfiis same Treaty of 1854 contains in its first article provision for a joi it Commission for
marking (he fishing limits, anil is therefore a precedent for the present 'iropos't'on.

The season of I88(i for inshore fishing on the Canii iian coasts ha ■ ime to an pn(i, - and
assuredly no luck of vigilauce or promptitude iu making seizures can be vscubed to the
vessels of the Marine Police of the Dominion. Tho record of their operation. Uocloses but a
single American vessel found violating the inhibitions of the Convention i.f 1 ,18, by tisliing
within three marine ni'ip° <■ ' the coast. The numerot s seizures made hn/e been ot v.ssels
quietly at anchor in esuioimhed ports of entry, under charges which, up to this day, have not
been particularized sutticiently to allow of an intelligent defence. Not one iias been con.
demned after 1 and hearing, but many have been fined without hearing or judgment, toi
technical violations of alleged commercial regulations, although all couimercial privileges
have been simultaneously denied to them. In no instance has any resistance bean offered
to Canadian xuthority, even when exercised with useless and irritating provocation.

It is trusted that the agreement now propoied may be readily accepted by Her Majesty's
Ministry.

Should the Earl of Iddesieigh express a desire to possess the text of this despatch, in
view of its intimate relation to the subject-matter of the memorandum and as eviilencing the
sincere and cordial disposition wliieh prompts this proposal, you will give Ilia Lordship a
copy.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD.
Edwaiid J. riiELi's, Esq., ,

&c., &c., &c.

iGncloeure No. 2.]

Pkoposai, for Settlement of all Questions in Dispute in Relation to the Fisheries on the N^orth-

Eastern Coasts of British North America.

Whereas, in the 1st Article of the Convention between the United States and Great
Britain, concluded and signed in London on the 20lh ot October. 1818, it was agreed between
the High Contracting Parties " that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have for-
ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every
kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland wliich extends from Cape Ray to
the llameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape
Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
bays, harbours and creeks, from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through
the Straits of Belle Isle ; and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without preju-
dice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and that the
American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled
bays, hai'b3uiM and creeks of the southern )":ut of the coast of Nowfouadlaal,. here above
dojcribed. aivl of th'3 coast of L;ibr;iio;-j but =o sojn as the sa ue, or any portion thereof,

180

shall be sottled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such por-
tion so settled without previous agreement i'or such purpose with the inhabitants, ptoprietora
or possesfors of the ground ; " and was Heciared that "the United States hereby renounce
forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed a claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or
cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His
Britrnnic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits :
Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or
harboui s for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and
obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restric-
tions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any
other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them ; " and whereas difi'er-
ences have arisen in regard to the extent of the above mentioned renunciation, the Govern-
ment of the United States and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, being equally
desirous of avoiding further misunderstanding, agree to appoint a mixed commission for the
following purposes, namely : —

1. To agree upon and establish by a series of lines the limits which shall separate the
exclusive f i om the common right of fishing on the coasts and in the adjacent waters of the
British North American colonies, in conformity with the 1 st Article of the Convention of 1 8 1 8,
except that the bays and harbors from which American fishermen are in the future to be
excluded, save for the purposes for which entrance into bays and harbours is permitted by
said article, are hereby agreed to be taken to be such bays and harbours as are ten or less than
ten miles in width, and the distance of three marine miles from such bays and harbours shall
be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay or harbour, in the part nearest the
entrance, at tlie first point where the width does not exceed ten miles ; the said lines to be
regularly numbered, duly described, and also clearly marked on charts prepared in duplicate
for the purpose.

'J. 'lo agree upon and establish such regulations as may b(j necessary and proper to secure
to the fishermen of the United States the privilege of entering bays and harbours for the pur-
pose of shelter and of re2:>airing damages therein, of purchadng wood, and of obtaining water,
and to agree upon and establish such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent the abuse
of the privilege reserved by said Convention to the fishermen of the United States.

3. To agree upon and recommend the penalties to be adjudged, and such proceedings
and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy trial and judgment with as little
expense as possible, for the violators of rights and the transgressors of the limits and restric-
tions which may be hereby adopted :

Provided, however, that the limits, restrictions and regulations which may be agreed
upon by the said commission shall not be final, nor have any effect, until so jointly confirmed
and declared by the United States and Uer Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, either ^y.
treaty or by laws mutually acknowledged.

Article II.

Pending a definitive arrangement on the subject. Her Britannic Majesty's Government
agree to instruct the proper colonial and other British officers to abstain from seizing or
molesting fishing vessels of the United States unless they are found within three marine
miles of any of the coasts, oays, creeks, and harbours of Her Britannic Majesty's dominions
in America, there fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within those limits, not
included within the limits within which, under the Treaty of 1818, the fishermen of the
United States continue to retain a common right of fishery with Her Britannic Majesty's
Bubjects.

Article HI.

For the purpose of executing Article I of the Convention of 1818, the Government of the
United States and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty hereby agree to send each to
the Gulf of St. Lawrence a national vessel, and also one each io cruise during the fishing
season on the southern coasts of Nova Scotia. Whenever a fishing vessel of the United
States shall be seized for violating the provisions of the aforesaid Convention by fishing or
preparing lo fish within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours
of Her Britannic Majesty's dominions included within the limits within which fishing is by
the teinis of the said Convention renounced, such vessel shall ibrlhwith be reported to the
officer in command of one of the said national vessels, who. in conjunction with the officer
in ccnimand of another of said vessels of the different nationalitj', sliall hear and examine
into the facts of the case. Should the said commanding officers be of opinion that the charge
is not sustained, the vessel shall be released. But if they should be of opinion that the
vessel should be subjected to a judicial examination, she shall forthwith be sent for trial

The

g'Ven fo

t'oa wit,

. Soli

obtain a

't 'Joos J

Jo you

I oefbro H

181

11 por-

ietorft

ounce

iry or

of His

imitss

jays or

locland

restric-

in any

Bdifl'er-

Qovern-

equally

y tor the

rate the
B of the
I of 1 818,
ure to be
nitted by
• less than
ours shall
earest the
lines to be
, duplicate

P to secure
or the pur-
ning water,
t the abuse

is.
proceedings

th as little
and restric-

be agreed
V confirmed
n, eithe- ^y

•Government

Im seizin g.<"^
Ihree mavme
Ig dominions
le limits, not
trmen of the
fie Majesty's

Bimentofthe

Isend each to

1 the fishmg

ff the United

1 by fishing*""
Lcl harbours

l fishing is by
lorted to the
\xh the o&cer
Imd exammo
III the charge
tnion that the

lent ior trial

before the Vice-Admiralty Court at IlaUfdx. If, hiwaver, the siid ootnnxiiia'^ o'Hiara
should differ in opinion, they shall name some third person to act as umpire between them,
and should they be unable to agree upon the name of such third person, they sh^ll each
name a person, and it shall be determined by lot wliich of the two parsons so n vmed shill be
the umpire.

Article IV.

The fishing vessels in the United States shall have in the e5t%blished ports of entry of
Her Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, the same commercial privileges as other vessels
of the United States, including the purchase of bait and other supplies ; aa<l such privileges
shall be exercised subject to the same rules and regulations, and payment of the same port
charges, as are prescribed for otiier vessels of the United States.

Articlb V

The Government of Her Britannic Majesty agree to release all United States' fishing
vessels now under seizure for failing to report at Custom Houses when seeJcin;; shelter, repairs
or supplies, and to refund all fines exacted for such fj,ilure to ivpirt. And the Hi>»U Con-
tracting Parties agree to appoint a Joint Commission to ascertain the amount of damage
caused to American fishermen, during the year 18S6, bv seizure and detention in violation of
the Treaty of 1818, said Commission to make awards therefor to the parties injured.

Article VI.

The Government of the Unite 1 States and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty
agree to give concurrent notification and warning of Canadian Customs regulations, and the
United States agrees to admonish its fi jherme n to comply with them, and cooperate in
securing their enforcement.

No. 160.

Lord Lansdownc to Sir L. West.

(No. 88.) OTTAW.i, 28th December, 1886.

SfR, — I have tbo honour to acknowlodgo receipt of your despatch No. 109 of tho
22ad inst, enoloaincj copies of a note from the Secretary of State to Mr. Phelps con-
taining; a proposal for tho Beltlement of tho Fi^herios question.

The proposal will receive the early attention of my Governmout.

I have, &c.,

(SJ.) LANSDOWNK.

"Sii" L. S. Sackville Wkst, K.O.M.G.,

&C,, &('., &c.

No. 167.

Secretary of State to Lord Lanslowne,

[Telegram.'] 24ih Docomber, 1SS6.

Tho United States' Govornmont roquo'^t Solicitors of "D. .T. AiamA " may be
given for purposes of trial copies of reports by Scott or Customs Officers in connec-
tion with seizure. Her Majesty'ri Government propose to answer to following effect:
Solicitors appear to bo not entitled to docaTients desired, otherwise they would
obtain all necessary papers by mean-* of legal procedure. Under the circumstances
1 it Joes not lie with Her Majesty's Government to interfere with course of justice.
1 Do you concur or does your Government consider it desirable to offer observations
before Her Majesty's Government answer.

(SJ.) SECRETARY OF STATE.

X 1

lit

J V

-til

182

No. 168.

Lord Lansdowne to Secretary of State.

ITekgram.'] 25th December, 1886.

Your telegram of the 2'lth December. BIy Government concurs in answer

(Sd.) LANSDOWNE.

aoggested.

No. 169.
The Governor General to Mr, Stanhope.

Ottawa, 28th December, 18S6.

Sib, — ^I have the honour to inform you that I have received from Sir L. West a-

despatch dated the Siind inst., ODclo^iog copioH of a letter from Mr. Bayard to Mr.

Phelps dated 16th November, 1886, and of a memorandum in which i»

enclo6UK8? containcfl the draft of a propoeui by Mr. Bayard " for the eettleraent of all

questions in dispute in relation to tbo lishories on the north-oastern coasts

of British Morth America.'^ These papers, of which printed copies wore sent to me,

have, no doubt, been tnmsmitted to you through the Foreign Office.

2. I have referred Mr. Bayard's lettor and the memorandum to my advisers, and
I shall as soon as pos>ible lay before you the formal expression of their opinion up-
on th* subject. As, however, many members of ray Government are absent from
their cffic't's at this season of the year and as some time must necessarily elapse
before ilr. Bayard's proposal can bo reviewed at length, it is as well that I should
without lurthcr lo^-s of timo make you aware of some of the objections to which it is
open, and which will, I have no doubt whatever, bo made to it.

6. I would, before going further, observe that I have road with satisfaction Mr.
Bayard's expression of his hope that advantage will bo taken of the period of "com-
parative serenity " which is likely to prevail during the next few months, in order
to arrive at an undorstanding which might put an end to any doubts which now
oxi<»t with regard to tho rights and privileges of United Stato-i' fishermen in Canadian
waters,

4. I f-hould however bo slow to admit that the proceedings taken by tho Cana-
dian authoiitics during tho pasL f-whing season deSLrve to bo characterized in the
terms applied to them by Mr. Bayard. Tho reports which I have from time to time
had the horour of aetding to you have hhown that tho acts of interfercnco which Mr.
Buyaid dct-cribcs as involving the unjust and unfrieridiy treatment of citizens of the
United Siatos were rendered necost-ary in consequence of the violation by them of
the Nws to which all vtfcsels resorlirg to Canadian waters aie without exception
amenable.

5. My Government docs not yield tothatof tho United States in itsdosiro to reduce
within tho naiicwest limits tho OLCiibions for intcrferenco with the fishermen of the
latter power and hhould it prove to be the case that there is no prospect of the estab-
Ushmeot of closer and muluaily advantageous relations between the two countries
either in lespect of the fiih trade and fishing or of commercial intercourse generally,
it will certainly bo desirable that steps should bo taken to determitio beyond dispute
the precipe limits which divide the waters in which Canadian lishormon have the
excluh-ivc right of tiching from these in which that right is common to fishermen of
all nationn. A proposal lor the aj)pointment of a mixed Commission to which this
duty bhculd. subjict to tho concuirtnce of the Govoinraents of tho powers interested,
be entrusted was, as Mr. Bayard points out, made in tho year 1866, by tho American
Government and formed the subject of negotiations which woio eventually superKedod
by those which led to tho Treaty of l!;'71, and to tho appointment of the Halifax
Commission, which however did not deal with the question of the limits of the terri-

188

56.
answer

856.

,. West a.
rd to Mr.
1 which i»
aent of all
,ern coasta
ent 10 me,

yiserp, and
(pinion up-
33ont from
irily elapse
at I should
which it is

'action Mr.
of "com-
9, in order
which now
n Canadian

the Cana-
ized in the
ime to time
which M.r.
izens of the
them of
t exception

iro to reduce
Irmcn of the
jof the ostab-
to countries
|o gororally,
[ond dispute
In have the
P&hermen of
I which this
U intorcstod,
T)0 American
t puperKcdott
[the Halifax
I of the terri-

torial waters of Canada. It Mr. Bayard had simply reverted to the A.Jam't-Clarendon
memorandum of 1868, omitting the ooDClading parasrraph to which objeolion was
taken at the time by Lord Clarendon and which as Mr. Bayard at page two of his
letter points out is not contained in the memorandum which he now submits, I should
have regarded more hopefally than I do at this moment the prospect of an under-
standing being arrived at before another fishing season commenoas.

6. The first article however of the D.-aft Proposal now subcaitted by Mr. Bayard,
while in other respects following closely the Adams-Clarendon memorandum, differs
from that memorandum, not only in the omission of the dnal parai^raph of the latter,
but also in that it adds (see Mr. Bayard's Draft, Ariiule I, Subsoiion 1) the impor-
tant stipulution that the Bays and Harbours from whioh American Fishermen arc in
the future to bo excluded save for the purposes for vvbiub entrance into the Bays and
Harboui'H h permitted by said Act are hereby agreed to be taken to bo such Bays
and Hat hours only as are ten or less than ten miles in width.

7. Thin rosorvation would involve the surrender of the exclusive right of fi-hing
in bays which have hitherto been regarded as beyond all question within the terri-
torial waters of Canada, t^uch, for instance, as the right of fishing in the inner waters
of the Bay ot Chaleurs at points 40 or 50 miles liom its moulh, which, roughly
speaking, may be suid to be less than 20 miles wide ac its ojtuning.

8. I observe that Mr. Bayard in that part of his lot*^er which refers to this sug-
gestion has lilted conventions e itored into by France and Great Britain in 1839 and
subsequently by other European powers in support of his coatemion that there should
be no exclusive rights of fishing in Bays measuring more than ten miles at their open-
ing. It is, I think, obvious that local arrangements of this kind must bo made with
reference to the geographical peculiarities ot the coasts which they atfoct, and to the
local conditions under which the tishing industry ib pursued in ditferent p irts of the
world, and that it does not by any means follow that because the ter.-raile limit is
applicable upon portions of the const ot tho continent of Europe, it is thcr.iijre
applicable under the peculiar circumstances, geographical and political, which are
present in the case of the North American Continent. A reference to the action of
the United States' Government, and tho ad missions made by their statesmen in regard
to bays on the American coasts will, I think, strengthen this view of the case. The
awsird in regard to the Bay of Pandy, upon which Mr. Bayard also relies in this part
of his argument, was, 1 believe, justified mainly upon the ground that one of the
headlands which formed this bay was in the territory of tho United States, and that
it could net therefore be regarded as a Canadian bay.

9. Tho ad interim arrangement embodied in Art II, of the memorandum pre-
judges in favor of the United States one of the most important of the points which
have been in dispute by deciding adversely to Canada'the construction which is to bo
placed upon Imperial acd Canadian Statutes, the proper interpretation of which is at
this moment tho subject of litigation before the Canadian courts. It is to be observed
that this Article might, in the event of the failure of tho two Governments to arrive
at u definite arrangement, a contingency which, considering the relations of tho
United States' Senate and tho President, cannot be dismissed from our contemplation,
remain in the operation for an indefinite time, greatly to the disadvantage of the
fitsheimen of this country.

10. Tho prodecuro suggested in Art III, for the investigation on the spot of all
oases of tre-p;isi by United States' fishing vessels, appears to be open to criticism as
capable of being used for tho purpose of frustrating tho ends of justice. I would
submit that no case has yet boon maile out for depriving of their jurisdiction particu-
larly in those cases where tho otfence must ex hypothesi have been committed
within tho territorial wafers of the Dominion, the properly corstituted and trust-
worthy tribunals of this country, and substituting for them an irregularly composed
court of first instance, such as that which would come into existence if this Article
were to be adopted.

11. Article IV prejudges in favour of the Unito I States the important question
which has arisen as to tho commercial privilogas to waioh United States' fishing vessels

r\ -ni

iir-

vs.-

i-^

i:^%

184

are entitlod while in Oanadian waters. My GovernmoDt will, I have no doubt, ia-
sist apon the neoossity of maintaiDing the distinotion made by the nonvention of
18.8 between firihing vesaeld endeavoaring to nse Canadian Bays and Harboars as a
basis of operation from which to prosecute their industry in competition with Cana-
dian fishermen, and trading veaseis resorting to such bays and harbours in the ordin-
ary course of business.

I'i. The hiHtory of the negotiations whieh preceded the Con\^eation of 1818
makes it perfectly clear that the purchase of bait was not one of the purposeH for
which it was intended that United States' fishing vessels should have a right of
entering Canadian waters. It is, I observe, proposed by Mr. Bayard in the article
under consideration, that this point also should bo decided in anticipation against
the Dominion without further disoussion.

13. Under Article Yit is assumed that the seizures and detentions which have
taken place during the past season in consequence of non-corapUancu by United
States' fishermen with the Customs Laws of Canada have in all cases involved the
violation of the Treaty of 1818 by the Canadian authorities, and we are accordingly
invited beforo submitting our case to ezumioation hy the proposed mixed commis-
sion, to release all United States' fishing vessels now under seizure for a breach of
onr Customs laws, and to refund all fines exacted for such illegality. We are, in
other words, before going into court, to plead guilty to all the counts contained in
this part of the indictment against us.

14 Indeed, if Mr. Bayard's proposal be considered as a whole it amounts to this
— that the Government of the Dominion is to submit its conduct in the past and its
rights in the future to the arbitrament of a Commission, without any assurance
whatever that the recommendations of that Commission are likely to be accepted by
Congress atd that before the enquiry commences it is to place upon record the
admission that it has been in the wrong upon all the most important points in the
controvert^y. Such an admission would involve the public renunciation of substan-
tial and valuable rights and privileges for all time without any 80rt of equivalent or
compensation. Mr. Bayard can, I venture to think, scarcely expect that my Gov-
ernment should agree to so one-sided a proposal or should make without any return,
concessions so damaging to the interests of this country and so injurious to its self
respect. 1 1 rust that Her Majesty's Government will, to the utmost cf its ability,
discourage that of the United States from pressing these proposal in their present
shape, aiid will avoid any action which mi^ht induce the belief tiiat the offer em-
bodied in tbem is one which deserved a favourable reception at ihe hands of the
jovernmont of the Dominion.

The Right Honourable

EUWABD STANnOPC.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.)

No. no.

LANSDOWNE.

Mr. Stanhape to Lord Lansdottne.

Downing Strbet, 30th December, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to transmit to you herewith, to bo laid before
your Government, a copy, received through the Foreign Office, of a note from the
United Stales' Miuinter ut this Court, enclosing an outline for an ad interim arrange-
ment belwoen the Mriti.«h and United States' Governments, on the subject of the
North American Fisheries, accompanied by a despatch from Mr. Bayard containing
some obsorvationH thert.'on.

On the leceipt of these papers. Her Majesty's Minister at Washington was
desired, by telegram to obtain copies of Mr. Bayard's despatch to Mr. Phelps of the

loabt, in-
ention of
)oar8 as a
ith Oana-
the ordin-

of 1818
•poseH for
, rigbt of
ho article
)a agniDBt

hich bave
)y United
iT^olved the
.coordingly
3d comnaia-
I breach of
We are, in
ontainei in

luntB to this
past and its
p assurance
accepted by
D record the
lointB in the
Q of Bubstan-
quivalent or
It my Gov-
any return,
us to itB self
its ability,
heir present
he offer em-
lands of the

)WNE.

f, 1886.

1 laid before
bto from the
tiin arrange-
|bjeot of the

. containing

lington was
lelps of the

185

15th of Norember nnd of the proposals for an arrangement, and he was desired, if
the United Stated' Gj7arnindnt had no objdction to traasinit these copies direct toyoa.

In my telegram of the 27th December, I requested you to obtain at the earliest
possible moment from your Government their views on Mr. Bayard's proposals and
to report them to Her Alajesty'n Govornmont.

I need now only add that Her Majesty's Government await with much interest
the result of this rot'oronoo to your Minieterrt.

I have, &o..

CSd)
G-overnor General

The Mo9t Honorable

The Mapquis of Lansdownb, G.C.M.G.

EDWARD STANHOPB.

&c,

&c.

LEnclosare No 1.]

Mr. Phelps to Earl Iddesleigh.

United States' Legation, 3rd December, 1886.

Mt Lord,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 30th Kovember
on the subject ot the Canadian Fisheries, and to say that I shall at an early day submit to
Your Lordship some considerations in reply.

Meanwhile 1 have the honour to transmit, in pursuance of the desir^expressed by Your
Lordship in conversation on the 30th November, a copy of.an outline for a proposed ad interim
ar'dngement between the two Governments on this subject which has been pro-
SncloBures posed by the Secretaryof State of the United States.

of No. 165. And I likewise transmit, in connection with it a copy of the instruction from

the Secretary of State which accompanied it, and which I am authorized to
submit to Your Lordship.

I have &c.,

(Sd.) E. J. PHELPS.

The Earl op Iddesleigh.
&c., &c., &o.

No. ni.

Lord Lansdoicne to Secretary of State.

7th January, 188T.

With rofcence to my despatch of 2 ith Docembar, Mr. Biyard's prop(>:<al in its
present whapo is one which my Goviuument could not entertain. We are, however,
prepared to uccopt iu 8ub:itanco the position which is laid down in L)rd Clarendon's
despatch ot ilth May, 1866, to Sir F. Brace.

(SJ.) LANSDOWNB.
To the Secretary of State.

No. 172.
Sir L. West to Lord Lansdowne.

[No. 2.] Wasuinqtom, 15th January, IS37.

Mt Lo:iD, — With roferonco to a resolution introJacol into und piii^-od by the
noubo of Jt.'prcscntatives, I have the honour to enclosa to Your Exceliomsy herewith ,
<.opie8 of iho reply of tho Secretary of the Treasury thereto, and to call attoalion to

li:

*■:■

■I- 8

SIM'

t J'

; ^n

186

tho terms " brutally exisluilo-* " (paijo 191), and " passioaato spite " (pago 192), use I
in connection with your GoruiDiaont ami it» officers.

Hij Excellency

The AfABQtJts OF L\NSDOWNB, G.C.M.G.,
&c., &o., &c.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.') L. S. S. WB3T.

49th Congress,
'2d Session.

LEaclosure No. 1.]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Ex. Doc.

No. 78.

AMERICAN FISHERIES.
Jteply of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Treasury Department, 10th January, 1887.

Sib, — I have the honour to receive the resolution of the House of the 14th ultimo,
making inquiry in regard to the " interpretation now given by the Treasury Department to
the tariff law of eighteen hundred and eighty- three, which in one section declares that 'fish,
fresh for immediate consumption,' shall be free of tax on arrival at our sea ports or lake
ports, and in another section declares that ' foreign caught fish, imported fresh,' shall be
taxed at the rate of fifty cents for each hundred pounds," and also requesting me " to trans-
mit to the House copies of all official correspondence, opinions and decisions bearing on the
subject, together with a statement of the duties collected each year, since eighteen hundred
and sixty-five, on the several descriptions of fish caught on the lakes, or the Canadian tribu-
taries thereof, and also on the several descriptions caught in the North Atlantic, or on the
shores of the islands thereof."

FROZEN FISU.

A satisfactory reply to these inquiries will mR.ke necessary a preliminary statement, and
an exhibition of certain details connected therewith.

By the tariff law of 1846, there was levied 20 per cent, ad valorem, on the foreign
yalue of :

" Fish, foreign, whether fresh, smoked, salted, dried, or pickled, not otherwise pro-
vided for."

The gniue schedule, and language, were preserved in the tariff law of 1857, but the rate
-was redueed to 15 per cent.

The liuiff law of :^nd March, 1861, levied in the tenth section tho following rates :

" On mackerel, two dollars per barrel ; on herrings, pickled or salted, one dollar per
barrel ; on pickled talmon, three dollars per barrel ; on all other ti*h, pickled, in barrels, one
dollar and fifty cents per barrel ; on all other foreign-caught ii^h, imported otherwise than
in barrels or hall-harrels, or whether fresh, smoked or dried, salted or pickled, not otherwise
provided for, fifty cents per one hundred pounds."

In its twenty-third section that law declared that " fish, fresh caught, for daily consump-
tion," shall be exempt from duty.

Then began a perplexity which has embarrassed the Department up to the present day.
Some one at the port of entry must, under that clause, decide whether or not the iish, entered
as free thereunder, is "fresh caught," and is " for daily consumption." Did tho (juaU^icatioii
"for dady consumption" refer to the "fish," or to tho catching, .ind the purpose of the
catching? Who can correctly pass judgment on the motive of the fishermen, or of the
importei ?

On It-th June, 1860, this Department decided (see Appendix A) that the phrase included
all fish iiiij oited lor consumption, while fresh, and did not include fish imported fresh, but to
be nfteiwaids diied, or jiicklcd, or cured for future use. "Daily consumption," said this
Peparlnx nt, twenty years ago, "means consumption within a shoit time." J hat view seems
correci, I. ut, nevertheless, the law was intrinsically incapable of exact execution, inasmuch
as it nught be difficult for a Customs othcer to foresee, or foreknow, the intentions or purposes
deferred to.

12), UBOl

i3T.

!x. Doc.

No. 78.

, 1887.

th ultimo,
artment to

that • fish,
ts or lake
,' shall be

" to trans-
Ting on the
m hundred
idian tribu-
!, or on the

jraent, and

the foreign

wise pro-

ut the rate

ilollar per

iirrels, one

rwise than

otherwise

T consump-

•esent day.
sh, entered
.laliJicatioii
ose of the
or of tlie

!e included
■esh, but to
' said this
iew seoms
inasmuch
»r purposes

187

I believe that the fish clause quoted above from the law of 2nd March, 1801, and which
levied a tax on fish, stood till 1870, but the free clause was made in 1870 to read :

" Fish fresh, for immediate consumption."

The substitution of " immediate " for " daily " did not remove the perplexity.

The Tariff Commission did not report on the subject.

The tariff law of I88.i taxes fish at our seaports, our lake ports, and on the frontier, by
these words in the schedule for " Provisions : "

"Mackerel, one cent per pound,

" Herrings, pickled or salted, one-half of one cent per pound.

" Salmon, pickled, one cent per pound ; other fish, pickled, in barrels, one cent per
pound.

" Foreign-caught fish, imported otherwise than in barrels or half-barrels, whether fresh,
smoked, dried, salted, or pickled, not specially enumerated or provided for in this Act, fifty
cents per hundred pounds."

A subsequent section declared that the fallowing articles, when imported, shall be
exempt from duty :

" Fish, fresh, for immediate consumption.

« Fish for bait.

"Uil, spermaceti, whale and other fish oils of American fisheries, and all other articles
the produce of such fisheries.

•' Shrimps or other shell-fish.

" Fish sounds or fish-bladders."

The kinds of fish just described having been "specially enumerated, or provided for " iu'
1883, wero thereby taken out of the chiuse levying a tax on foreign-caught fresh fish.

What has hapj)ened in the execution of the fiee-fish clause, during the last quarter of a
century, whether the clause required " daily " or " immediate " consumption, is exhibited in
the subjoined Appendix A. It is an unsatisfactory record of iiu efibrt to discover and execute
anintention of the law-makers which was so ambiguously expressed as to lead to doubt and
dispute. In 1877, and alter the law of 1870, the difficulties were increased, partly by reason
of new contrivances for the artificial freezing of fish.

At fir.^t it was doubted by collectors whether or not a fish caught in winter, thrown on
the ice and Irozen stiff while lying thore, and imported in that condition, could be a " fresh
fish," as if either a fresh fish cannot be frozen, or a frozen fish cannot be fresh. It was also
insisted that a fish caught in summer, and frozen by an artificial metho<l could not be
deemed fresh, even though as fresh as one frozen by the natural coldness of winter air in a
northern clima'.e. Then it was said that the produce ot American fisheries could not be car-
ried into Canada, there artificially frozen, and afterwards be exempt from tax when entered
at our ports. It was argued by Customs officers that the quantity entered could be made a
safe test oi ^^ immediate consumption," as if Customs officers could correctly ascertain and de-
cide on the "immediate " buying and consuming jwwers oithe peoi^le. There were Customs
officers who urged the Department to make the distance of the probiblo place of sale from
the place of entry a test of " immediate consumption," as if transportation from Portland in
Maine to a market at Boston could be a legal test, and "imiiiecliate ' referred to place rather
th«n time. One collector thought twenty tons offish on one entry at a port on the lakes,
could not be for " immediate consumption " by subsequent shijiment and sale in the great
markets of Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York. It could not be aliimiGd that the fish
thus Irozen, whether naturally or artificially, was either ''suioked, or dried, or sullod, or
pickled." it' freezing deprived the fish of freshness, it could not well be dutiable as foreign-
caught fish,yr«sA ,' " What sort offish was it? Was it old, stale, and decayed fidi that
buyers and consumers sought, bought, and would eat? The contention has gine on for well-
nigh a quarter ol a century, nor has Congress intervened to tax frozen lisli by other and ex-
plicit words !

In June last the interpretation of the law was referred to th'> "-olicitor of this Depart-
ment, llis opinion, subjoined in Appendix A, does not reli.n'o th.> enactment from diffi-
culties in unildrm application at e.ach port such as the Constitution comuiands. It a collector
shall, in order to secure such unifoiuiity at every port, await t!u>: decision ol this Depnitinent
after an exhilntion of the facts surrounding each entry, the fish might become anything but
"fresh."

This fish clau?e of the tariff law affords a pertinent illustration of the need thei e is of
revising our taxing legislation. The draughtsman of a great many of its sections, apparently
unable to set down clearly his purpose, and his own idea ol the method of executing it, has
thrown upon appraising or collecting officers the work of ascertaining the intentions of im-
porters, or the uses to which merchandise can be, or may be, thereafter put, which those
officers are unable to perform in any reasonable time, or in any satisfactory way. To appraising
and collecting work in practical administration there is a limit, which our pro'^ent law too

li. t. i

IB I

'III •

188

frequontly ignores, and Customs offiaers are unjustly criticise J, or c Jii leiniiod for not doing
sucb work properly.

I have dwelt upon this incident in our tariff legislation beciuse it males clear, even to
the superficial observer, how man's inventions, and improved methods ofrapid communication
by steum, not only crowd down prices, and extend the saleable area of one aiticlo utter
another, year by year, and month by month, but even modify the necessary interpretation to
be given to classifications in our taxing laws. One hundred and three years ago, — wiien the
Treaty of Peace was signed, which apportioned the British Empire in America and its rights
of fishing, between the British Government and the thirteen independent American StateM,—
railways and steam engines were practically unknown, and the use of ice as now applied in
the fishing industry, was also unknown. Even half a century ago the purchase and enjoy-
ment of fresh fish as food was confined to places near the spot where the fish were caught.
Thus it has come to pass that ice and railways have changed, even since 1870, the mont ob-
yIous definition and the strictly literal application of the phrase in our tariff law, " fish, fresh,
for immediate consumption." Such causes of change are constantly occurring as to other ar-
ticles, by reason of modiRcations in methods of production, new combinations of component
materials, new nomenclature, und new commercial classifio itions, which enforce the need of
frequent revisions of our tariff law, when the law, instead of taxing simply a few articles, re-
quires the executive to levy and collect multifarious duties on so many hundreds and even
thousands of articles.

The United States' Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries says in his report for 1881 :

" In the earlier years of the American fisheries, and in the greater abundance of inshore
fisheries, with a comparatively slight demand in consequence of the small population ot the
country, and the difficulties of transporting the fish, it was quite possible to obtain, within
easy reach of our coast, fish enough to meet all the requirements. Now, with a population
of hfty millions of people, the great decline of the inshore fisheries, and the ability not only
to transport fresh fish to any distance inland without deterioration, but with also the grow-
ing demand for salted, dried, and canned fish, it is of the utmost importance that every fa-
cility be furnished the fishermen in the prosecution of their business."

In the report of the Commissioner for 1882 it is said ;

"The work of increasing the supply of valuable fishes in the waters of the United. States,
whether by artificial propagation or by transplantation, although very successful, ni ly be
considered as yet in its infancy. It must be remembered that the agencies whioli have
tended to diminish the abum lance of the fish have been at work for many years, and are
incrt^asing in an enormous ratio. This, taken in connection with the rapid multiplication of
the population of the United States, makes the wcrk an extremely difficult one. If the
general conditions remained the same as they were fifty years ago, it would be a very simple
thing to restore the former equilibrium.

" At that time, it must be remembered, the methods of preservation and of wholesale trans-
fer, by means of ice, were not known, while the means of quick tran.iportation were very limited.
Hence, a small number of fish supplied fully the demand, with the exception, of course, of
species that were salted down, like the cod, the maclcerel, and the herrings (including the
shad). At that time a comparatively small quantity supplied the dem an 1 for fresh fish, and
it was easy to more than meet tLie demand. Now, hjwever, the conditions are entirely
changed."

In Appendix A will be found " the official correspondence, opinions and decisions," on
the subject of frozen fish, the record of which will disclose to your honourable body the vast
amount of labour which even one ambiguous phrase in a tariff law throws upon your Treasury
Department and its Customs officers. Our existing dragnet wartarifF law contains not one
only, but hundreds of such phrases, and these are the least of its discreditable, scandalous,
and easily remediable imperfections.

THE PRODUCTS OF AMERICAN FISHERIES EXEMPT FROM DU i.

The clause, already quoted from the law of 1883, which exempts from seaport taxation
all fish-oils of American fisheries, and " all other articles the produce of such fisheries," has a
large bearing on the inquiry made of me by the House. That e.xemptiou stands in the law
of I ^S.■), as it stood in the Revised Statutes, excepting the immaterial adilition in the former
of the word " oils " after " fish." The exactment is in the law of 2nd March, 1861, which law
secured the freedpm of such articles from tariff taxes down to the lievisod Statutes. The
tariff laws of IS')7, and 1846, contain the clause of ISOl. The law ot 1841 declares that '' wlialo
and other fish oils of American fisheries," and all other articles the produce of said fisheries
shall be exempt from duty. Before 1841 the clause does not appi^ar in the statutes, an 1 yet
a manual issued in New York by Deputy Collector Lyon in 1828, and another in Ih:J2, put
down as free : " Fisheries of the United States and their territories, — all products."

resk fisli, and

189

I nlpo find subtantially the same language in two compilations of the tariff laws one by

IHcypr ^^o^e8 in IS3(), and one by E. D. Ogden in 1840 and still another compilation, in 182M,
jby" Jiinies Campbell, entry clerk, custom house, N'ew-York," in which he enumerates " ttsh
lofthe fisheries of the United States or its Territories, free." Mr. <.)gden was for many years
Ichief entry clerk at the port of New York, and a compiler of the revenue laws. In his edition
Ifor IH-IO ho cites as authority for the phrase the Acts ol 14th July, 1832, 184U, and 184!. The
Ijjplnnaiion is probably this : The final clause of the first section of Act of 10th August, 1790,
llevicH duties on a plan unlike that now used. It taxes at five jjer cent, ad valorem certain
IclafscH of merchandise, and then rescues from taxation certain specified commodities, " and,
heneially, all articles of the growth, the/jrorfj/c/, or manufactures of the United States.'' The
[two sentences next to the hist in the first section of the law of 27th April, 18 16, impose duties
|« on spermaceti oil of yinrej^H fishing, (and) on whale and other fish oil of /ore>j/7» fishing,"
JThe language in that law, as to the products named, is precisely the same as that used in the
Iprepent tariti, with the single substitution in the latter '* o{ American fisheries" for the words
h of Ji'Vaign fishing "in the former. My conclusion is that only the products ot foreign
lishing having been provided for as dutiable, the products of American fisheries were by a
jcleor implication exempted from duty as the products of the United States, i hat they were
llhe products of the United States is, it seems to me, put beyond question by the fact that
|bounties were paid to vessels engaged in American fisheries.

In 1836, it was decided by Mr .lustice Story that when whales have been caught, and oil
I been therefrom produced, by the crew of an American vessel, the oil is not the product
|of" foreign fishing" and dutiable, even although owned by aliens when entered at our ports.
iHe said that the inquiry whether or not the oil was of " foreign fishing " depended upon the
iDationality of the vessel when the whales were caught and the oil extracted, and not upon
liny subsequent events.

Jn a series of comparatively recent decisions by this Department, copies of the text of
Iwhich will be found in Appendix B, Fisheries have been defined as " American " within the
Imeiining of our revenue laws, although the taking of the fish be on the high seas, or within a
Iforeign jurisdiction. That should in part bo so for other reasons than wei-e assigned in those
Idecisiou inasmuch as Customs duties are, in general, only imposed on ai tides when imported
Ifrom a port, or place, within the exclusive dominion of a foreign State, which could not
|be said of fish, or their products, arriving from the ocean where the fish were caught.

'llie phrase " fisheries of the United States," is in the first tariff law enacted by the first
ICongress which sat under the Constitution, and the test of American fishing has, from that
hay to this uniformly been the nationality of the vessel, regardless of the place where the
lisii were taken. Even the Treaty of Washington, which admitted free of duty into each
Icountry fish of all kinds being the produce oi the fisheries of either country, excepting fish of
Ithe inland lakes, and of the rivers falling into them, left fish caught therein by American
Ivefsels entitled to free entry in our ports as formerly. Our Sui^reme Court declared in 1876,
Ithat, subject to the paramount right of navigation (the power to regulate which is in the
iFederal Government) each State owns the bed of the tidewaters within its jurisdiction, and
Imay aj^propiiate them to be used exclusively by its citizens as a common for cultivating and
liaking fish if navigation be not impeded ; but the Treaty of 1854 gave, nevertheless, to British
Ifubjects, in common with American citizens, the liberty to fihh on our coasts north of the
tMi parallel ol north latitude, and the Treaty of 1871 gave t'he liberty north of the 39th
Iparallcl. Those treaties having fallen, and the fishing rights of Massachusetts on her coasts
Inaving returned to her, she may permit British vessels to fish on her coasts, but then it could
Inot be said that the fish, if entered at our ports, had been imported from a foreign port.
iBut apart from such an improbable incident to complicate the proposition, it may be safely
laffirmed that all fishing-grounds, whether on the high seas, or on the Canadian coasts secured
Itous by treaty stipulations, are " American Fisheries " if the fish are caught by vessels regu-
llarly documented by the Treasury Department. In that sense and to that end, the ocean
land certain Canadian coasts are (under tlio Treaties of 1783 and 1818) our "fishing-grounds."

WHAT VKSSELS ARH A.VKRICAN VESSELS ?

In this relation, which concerns the freedom from taxation at our ports of fish products
llaken in the sea, or on Ctuiadian coasts, and also concerns our pending serious difi'erences
Iwilli tlie British Government it is important to realize what constitutes an American vessel
Itlius caj able of enlaigmg the aiea from which free fish can be entered at our ports. Con-
Igrefs, notably by the enactment of 5tli July, 1884, has committed to the Ilead of this Depart-
Iment the siiiiervision of the commercial marine, and merchant seamen of the United States,
land of (he decihion of all questions relating to the issue of registers, enrolments, and licenses
Icfvcsi-cls, aMd to the preservation of those documents. Whether or not a private vessel,
Iclaiming to be American, is American, and entitled to carry and display that fiag, depends

III

il'iMi

lllifi

liH

•1

; 1

: !

1
1'*

I »

li'l!<'t

lf)0

•olely on the character of the ship's papers that it carrieu by the permission of Congivss, glyJ
under the atteHtation of this Department. — The only cjuestion is this : Has the vessisl col
formed to tlio laws, not of a foreign country, but of the United States? In tl»e decision]
that question her papers must be primd Jacie evidence against all the world. Theso coni
derations are elementary, but they are important now as defining what aro ''AmericJ
fisherioH," whose products are in our ports exempt fromCustoms taxes.

Tlio section of our law which authorizes a vessel, licensed for carrying on fishery,
"touch and trade at any foreign port" is not a modern contrivance for modern exigoncla
as Canadian local oflicials intimate, but has been on our statute-book since I7'J3. As literall
reproiiuced in section 4304 of tho Revised Statutes, it gives the permission of this Depai
ment to any vessel, so licensed for carrying on the fisheries of ihe Uniteil States, to enti
Brlli.sh or other foreign ports, as a commercial vessel, and to there enjoy the rights and priJ
leges accorded to vessels of the United States sailing " foreign " under a register, and nd
engaged in the fisheries. The perraissioh thus given to fishing vessels to '• touch and trado|
has been understood by this Department for nearly a hundred years as conferring upon tli
vessel a rijzht to land, and to receive on board a cargo ot merchandise, in the same mann^
as if she weie not engaged in the fisheries. On the return of the vessel to the Unite I Sialol
she is ro(juired to make regular entry, and to be in all respects subject to tho regulation
prescribed for vessels arriving from foreign ports.

MEDI-KVAL RESTRICTIONS ON I'REB XAVKIATION.

The stipulations of the Treaty of ISl.") only applied in our favour to British territories
Europe. Jf they were applicable now to British territories in America tire present dlil'orcncej
in British iS'orth America should not exist, for the first article of that convention declare
that "the inhabitants of the two countries, respectively, shall have liberty, freely anJ
securely, to come with their ships and cargoes to all such places, ports and rivers, in tho tei
ritories aforesaid, to which other foreigners are permitted to come, to enter into tho t-anid
and to remain and reside in any parts of the sard territories, respectively."

The Eccond article stipulates that, as to "the intercourse" between the United Stato
and British possessions in North America, "each party shall remain in tho complete posseJ
sion of its rights."

Jn 1S27, when the Treaty of 1815 was extended for an indefinite time, the fnitsd Statoj
struggled in vain with England for a more liberal agreement, or a more liberal interpretation
of that of Ihli), but could obtain neither.

Such liberty of access by American vessels to British colonial ports on this continent wa
the subject of fruitless negotiation by each of the first six Presidents. The endeavour was conti
nued during forty years, and was only successful in the hands of General Jackson, as PresI
dent, Mr. Van Buren as Secretary of State, and Mr. McLane as Minister to London, audtlieij
by concerted legislation relating at first only to the British West Indies. It having been
arranged that there would be legislation ao London opening to us the British colonial ports t^
the south of us on this continent, Congress, on 29th May, 1830, authorized President. I ackson i
proclaim our ports open " indefinitely, or for a fixed term," to British vessels from the island
provinces, or colonies of Great Britain, on or near the North American continent,"' and norllA
south, or east of the United States.

Soon thereafter,and on 5th October,1830.Pre8ident Jackson did issue the Proclamation, ancj
on 26th June, i 884, Congress again reduced tonnage dues on Canadian vessels of all sorts enten
ing our ports. By such concerted and reciprocal legislation, the medicoval barriers around
colonial possessions in America by v.hich the mother Country had so long endeavoured for hei
own benefit to hamper and restrict the trade of the colonies, and to levy ditfereiitial duties iii
favourof colonial produce, have been broken down. The Privy Council, and the (joveriiorl
General of the Dominion of Canada, while conceding that Canadian ports are now open t«^
American trading vessels, attempt to apply that mediiuval and discarded restrictive systeu
to American fishermen on the high seas.

In 1845, after many years of effort by the United States, England again relaxed the ri-io^
of the restrictions of her ancient laws of transportation, as applied to her colonio.s, and tlia
two countries entered upon a new period of prosperity Howing from the unhindered carriage!
of merchandise in bond by land and water. That legislation covering tho British North AmeriJ
can provinces began, on our part, on 3rd March, 1845. In 1846 came the comprehensive systen
of ware-housing, the general features of which are now in force, devised and perfecttHi, diuina
the administraiion of President Polk, by my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Robert .1. WalkerJ
In 184'J, 1850, 1854, and subsequently, that system of warehousing, and transportation in bond
by railway and steamboat, has been amended and improved so that to-day we of the United
States and they of the Dominion of Canada aro reaping tho advantages of an inteinall^nal
organization by which rnercliandiso, whether tluti;ibleor dec, audilMutiable uitha it p.iymena

lent,"' iiiul iiortii

of duties in transit, can if entered atone of our ports proceed imniefliately over our territory
to Canada, or, if landed at a Canadian port, can coiue freely to its deHtination in the United •

hjtatoB, or can pass from one of our own ports to another over Canadian boII, and, in like
manner, from one Canadian port to another over Ameriuan »oil. It is to be regretted that the

I British North American provinces impede and impair the full (luition of thiw benelioent
system of into national intercourse and transportation by unwoithy and petty spite in their

I ports against American deep seu fishermen

From 1821 to \8H'2, the aggregate annual trafllc between the United Statoti and the British
North American provinces averagoi only $li,'2.")7,l5 5 ; from 18.<2 to 184'> it rose to $(),3 1 3,780,
but, under liberal transportation arrangements, it rone fiom i^^lO to 1H.')3 to no loss an annual

I arerage than $I->,230,7G3, leaving in our favour, during tlmt period of eight years, a balance of
trade of over 40^ millions of dollars.

It was in 1845 that England, changing her colonial policy, empowered the Canadian pro-
vinces to make a tariti' on imports to suit themselves. During the ntxt year those provinces
removed the barrier against American products which existed, in the form of diit'erontial rates
in favour of British products, and admitted commodities from our side of the lino on the same
terms as commodities were admitted coming from British port'i. In IS 10, Engliiud, having by
her Minister at Washington previously communicated with the 'f reasury I)(!partaient, pre- ■
sented a further proposition for a further reciprocal relaxation of commercial restrictions
which impeded trade across the boundary line. The administration of President Fillmore
endeavoured to promote the object for which my predecessor in this Department,Mr. Kobert J.
Walker, strove, in 1840, in his correspondence with the British Minister.

This good result of only a partial experiment of reciprocal comity naturally led to nego-
tiations for a more comprehensive fnternational arrangement, and such a one was conclmlod
in 18r)4 by negotiations conducted at Washington, on our side during the administiation of
President Pierce by a wise and illustrious statesman and citizen of Kew York, Mr. Marcy, who
was the:. Secrptary of State. That reciprocity treaty was in force till ISGC), a period covering
our civil war. Under its influence, the ajj^regate interchange of commodities batween our-
selves and the inhabitants of all the British provinces, - nuuibering not as many as those of
the State of New York, — rose from an annual average of a little over 14 millions of dollars, in
the previous eight years to over 33J millions in gold in 185;;, to nearly itU millions in 18.56,
and to 84 millions in the last year of its existence. During the thirteen years the British
provinces, according to their official returns, purchased from us articles valued at over 3 iOJ
millions of dollars in gold, and wo bought from them 197 millions, thus making an interna-
tional tr.if He of nearly 556 J millions of dollars on a gold valuation. I can but think that if
that treaty of 1854 had remained in force till this day, the two peoples, — divided by a boun-
dary line which can only with difhculty bo discornetl IVom the Aictic ocean to the Paciiic,
from the Pacific to Lake Superior, and from Lake Ontario to the Atlantic, — would now be
one people, at least for all purposes ot production, trade and business.

Duiing the past summer, while American vessels, regularly documented, have been
excluded iroui the hospitality and privileges of trading in Canadian ports, Canadian fishing-
vessels have been permitted freely to enter and use American ports along the Xew England
coast, have been protected by this Department in such entry and use, and have not been
required to pay any other fees, charges, taxes, or dues then have been imposed upon the
vessels of other governments similarly situated. The hospitality elsewhere, and generally
extended in British ports to American commercial vessels has not been less, in quality or
quantity, as 1 am informed, than the hospitality extended to British vessels in American
ports ; but there is this marked dillerence, that, while this Department protects Canadian
fishermen in the use of American ports, the Dominion of Canada brutally excludes American
fishermen from Canadian ports. This dependence of port hospitality, as between this
Government and the British Government, in respect to vessels of either, is emphasized by the
seventeenth section of the law of PJth June, 188t), empowering the President to suspend com-
mercial privileges to the vessels of any country denying the same to United States' vessels.
That section is in harmony with a section in the British navigation law which authorizes the
Queen, whenever Itritish vessels are subject in any foreign country to prohibitions or restric-
tions, to impose by Order in Council sucli prohibitions, or restrictions upon ships of such
foreign country, either as to voyages in which they may engage, or as to the articles which
they may imjiort into or export from any British possession in any part of the world, so as to
place the ships of such country on as nearly as possible the same footing in British ports as
that on which British ships are placed in ports of such country.

I.ii',

m 4

l^^'

tr> "

UEVEXtJE LAWS AND EEGtJLATIOXS.

The Head of this Department, having the rosponsibility of enforcinc the collection of
duties upon such a v;ist iiuiiibor of iuipirted avtiele.-i, uiidt-r ciroiuustancos of so long ii sea-
coubtuud frontier line to be guarded aj/ainst tho diiviocs of sm'igsjlers, shoul.l not bo inclined

Ir'l

Mil!!'!!

^"; i

1»2

to under eHtiraate the Rolicitudo of the lonal offloerBofthe Dominion of Canada to protect iU
own revenue from similar invasion. The lawg for the collection ofdutipson imports in force in
the United States and in the Dominion of Canada, resppotively, will be found, on comparison,
to bo on many points similar in their objects and methods. They should naturally be similar,
for both had, in the beginning, the same common origin. In the United States, Congress
has divided the territory of each Stato by metes and bounris, usually by towns, cities, or
counties, into collection districts, for the purpose of collecting duties on imports, anu in
each colloctinn district has estublishod a portof entry and ports of delivery. In that manner
all our sea-coast frontier is sub-divided for revenue purposes. The object of our law is to
place every vessel arriving from a foreign port in the custody of a Customs officer immediately
upon her arrival, in order that no merchandise may be unlailen therefrom without the
knowledge of the Government. The Canadian law is much the same as our own in that
regard, and in comparison with our own does not seem to mo be unnecessarily severe in its
general provisions, t lur own law provides, for example (sec 2774, U(*v. Stat.,) that : —

" Within twenty four hours after the arrival of any vessel, from any foreign port, at any
port of the Dnited States established by law, at which on ofHcer of the Customs resides, or
within any harbor, inlet, or creek thereof, if the hours of the business of theolline ot the chief
officer of Customs will permit, or as soon thereafter a< such hours will permit, the master
shall report to such officer, and make report to the chief officer, of the arrival of the vcfsol ;
and he shall within forty-eight bours after such arrival make a further report in writing to
the collector of the district, which reprrt shall be in the form, and shall contain all the parti-
culars required to be inserted in and veritied like the manifest. Every Mastorwho bhail no-
gleet or omit to make cither of such roportsor declaration, or to verify any such declaration as
required, or shall not fully comply with the true intent and meaning of this section, shall,
for each oft'ence be liable to a ptnalty of one thousand dollars."

Condemnation does not, in the opinion of this Department, justly rest upon tho Domin-
ion of Canada because she has upon her statute-books and enforces a law similar to tho
foregoing, but because she refuses to permit American deep sea fishing vessels, navigating
and using the ocean, to enter her ports for tho ordinary purposes of trade and commerce,
even though they have never attempted to fish within the territorial limits of Canada, and
intend obedience to every requirement of the Customs laws, and of every other law of tho

Eort which such vessels seek to enter. American fishing vessels duly authenticated by this
epartment, and having a permit " to touch and trade," should be permitted to visit Can-
adian ports, and buy supplies, and enjoy ordinary commercial privileges, unless such a right
is withheld in our ports from Canadian vessels. That right is denied by the Privy Council
and the Governor General of the Canadian Dominion, upon the ground that it would be in
eflect a^ro /art ^0 abrojjation of the Treaty of 1818. That contention is an error, in the
opinion of this Department, because the Treaty of 1818 has no application to the subject
matter. If the right claimed by this Department for American vessels authentioted by this
Department were conceded by Canada, it would only api)ly to a few ports established bylaw
for the entry of foreign vessels, and would merely enable United states' fishing vessels to
pursue their regular business after entry into or departure from such ports, under the same
rules and regulations as are applied to the commercial vessels of other nations. We ask
that American fishing vessels shall enjoy hospitality in such Canadian ports as aro set apart
for the entry of foreign vessels, for the unlading and shipment of merchandise, and generally
for foreign commerce.

This Department has had occasion in the past, and may be compelled in the future, to
861.3 and prosecute to forfeiture toreign as well as domestic vessels violating in our own
ports, the Customs law, but I believe there never has been in the past, and I hope there
never will be in the future, such passionate spite displayed by the officers of this Govern-
ment, as has during the last summer been exhibited in the Dominion of Canada toward well
meaning American fishermen. Congress has forbidden the Hea I of this Department to
prosecute even for evasion of tarifl'law unless satisfied of "an actual intention to defraud."

TONNAGE UF VESSELS ENOAUEO IS AMERICAN l-'ISIIERIBS, AND THE NATIONALITIES OF TUE

FISHERMEN.

During the periods of the inquiry made ofmebythe House, the tonnage of American
fishing-vessels of over twenty tons burden, other than whalers, will bo seen in Api^endix D.

That tonnage reached its maximum 203,459 in 1^02, and during the subsequent seven
years diminished by more than 70 per cent. The lowest number of tons was touched in tho
middle of the period between the expiration of tho Keciprocity Treaty of 18.54 and the con-
clusion of the Treaty of Washington of 1871. Tho falling off is perhaps to be atiributed in
great part to the repeal in 18C6 of the laws allowing bounties to the vessels engaged in the
fisheries. By the law of 1813 there was paid by the collector of the district where such

193

<«Mt

protect

it*

ui force In
omparison,

be similar,
J, Congress
1, cities, or
)rtR, and in
hat manner
ur law is to
mmediately
without the
own in that
severe in its
at: —

jiort, at any
IS resides, or

ot the chief
. the master
r the vci-sel ;
in writing to
nil the parti-
whi) hhall nC'
leclaration tw
leotion, shall,

n the T)omin-
jimilar to the
.8, naviijating
id commerce,
'Canada, and
tier law of tho
icaled by this
i to visit Can-
is such a light
Privy Council
[t would be in
>rror, in the
to Ihe subject
[ic^ted by this
,Ushed bylaw
ing vessels to
[der the same
)n8. We ask
are set apart
tnd generally

|ie future, to

in our own

hope there

Ithis Govem-

Itoward well

Ipartment to

) defraud."

OF TUE

pf American
[ppendix D.
Ipient seven
liched in tho
lid the con-
Viributed in
iiied in the
Iwliero such

veiBels belonged, to the owner thereof, if the veisel had beon employed at sea, in fishing for
tho term of four months, and for each ton burden, a spet "* d mm, not to exceed $272 on any
one vessel for one leiuon, ot which bounty tbroeeightH accrued to the owner and the other
tive-eigUtB to the several tishermen. In 1817 it was enacted that the bounty Bhal' be paid
only to veisela whereof the otlicers, and at least three-fourths of the crew, shall be citizens of
the United States, or persons not the subject of any foreign prince or itate. In 1819, sooa
after the conclusion of the Treaty of 1 8 1 8, the bounties were moreaaed, but not to ezoeed $300
for each vessel. In 1864 it was enacted that the bounty shall not thereafter be paid to any
vessel until satisfactory proof shall Itave been furnished to the collector of Customs that the
import duty imposed bv law upon foreign salt has been paid on all foreign salt used in curina
the Hsh on whicn the claim to the allowance to the bounty is based, and the law was repealed
on 28tli June, 1864, (U- S. Stats, at Lar^e, vo'. 13, p. 201,) which required two-thirds of those on
board to be American citizens. On 28th July, 1860, all laws and parts of laws allowing fiahing*
bounties to veaaels thereafter licensed to engage in the Hsheries was also repealed, but under
the condition that dutiea ahall be remitted on all foreign aalt used by such vesaela in curina
fish. It seems quite probable that anticipation of the enactment repealing bounties induce^
in great part, the great falling off in tonnage between 1862 and 1369.

The best estimate that can be made by this Department of the relation of aliens to
citizens engaged in American Hsheries, in the North Atlantic, other than whalers, is that
during the last year (1880) of the 14,240 employed, seventy-eight per cent, were American
citizens.

i'RBSGKT CONDITION Or AV i ( At P[aitKRtK$l, AND THB SCM Ot DUTIES OOLLBOTED ON PORBION KlSlt.

On May 28, 1886, and in furtherance of a sugi;estion made by our Fish Commissioner, tbta
Department issued a circular letter of instruction to Collectors, a copy of which will be found
in Appendix £. The replies leoeived have been transmitted to that Commission, and
therelrom valuable facts, respecting our fisheries, have been obtained, some of which the
Commissioner has kindly grouped and placed at my disposition. Thoy are respectfully
submitted to the House in Appendix E. In Appendix C will be found such an exhibition of
the dutiea collected on fish as the records ot this Department, for reasons set forth in the
Appendix, make available for immediate presentation to the House.

Respectfully yours,

(Sd) DANIEL MANNING,

Secretary of the Treaturyt
The Honourable

Tub Si'eakeb Of the House of Ri:prksbntatives.

No. IW. . «

Minister at Washington to the Governor OeneraK
rj^Q 4-1 WAsHiNaxoN, 19th January, 1887.

My Lobd, -I have the honour to enclose to Yoar Bxoellency herewith copies of
a Bill which has been introduced into the House of Bepreaentativea, in consequence,
it is said, of the denial on the part of Your Exoellonoy's Government of the riRht to
land and transport American Hsh in bjad over Canadian railroads to the United

States.

1 have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. SAOKVILLB WBST.

His Excellency ^ ^ ., ^

The Marquis op Lansdowne. (r.O.Jl.tx.

^"-r ..i^irf ^°" *°'

166 -It

(It

49th CoNonK-(3,
2d Session.

194

[Enclosure No. 1.]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

17th Jaxuaby, 1887.

H. R. 10786.

Read twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign AfiFairs, and ordered to be

printed.

Mr. Belmont introduced the following Bill :

A Bill '' To protect American vessels against unwarrantable and unlawful discrinAiations
in the ports of British North America."

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Con^-ress assembled', That herealter whenever the President shall be satisfied
Ibat vessels of the United States r.re denied in ports of the British Provinces in North
America bordering on the Atlantic jean, or m the waters adjacent to said Proynces, rights
toxwhich such vessels are entitled by ti-eaty or by the law of nations, he may, by proclama-
tion, prohibit vessels bearing the British flag and coming from such ports from entering the
ports of the United States, or from exercising such privileges therein as he may in his procla-
mation define ; and if, on and after the date at which such proclamation takes effect, the
master or other person in charge of any such vessels shall do, in the ports, harbours or waters
of the United States, for or on account of such vessel, any act forbidden by such proclamation
aforesaid, such vessel, and its rigging, tackle, furniture and boats, aad all the goods on board,
shall be liable to seizure and forfeiture to the United States ; and any person or persons pre-
venting or attempting to prcfvent, or aiding any other person in preventing or attempting to
prevent, any officer of the United Stales from enforcing this Act, shall forfeit and pay to the
Unit«d States one thousand dollars, an% shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon convic-
tion thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Sec. 2. That the Presidejpt may also, by such proclamation, forbid the entrance into the
United States of all merchandise coming by land from the Provinces of British North America,
and may also forbid the entrance into the United States of the cars, locomotives or other
rolling stock of any railway aotnpany chartered under the laws of said Provinces ; and upon
proof that the privileges secured by article twenty-nine of the Treaty concluded between the
United States and Great Britain on the eighth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-
on«, are denied as to goods, wares and merchandise arriving at the ports of British North
Anjerica, the President may also, by proclamation, forbiid the exercise of the like privileges
as to goods, wares and merchandise arriving in any of the ports of the United States ; and
any person violating or attempting to vio'ate the provisions of any proclamation issued under
this section shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of one thousand dollars, and
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding two years.

Sec. 3. That whenever, after the issuance of a proclamation under this Act, the President
is satisfied that the denial of rights and privileges on which this proclamation was based no
lonjger exists, he mi^ withdraw the proclamation, or so much thereof as he inay deem proper,
and reissue the same thereafter when in his judgment the same shall be necessary.

No. 174.
Sir L. West to Lord Lansdowne.

[No. 5.] Washington, January 21st, 1887.

My Lord,— I have the honour to enclose herewith copies of tho Bill and Report
thereon for the appointment of a Commission to investigate losses and injuries
Itaflictcd on TJcited states' citizens engaged in the North Americaa fisheries.

I have, &c ,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKVILLE WESI'.

Tht Mahqttis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G,,
&c., &c., &c.

195

I. 10786.

obe

icriirfnatioits

ited States of
I be satisfied
ces in North
vinces, rights
by proclama-
i entering the
in his procla-
es effect, the
Durs or waters
I proclamation
jods on board,
ir persons pre-
attempting to
ind pay to the
1, upon convic-

rs.

trance into the
North America,
lives or other
ces ; and upon
ed between the
d and seventy-
' British North
like privileges
■d States; and
in issued under
id dollars, and
[e to imprison-

L the President
'was based no
deem proper,

fiary.

49th Congress, )

H. R.

[Bncloaare So. l.j

, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (

2nd Se3sio7i. J Report N'o. 364«. [ 10241

December J 7, 18S6.

Bead twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

January 18, 1887.

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered

to be printed.

Mr. Belmont introduces the following bill :

A BILL

For the appointment of a conmission to investigate concerning losses and injuries inflicted
since December thirty-first, eighteen hundred and eighty-fiVe, on Unfted States' citizens
engaged in the North American fisheries.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America
in Congress assembled, Th&t the President be, and is hereby, authorised to appoint a com-
missioner to proceed to such places in the United States or elsewhere as may be designated
by the Secretary of State, to take testimony, under oath or affirmafeon, in relation to the
wssesandinjuriesinflictedsince the thirty-first of December, eighteen hundred and eighty-
five, by British authorities, imperial or colgnial, upon citizens of the United States engaged
in the fisheries on the north-east coasts of British North America. Said commissioner shall
everywhere have, in respect to the administration of oaths or affirmations and the taking of
testimony, the same powers as a commissioner of a circuit court, and shall be paid the same
fees as are prescribed for similnr services of a commissioner of a cirouit court, together with
travelling expenses.

49th Conobess, )
2nd Session. \

[EiDcloiureKo. 2.]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Rbpobt
No. 3648

NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES.

January 18, 1887. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the

Union, and ordered to be printed.

lit, 1887.

and Report
[and injuries

ries.

wEsr.

Mr. Bblmoxt, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT :

[To accompany Bill H. R. 10241.]

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which toete referred the Presidents Message, of StK
Deeember, 1886 ( Ex. Doc, No. 19), and the reply of the Secretary of the Treasury, on 10th
January, 1887 (Ex. Doc. No. 78), to the resolution of the House adopted on 14<A Decern'
ber, 1886, and House Bill 10241, submits the JoUowing report : —

Your Committee has not only given to those communications the very careful considera-
tion which they deserve, but, during the last Session of the House, made diligent inquiry into
the whole subject of American Fisheries. They were attended in the committee-room by,
among others, William Honry Trescot, Esq., and Charles Levi Woodbury, Esq., of Boston.
Mr. WoodbuiT represented all, or a large majority of, New England owners of fishing vessels,
and both of the gentlemen favoured your Committee with valuable opinions on different
^ases of the important subject under oonsideiation.

16»-13^

196

Your Committee is of opinion that the rightful area of our " American Fisheries " has
been reduced, and the quantity of fish — fresh, dried, cured, or salted — landed in the United
States free of duty has been diminished, by the conduct of the local oflScers in Canada. That
conduct has been not only in violation of Treaty stipulations and of international comity, but
during the fishing season just passed has been inhuman, as the Message of the Fresiaent
clearly establishes.

The Treaty of 1783.

The Treaty of Peace defined, in 1783, the area of American Fisheries which might, in that
[tortion of the world, be prosecuted by American vessels. Its third article declares :

"ARTIOLB III.

'< It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested

the KlUHT —

" (1) To take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and all other banks of Newfound-
land ;

•• (2) Also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence ;

" (3) 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

LinERTT —

'' (1) To take fish of every kind on such part of the coaat of Newfoundland as British
fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) ;

'' (2) And also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's
Dominions in America ;

'* (3) And that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of
the unsettled bays, harbours and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands and Labrador, so
long as the same shall remain unsettled ; but so soon as the same, or either of them, shall
be settled, it bhall 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."

"Vf : -^n that Treaty of Peace was signed, the British Navigation Act of Charles n, and
other laws, prevented trade in foreign vessels with the Anglo American Colonies. The cor-
ner-stone ot that policy was a monopoly of colonial trade for British vessels. The American
Colonies were founded in subservience to British commerce. A double monopoly was estab-
lished by England — a monopoly of their whole import, which is all to be from England ; a
monopoly of their whole export, which is to be sent nowhere but to Great Britain. 'J he
colonies were to send all their products raw to England, and take everything from England
in the last stage uf manufacture. The Treaty of Peace did not stipulate for a change ot that
policy as between the United States an<l (Canada, although the American Congress did, in
April, 1776, sweep away, so far as it could, that monopoly system from the ports it controlled,
abolish British Custom lioubes and put none in their stead, proclaim absolute free trade in
the place of licavy iostiictions, invite products from any place to come in friendly vessels,
and authorize American products to be exported without tax.

After the thirteen States had acquired their independence, American vessels were not
only excluded from the ports ot the British Colonies, but Canada, as a reward for its loyalty,
received the exclusive privilege of supplying the British West Indies with timber and pro-
visions, to the great injury of the latter, whose nearest ports were the American Gulf ports
and South American ports.

It will be observed that 'his article, in continuing, confirming and establishing the
thirteen States and their inhabitants in the taking of fisli on the t)anks, in the Gulf and in
the sea, uses the word '■ rights," but uses the word « liberty " in confirming to Amerioan
fishermen the taking of fish on the coasts, bays and creeks of every part of the British
Dominions in America. The word " rights " is thus applied to fishing in the open sea, which
by public law is common to all natious, and was intended to affirm that Great Britain did
not claim to hold by Treaty engagements, or in any other manner, an exclusive right of
fishing therein. The word " liberty '' is thus applied to taking fish, to drying and curing fish,
on what was, anterior to the Treaty, within the jurisdiction, or territorial waters of Great
Britain, but an exclusive right of taking fish therein was not hen. " Liberty" as thus used,
implies a freedom from restraint or interference in fishing along the British coasts.

Canada having been, by the aid of men of the New England Colonies, conquered for the
English in 1 759, the conquest having been confirmed in 1763 by the Treaty of Paris, and the
sovereignty of Newfoundland having been conceded to Great Britain by the peace of Utrecht
in 1713, the American Colonists, who bravely endured sacrifices in war to accomplish thoM

n Fisheries " has
led in the United
I in Canada. That
ional comity, but
1 of the Presiaent

3h might, in that
leclares :

f joy unmolested
ksofNewfound-

3untries used at
tates shall have

Hand as British

tannic ATajesty'g

re fish in any of
ad Labrador, so
r of them, shall
luch settlement
irs or possessore

Charles 11, and
nies. The cor-
The American
poly was estab-
)m England j a
t Britain, 'j he
; from England
change ot that
ongress did, in
bs it controlled,
3 free trade in
iendly vessels,

3sels were not
for its loyalty,
mber and pro-
can Gulf ports

•abliahing the
e Gulf and in
; to American
>f the British
en sea, which
it Britain did
tisive right of
i curing fish,
ters of Great
as thus used,
ts.

uered for the
'aris, and the
36 of Utrecht
mplish those

197

"'■ults, shared th«r • ~ " — ~~ —

,. Thus stood Ame • "'^'^ op ohknt. O'^'POrts.

British fisheries " T„ ^ *^® ^^ores of the B-!?- Tx°^-^**«n^ within fhli***®^ gratuitouslv

w.vu.-. , ^^^ Tbeatt op 1818. ^^'

Within a short f ''^ *'*' ^^'^-

"n<ier it, led un m ^ *a^at'on at our ports '^t u? *'^^ quantity of aZI- *"'* *^e area of

for fi. . ^«''««« differences hav«-'' " '" **>e8e words • ''''"'® "^ ««'

198

*' ] . On that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray
to the Kameau Islands, on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland, from the said
Cape Rhy to the Quirpon Islands ;

" '2. Oh the ihores of the Ma^dtclen Islands ;

" 3. And also on the coasts, bnys, harbourti and creeks from Mount Jolly, on the southetn
coast of Labrador, to and thiough the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely
along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights ot the Hudson
Bay Company.

" And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in
any of the unsettled bays, harbours and creeks of the southern part of the co.^st of Newfound-
land, hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the 'same, or any
portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful tor the said fishermen to dry or cure
fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the
inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

•' And the United States hertby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or
claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles
of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America
not included within the above-mentioned limits .

" Provided, however, That the American Fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays
or harbours (1) for the purpose of shelter and (2) of repairing damages therein ; of ^3) pup-
chading wood and (4) of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall
be under such rebtrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing
fish therein, or in any other manner whatever, abusing the privileges hereby reserved to
them."

That article does not allude to, or attempt to interfere with, our rights in the open sea,
on the banks, or in the gulf, which were confirmed by the concession of the independence of
the thineen States. It refers only to the liberty claimed and recognized by the Treaty of
1783, " on certain coasts, bays, harbours and creeks." It begins by a recital that differences
Iiave arisen respecting the " liberty " claimed by American fishermen in those places. It
neither mentions nor alludes to any differences about fishing on the high seas. It stipulates
that Aiuerican fishermen may fish on certain specified coasts, bays, harbours, creeks, and
shores, and may dry and cure fish in certain unsettled bays, harbours and creeks, and
especially dry and cure on the coasts of Newfoundland, which last the Treaty of 1783 did not
embrace. The United States " renounces " any " liberty " to take, dry, or cure fish within
three miles of any (ither coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours than those specified in the article,
but the sentence of renunciation contains a stipulation that the American fishermen may
enter " such bays or harbours" for four speciKed purposes, " and for no other purpose what-
ever," under such restrictions as may be necessary lo prevent fishing, drying, or curing
" therein."

Unless English words were in 1818 used in that article in an unusual sense, there is not
a. sentence or word therein that has reference to anything else than taking, dry ing, or curing
fish, by American fishermen, on or within certain coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours therein
described. No word or phrase mentioned alludes or refers to deep-sea fishing, or ordinary
commercial privileges. The restrictions refer only to fishing, or drying, or curing, ordinary
commercial privileges. The restrictions refer only to fishing, or drying, or curing " in such
bays or harbours."

It is to be assumed that when this Treaty of 1818 was signed, the British statutes of
Charles II, in restraint of navigation, the rudiments of which are to be seen in lt)50, and were
aimed at Dutch trade with British sugar colonies, were on the English side, rigorously
enforced, so that no merchandise could be lawfully importea into Canadian ports excepting
in English bottoms. The Treaty of 1818 was concluded on 20th October, of that year, but
ratifications were not exchanged till 3Uth -lanuary, 1819. Certainly on our side there was
then in force legislative restriction on navigation almost as severe as was the English enact-
ment after the restoration of Charles II. America had not then emerged from the era of the
embargo, Berlin and Milan decrees, and the influences of the War of 1812. On 18th April,
.1818, the President approved a law closing our ports after 30th September, 1818, against
British vessels coming from a colony which, by the ordinary laws, is closed against American
vessels. Touchingat a port open to American vessels could not modify the restriction.
Vessels and cargoes entering, or attempting to enter, in violation of the law^ were forfeitable.
And any English vessel that could lawfully enter our ports was compelled to give a bond, if
laden outward with American products, not to land them in a British colony or territory
from which American vessels were excluded. The prenumption is that, quite independently
of fishing rights and liberties, no American vessel was for long before and after 1818 permitted
by English law to touch and trade in Canadian ports. How that system of exclusion was
gradually broken down, not by treaty, but by concerted legislation, the Secretary of State and

from Cape Bay
1, from the said

an the southehi
dly indefinitely
Jt the Hudson

■nd cure fish in
tofNewfouDd-
same, or any
to dry or cure
pose with the

re enjoyed or

marine miles

na in America

iter such bays

; of ^3) pufL

iutthey shall

ng or curing

reserved to

199

1 a marine J^.^^n^T * ^°, P^^Iic law no n-,?-**®' '»
°l"sivedoS"'l':«'".the coast." 'i?" "\*!°n ?m

«ie growth and JJ^^^J'S^^y of ]8|m. k7.E'^'?«« «' this tro.f„ „:^','*'^«'

WHl

200

ments, or like postal treaties, there was nothing in the facts of the War of 1812 to prevent
them Irom recommencing their operations automatically with the peace. Nothing in the
relations of the two Governments, was inconftistent with their survival. Mr. Dana, in his note
on Wheaton (page 353), has stated the ruH thus :

"If a war arises Irom a cause independent of the Treaty, the survival of any clause in
the Treaty must depend upon its nature and the circumstances under which it was made."

The question of amendment or survivnl of the Treaty of 1783, as to certain specified
parts of the British coast in America, wu.«, liowever, by the Treaty of lxl8, mad« of no

£ tactical consequence (so long as thai Treaty enduied) by the renunciation signed by the
nited States. '

THE OAKADIAK CONTENTION.

The legal effect of the first Article of the Treaty of 1818 may be sketched in outline in
thiswise:

All the British coast, shores, bays, harbours, and creeks in America were, by that Article,
aeparated into two portions, which were boutided, detined and indentified. L'he two may
be marked respectively as A. and B. In the sixth volume of '' Papers Relating 1o the
Treaty of Washington," published by the Department of State in 1874, it a map of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, coloured in a way to
pUdnly exhibit these two portions. In all that portion marked A it was agreed that the
inhabitants of the United States shall have forever, in common with British subjects, the
liberty to take fish of every kind ; but as to tlie portion marked B, the United States
renounced forever any liberty theretofore enjoyed or claimed to take, dry, or cure any fish.
It was stipulated, nevertheless, that " the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter"
the portion marked B for the purpose of shelter, repairing damages, purchasing wood,
Obtaining water, and " for no other purpose whatever."

The entire Article referred to inshore fishing. No right and no liberty whatever, that
might concern deep-sea fishermen, did the United! States, by the Treaty of 1818, renounce.

This obvious intent and purpose of the Article is confirmed by the last words of the
section, which declares : " But they " (the American fishercuen) " shall be under such restric-
tions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, dryini;, or oaring fish therein " (in portion B)
*'or in any other manner abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." The " restrictions
to be imposed upon the American fishermen, while in portion B,are expressly limited, not to
such as concern navigation or revenue, but to such as were specifically renounced, namely,
to such as "may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or cuiing fish therein, or in
any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them " tn order to
take, dry, or cure Hah therein.

Was it not clearly the intention of the negotiators of this Treaty that the character of
these restrictions should be agreed upon by the parties to the 'I reaty ? Is it reasonable to
assume that the American negotiators intended that the Canadian Provinces, or even the
British Government, should have the exclusive power to prescribe "restrictions" which
might entirely destroy the value of any unrenounced right and liberty theretofore claimed
and enjoyed, or of any conceded "privileges" thereby rvserved to American fishermen in
portion B ?

These preliminary explanations will assist to measure the force and bearing upon
American deep-sea fishermen of the interpretation put upon the Treaty by the Canadian
Dominion during the last summer.

The following extracts are taken from the message of the President to Congress of the
8th ultimo.

WHAT CANADA HAS SAID.

On 5th Jnne, 1886, the Canadian Minister of Marine »nd Fisheries declared :

"It appears the 'Jennie and Julia' is a vessel of about 14 tons register, that she was to

all intents and purposes a fishing vessel, and, at the time of her entry into the Port of Digby

had fit'-^'nggear and apparatus on board, and that the collector fully satisfied hiraself of these

according to the master's declnration, she was there to purchase fresh herring only,

» fi t') get them direct from the weir fishermen. 'I he collector, upon his conviction

.\'. ji , :. fishing vessel, and, as svch, debarred by the Treaty of 1818 from entering

*<,.' fc ( i'r is for the purposes of trade, therefore, in the exercise of his plain duty, warned

• •■" ! '"\ty of 1818 is explicit in its terms, and by it United States' fishing vessels are
allowed to enter Canadian ports for shelter, repairs, wood and water, and 'for no other
purpose whatever.'

.of any clause in
it was made."
sertain specified
'18, ma«J« of no
on signed by the

led in outline in

by that Article,
I'ho two may
Relating to the
t. a map of New
ed in a way to
greed that the
sh subjects, the
United States
r cure any fish,
tted to enter"
rchasing wood,

whatever, that
8, renounce.

words of the
pr such restric-
' (in portion B)
e " restrictions
limited, not to
need, namely,
I therein, or in
» " i» order to

le character of
reasonable to
} or even the
stiors" which
lofore claimed
fisliermen in

»>»t Ser to !n« *«*'*Wishe5°atl«;re^ begs again to oh '' "°* *' ««? fe

^!1V* ^"dSn': '^' ^^^ Canadian Gov. '"' "°»d"ion't f!" ^ '^^

th« ".^°«''«^>pt has K... .. , ^°''''-'^°' General adv;,„. .. .. "' ""'"''^'o'^

202

"There seems no doubt, therefore, that the " Novelty" was in character and in purpoao
a fishing vessel, and as such comes under the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, which hIIows
United States' Hsiiing vessels to enter Canadian ports ' for the purpose of shelter and repair-
ing damages therein, and of purchasing woovl and of obtaining water, and for no other
purposH whatever.'

" The object of the captain was to obtain supplies for the prosecution of his fishing, and
to tranship his cargoes of iisli at a Canadian port, both of which are contrary to the letter and
spirit of the Convention of 1818."

On October 30, 1886, a Committee of the Canadian Privy Council contended, and the
Administrator of the Government in Council upheld the contention : —

*' That the Convention ot 1818, while it grants to United States' fishermen the right of
fishing in common with British subjects on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, does not
confer upon tliem privileges of trading or of shipping men, and it was against possible acta
of the latter kind, and not against fishing inshore, or seeking the rights of hosi>itality guaran-
teed under the. Treaty, that Captain Vachem CMcEachern) was warned by the Collector."

On November 24, 1886, a Committee of the Canadian Privy Council declared, and the
Governor General approved the declaration :

"The Minister ot Marine and Fisheries, to whom said despatch was referred for early
report, states that any foreign vessel, ' not manned nor equipped, nor in any way prepared
for taking fish,' has full liberty of commercial intercourse in Canadian ports upon thj same
conditions as are applicable to regularly registered foreign merchant vessels ; nor is any
restrictions imposed upon any foreign vessels dealing in fish of any kind ditferent from those
imposed upon foreign merchant vessels dealing in other commercial commodities.

" That the regulations under which foreign vessels may h'ode at Canadian ports are
contained in the Customs Laws of Canada (a copy of which is herewith), and which render it
necessary, among other things, that upon arrival at any Canadian port a vessel must at once
enter inward at the Custom Uquse, and upon the completion of her loaling, clear outwards
for her port of destination . "

A^IERIOAN FISHBI|«1BN ARR VOT OUmSTS.

The foregoing contention, set up not merely by the Canadian Privy Council, but by the
Crovei nor Gtneral of the Dominion of Canada, sweeps into the meshes of Cttnadian legislation
to enforce the first Article of the Treaty of 1818, every deep-sea fisherman, in his relation to
Canadian ports, no matter on what sea or ocean, Atlantic or Pacific, he may have pursued, or
may intend to pursue, his industry. That contention places all American deep-sea fishermen
entitled lo wear the flag of the Union at the mast head of their boats or vessels, be they little
or big, under much the same ban in respect to the hoc:])itality of Canadian portsas they would
be if i>irates, or slave-traders, cr filibusters, or other enemies of the human race. " She was
a fiahmg vessel," says, on June 5, 1886, the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, " and
therefore debarred by the Treaty of 1818 from enteiing Canada for the purposes of trade."
" The two vessels which have been seized are, both of them, beyond all question ^s/tijjgf vessels
and not traders," says the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada to Lord Granville on
June 7, IHjG, '-and therefore liable, subject to the finding of the courts, to any penalties
imposed by law for the enforcement of the Convention of 1818." " We cannot concur in Mr.
Bayard's contention," said the Canadian Privy Council on June 14, 18^6, that " to prevent the
purchase of bait or any other supply needed lor deep sea fishing, would bo to expand the
Convention to objects wholly beyond the purview, scope, and intent of the Treaty, and give to
it an efiect never contemplated." " American dsep-sea fishermen cannot," said the Canadian
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on October 14, 18S6, "obtain supplies for the prosecution
of his fi-ihipg, and to tranship his cargoes of fish at a Canadian port," because both " are
■ contrary to the letter and spirit of the Convention of 1 818." " The Convention of 1S18," said
a Committee of the Canadian Privy Council, on October 30, 18SG, " does not confer upon
United States /is/(er»«e« ' privileges of trading or of shipping men ' in Canadian ports." And,
finally, a Committee of the Canadian Privy Council declared, in effect, on November 24, 1880,
that an American vessel, manned, equipped and prepared/or taking Jiah, has not the liberty
of commercial intercourse in Canadian ports, such as are applicable to other regularly regis-
tered foreign merchant vessels.

Such an interpretation of the present legal efiect of the first article of the Treaty of 1818,
ifl, in the opinion of your Committee, so preposterous, in view of concerted laws of comity and
good neighbourhood enacted by the two countries, that, had it not been formally put forth by
the Dominion of Canada, would not deserve serious consideration by intelligent persons. If
all the stipulations of 1818 restraining American fishermen are now in full force (which may
well be doubted), your Committee concedes that American fishermen have no more liberty
to take lish or to dry or cure fish in what has been described as portion B, than a British

' and in purpose
18, wliich hIIows
slter and lopair-
id for no other

his fisliing, and

the letter and

ended, and the

aen the right of
lands, does not
ist possible acts
pitality guaran-
e Collector."
iclared, and the

'erred for early
y way prepared
upon tho same
els ; nor is any
'ent from those
ities.

.dian ports are
i^hich render it

1 must at once
clear out'.vards

203

fisherman has to t k «

fish Of eveVkinlf'P^J'S'? '^'^ -^^o^lSX^ "''' '^'"'^'^ »ot

icil, but by the
dian legislation
his relation to
fcve pursued, or
•sea fishermen
i, be they little
3 as they would
■ce. " She was
isheries, " and
)ses of trade."
fishing vessels
d Granville on
any penalties
concur in Mr.
to prevent the
to expand the
ty, and give to
1 the Canadian
le prosecution
ie both "are
of lS18,"8aid
t confer upon
ports." And,
nber 24, 1880,
lot the liberty
Bgularly regis-

CAXADrAV IMlWMAmTr.

1. If the Privy Cou "i *'^''^°'*'"M"trMAN,Tr.

I oe wide opea. jp

I! Ill

i"=,

r ii

ll^

1 1

ffi

S04

however, she be an American fishini; vessel on the high seas, she cannot go into a Canadian
bay even to bury those of her dead who, in life, may have been British subjects with a
domicile in Canada and a residence on the land near the bay, and may have expressed a wish
not to be cotumitted to the sea, but to be lain at rest by their kindred on the spot which
gave them birth.

The Treaty of 1818 gave rights of fi^^hin^ independent of general commercial rights,
although it may be snid that, as to shelter, rfpnirs, wood and water, the Treaty did give to
fishermen certain commercial rights, or rather a few rights of humanity. The Treaty did not
restrain the granting or the exercising of cominoioial rights. The right, if it be a right, of an
American to buy any thing in Canada does not oome of the inshore Fishing Treaty of 1818.
Your Committee are not aware of any Canadian or Newfoundland law which, having been
approved by the British Crown, forbids a Britinh subject to there sell ice, or ba t, or anything
vise, to an American, or to trade with him. If there be such a law, then non-interoourse haa
to that extent been proclaimed against.our countrymen.

OANADIAN VIOLATIONS OP TBHATIB8.

The contention of your Committee is that the Treaty of 1818 covers differences and dis
putes about the liberty of American fishermen to take, dry and cure fish on certain British
Xorth American coasts, bays, harbours and creeks. The Privy Council of Canada, at the
t^>e bottom of page 32 (Ex. Doo. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session), concedes the
correctness of this contention. They say :

" The so/e purpose of the convention of 1818 was to establish and define the rights of
citizens of the two coimtries in relation to the fi$heri«s on the British North American

The Treaty is limited to coast fishing, drying or curing. On certain defined portions of
the coast " American fishermen " may fish, but elsewhere on the coast they may not fiiih, and
yet those coast " American fishermen " may, nevertheless, and for certain purposes, enter
the bays and harbours in which they cannot fish, under restrictions— to prevent them from
doing what? '♦ Taking, drying or curing fish therein V

Your Committee contend that the term *' American fishermen " as used in the Treaty of
1818, means the "American fishermen" of and under that Treaty. The rule noscilur
a soeiU, as understood and applied bv judges and lawyers in England and America, limits
and defines the term. They have a Treaty right to enter " such bays and harbours " and to
remain there, subject, and subject only, to such restrictions "as may be necessary to prevent
their taking, dryins; or curing idsh therein." The restrictions can only apply to the prevention
of such j{«Ai«</ in those bays or harbours. Whatever concerns or is preparation for fishing
elsewhere is not thereby to be prevented. It is true that, by the Treaty of 1818, we have
fltipalated that our fishermen " shal 1 be under such restrictions as may be necessary to pre-
vent their taking, drying or curing fish therein," but the Treaty says nothing of " preparing to
fish " somewhere else. A fair presentation of the opinions of the Vice-Admiralty Court of
Canada, in regard to the meaning of the Canadian phrase " preparing to fish " — which is a
»it.r»n<.cr lo i,he Treaty of 1818— can be seen in Dr. Wharton's " International Law Digest,"
Vol. HI, §304.

If it be said that our view of the treaty is strict, severe, and rigid as against Canadian
statutes and otficials, your Committee answer that when Canada proposes and endeavours to
use a treaty to arrest and fine American fishermen, seize and confiscate American vessels
for the benefit of Canadian seizors, the Government of the United States is entitled to stand
on snch an interpretation. But even if the Treaty of 1818 covers (which it does not) every
American fitjherman entering a Canadian harbour, on whatever sea or ocean he may casta j
line or draw a seine, the Canadian statutes do not preserve and enforce the treaty. They i
dest'oy it, so far as the privileges are concerned that are given to American fishermen by
the treaty.

First of all in order of time and authority is the Imperial legislation at London in 18191
to enforce the treaty of the previous year. After forbidding every one, excepting British I
Bubjects and American citizens (who could do so within defined limits), to fish, dry, or cure!
fish anywhere within three miles of British coasts in America, that law of 1819 punishes bfl
forfeiture any offending vessel, and all the articles on board. Then comes this : r

*' That if any person or persons, upon requisition made by the Governor of Newfound-j
land, or the person exercising the office of governor, or by any governor or person
exeicifinp the office of governor, in any other parts of His Majesty's dominiona
in .America, as aforesaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such govemoij
or person exercising the office of governor, in the execution of any orders or instruction
from His Majesty in Council, shall refuse to depart from such bays or harbors ; or it anj
person or persons shall refuse or neglect to conform to any regulations or directions whiclr

into a Canadian
lubjects with •
xpreBaed a wiah
the spot which

imercial rights,
aty did pjive to
> Treaty did not
be a right, of an
rreaty of 1818.
h, having been
•at, or anything
■interoourse haa

led portion* of
ly not fish, and
}urposes, enter
3nt them from

■hall be tnn.ii ^

Pwpo.es" „™& "£■?"■' »f PwSi»;" "'•, ''•■'■■l«« for u,^"•''''•■ "«l »k1 I' *' »'

;*|l*i

206

2. " Repairing damagoH," which includeH every damage to fishing boat or fisiiing gear.

S. "PurclinBiiig woo<l."

4. " Obtaining water."

Conceding that Canada can place an ofllcer on every arriving fHhernian as soon as found,
the treaty dooa not even then authorize a twenty four hour limit with the rouult of t'ort'eiture.
Mor doed the treaty authorize forleituro lor " preparing to h»li."

The Customs circular issued at Ottawa nn 7th May, 18Sti, and called a "Warning," recited
the first article of the Treaty of 1818, together with the two sections of the law of 1868 just
quoted, and adds :

" Having reference to the above, you are requested to furnish any foreign vessels, boats,
or fishermen found within tnree marine miles of the shore, within your district; with a printed
copy of the warning enclosed herewith.

" If any fishing vessel or boat of the United States is found fishing, or to have been fish-
ing, or preparing to fish, or liovering within the three-mile limit, does not depart within
twenty-lour hours a/<er receiving <uc/i loarniM^, you will please place an officer on board of
such vessel, and at once telegraph the facta to the Fisheries Department at Ottawa, and
»w«it instructions.

« J. JOHNSON,
" Commiaaioner of Oistomt."

To the CoiXKOTOR op Citstoms at '

Thus, twenty-four hours after finding the American fisherman is made the limit.

Not satisfied with the severity of this legislation of 18G8, the Canadian Dominion, in
1870, and while preliminary negotiations for the joint high commission and the Treaty of
Washington were in progress, amended it so as to enable seixuros of our vessels to be made
on sight, and without any warning or any notice to depart. The following is a text of the
enactment of 1870 :

" (33 Victoria, chap. 15.j

"An Act to amend the Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels. Assented to 12th May,
1870.

" Whereas it is expedient, for the more effectual protection of the inshore fisheries of
Canada against intrusion by foreigners, to amend the Act entitled " An Act respecting fishing
by foreign vessels," passed in the thirty-first year of Her Majesty's reign : Therefore Her
Mi^CBty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada,
enacts as follows :

" 1. The third section of the above-cited Act shall be, and is hereby repealed, and the
following section is enacted in its stead :

" ' 3. Any one of such ofiScers or persons as are above-mentioned may bring any ship,
vessel, or boat being within any harbour in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within
three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or hai^urs in Canada, into port and
search her cargo, and may also examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voy-
age ; and if the master or person in command shall not truly answer the questions put to
Urn in such examination he shall forfeit $40U ; and if such ship, vessel, or boat be foreign or
not navigated according to tlut laws of the United Kingdom or of (;anada, and have been
found fishing or preparing to fish, or to have been fibbing (in British waters) within three
marine miies of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours o' Canada, not included within the
above-mentioned limits, without a license or after fUe expir ition of the period named in the
last license granted to such ship, vessel, or boat, undor the first section of this Act, such
ship, vessel, or boat, and the tackle, rigging, appai ol. v irniture, stores and cargo thereof
shall be forfeited.'

«2. This Act shall not be construed as one with the said Act 'respecting fishing by fbr-
eign vessels.' "

But this is not all. Canadian officials endeavoured, during the last summer, in the fury
of their malevolence, to forfeit American vessels for acts which, if committed, their own laws
hj.d not inflicted punishment. In the libel of information against the " Ella M. Doughty ^
is this article, among other allegations of fishing, preparing to fish, being found having fished,
and fishing, drying, and curing in the bay and harbour of St. Anne's :

"Between the 10th and 17th days of May, 1886, the said Warren A. Doughty, the mas-
ter of the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty," and the oflBcers and crew of the said ship
or vessel " Ella M. Doughty, did, in and with the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty,"
enter into the bay arvd harbour of St. Anne's aforesaid within three marine miles of the shore
of said by and harbc.ir of St. Anne's, and within three miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, and
iuurbours of those { brtions of the dominions in America of his said late Majesty King George

jr fishing gear.

as 80011 as found
mult of forfeiture.

Varning," recited
law of 1868 juat

Sn vesBels, boats,
St, vviih a printed

J have been fish-
t depart within
3er on board of
it at Ottawa, and

SON,

»/■ Cuitomt."

le limit.

an Dominion, in
id the Treaty of
isels to be made
; is a text of the

ed to 12th May,

ore fisheries of
specting fishing
Therefore Her
nons of Canada,

)ealed, and the

SSSS'lyE-r-

307

<^^>>torZy^'y " «nd h;r, ^°"*'«"^'on and „rf;"« ""oJ o',!;7'"7'o«e.

violation 'rT''"''« of WiecZ""'' J^^rbor of'^ '7» ''^i^^^i ,,,

"^n Act fVirther to .. , '*""''»' °^*P- 114 i

"CR« *'^^6nd the „ i •'

M. Doughty >> I w?"^«ntionedKo ^■^°''*«t«. bays ij^^ ^^e° «shin/ir,?h °'^b°^. Canada, and J, I ^°''«'«n»

' ^2/ foreign.

ji'if

208

"SCBBDCLB.

" Act» <4 the Legiilature of the Provinet of No»a Scotii.

Tear, Reign, and Chapter.

Itevised Statutes, 3rd series,

c. Hi.
39 Vic. (1866), c 35

Title of Act.

Of the coaet acd deep'Sea fisheries

An Act to amend chapter 94 of the Revised Statutes :
" Of the coast and deep-sea fisheries "

Extent of Repeal.

The whole.
The whole.

Act of the Legislature of the Province of Ntw Brunewiek.

16 /ic. (1853), c. 69.

An Act relatinf; to the coast fi^iherles and for the pre-
ventiun of illicit trade.

The whole.

By comparing the foregoing with the law of 1870 the object will, in the italicized portion
•of the former, be clearly discovered, which is to deter deep-sea American fishermen from
entering Canadian ports which are as open to all trading vessels as American ports are to
Canadian vessels of every sort.

Forfeiture is to be inflicted for an entry for any purpose, excepting shelter, repairs,
wood, or water. Even to get coal <or a fishing vessel propelled by steam is condemned.
What the purpose may be for whioh seizure is to be made may or may not be disclosed by
the seizor. The statute dues not require it. 'Hie libel, or complaint, filed in court may not
disclose it. The averment may be merely a general one that the vessel entered for a purpose
forbidden by treaty or statute. The owner must file a claim and answer, or his property
will be condemned by default. He must, among strangers, give security for costs, or his
claim will be dismissed. Worse than that, the statute of 18GS declares that, if the owner
questions the legality of the seizure, the burden of proof Bhall be on him. How can he meet
a general averment and prove a negative of what is not definitely averred, and of every con-
ceivable purpose of entry ? None but the captain may be able to testify to the motive, and
what will happen if he, after the seizure, shall die or be absent ? The owner will be helpless
to contend with the greed of informers or seizors, for the law of 1871 distributes the possible
plunder thus :

'' 6. All goods, vessels, and boats, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stor(>8, und
cargo condemned as forfeited under this Act, shall be sold by public auction, by direction of
the officer having the custody thereof, under the provisions of the next preceding section of
this Act. and under regulations to be from time to time made by the Governor in Council ; and
the proceeds of every sale shall be subject to the control of the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, who shall first pay therefrom all necessary costs and expenses of custody and sale, and
the Governor in ' oancil may from time to time apportion three-fourths or less of the net
remainder among the officers and crew of any Queen's ship or Cnnadian Government vessel,
from on board of which the seizure was made, as he may think right, reserving for the
Government and paying over to the Beceiver-General at least one-fourth of such not remain-
der to form part of the Consolidated Revenue of Canada."

CONCLUSIONS.

The Treaties of 1 783 and 1 818 were made with the British Crown. With thatCrown alone
• can restrictions, regulations, penalties, and measures be concerted by the United States to
enforce and guard their stipulations. With the Dominion of Canada the Government at
Washington is not called, or required, or to be expected, either to deliberate or debate, any
more than is the British Crown, with a separate member of our Union. It is not to be sup-
posed that a local colonial court will, on the trial of a suit for forfeiture begun under an Im-
perial or a Colonial Statute, hear or decide an issue with the Treaty of 181H, or rules of inter-
national law, or those statutes. Kor will those courts award damages for seizures in violation
of the treaty, if made on " probable cause" by the seizors to believe that the statutes had
been violated. Nor can the United States appeal to colonial courts for redress against the
.■poEsible conduct of those courts under influences of local passion or prejudice.

209

Ixtent of Repeal.

The whole.
The whole.

The whole.

alicized portion
fishermen from
:au ports are to

shelter, repairs,
is condemned,
be disclosed by
1 court may not
ed for a purpose
or his property
for costs, or his
it, if the owner
ow can he meet
id of every con-
,he motive, and
will be helpless
ites the possible

Iture, stores, (ind

V by directio.i of

jeding section of

in Council ; and

Marine and Fish-

ly and sale, and

less of the net

ernment vessel,

kserving for the

[uch aot remwn-

Ihat Crown alone
pnited States to
[Government at
p or debate, any
Inot to be sup-
In under an Im-
pT rules of inter-
VireB in violation
te statutes had
Iress against the

It plainly appears to your committee from the foregoing consideratiors that, by the
treaty of peace in 17^3, American citizens became partners with British subjects in all the
coast fislieries in North America remaining to Great Britain ; that the Treaty of Ghent, which
closed the war of 1812, not having referred to the stipulations of the treaty of peace in any
way aftecting the fisheries, Great Britain thereupon urged and obtained in 1818 a diminution
of American liberty to take iif>h on certain well-defined portions of the British coast in
North America ; that in 1819 there was enacted by Parliament, sitting in London, a law in
execution of that treaty which punished by forfeiture of vessel and cargo a preparation to
fish, and only by a fine a refusal or neglect to depart on a warning or notice so to do ; that
in 1844 the Island of Prince Edward Enacted a law in punishment of what it assumed to be a
violation of the treaty of 1818, which went far beyond the imperial statute of 1819 ; that in
1868 the Canadian Senate and House of Commons prescribed ad(>itional proceedings and
penalties not warranted by the treaty, which were in 1870 made more severe and unwarranted
and that in 1 88C. nearly half a century after signing the treaty, an offence, eniirely new in
legislation, was denounced in most general terms and punished by confiscation of everything
seized.

THE BIIITISII CROWN PROCLAIMS N0\ IKTERCOURSB.

A very serious feature of this last-named legislation is that it has been approved by the
British Ciown, and it proclaims non intercourse in Canada with American fishing vessels for
general purposes of trade, to that alarming feature your committee ha^ given careful con-
sideration, and is unanimously of opinion that if, and so long as, non-intercourse with Ame-
rican fishing vessels shall be thus maintained in the ports or bays of the Dominion oi Canada
or Newfoundland, a non-intercourse should be immediately begun and maintained in our own
ports agahist Canaiiian vessels. Those vessels, whether trading or fishing, have, within the
meaning of the seventeenth section of the law of Congress of 19th June, 1886, "been placed
on the same footing " in our ports as our own vessels clearing or entering " foreign." Cana-
dian vessels are British vessels. The British Crown has denied to American fishing vessels
commercial privileges accorded to other national vessels in Canadian ports. The motive and
purpose of such denial have been openly and plainly avowed by Canada to be, first, the
punishment of such vessels because the United States levies a duty on Canadian fish not
" fresh for immediate consumption." such as the Government levies on all such fish not the
product of American fisheries and imported from any foreign place whatever ; and, secondly,
to coerce the United States to exempt such Canadian fish from all Customs duties, and
to enter into other new reciprocal Customs relations with the Canadian Dominion and New-
foundland. It is a policy of threat and coercion, which, in the opinion of your committee,
should be instantly and summarily dealt with. The circumstances will warrant and require,
in the opinion of your committer, not only non-intercourse with Canadian vessels bringing
Canadian or Newfoundland fish to our ports, but an exclusion of such fish from entry at our
ports, whether brought by railway cars or by any other vehicle or means. It is difficult to
believe that Canada having within the laat twenty years so severely burdened herself with
taxation by the construction of railways and bridges to bring about easy communication
with Detroit, Chicago, Saint Paul, and the whole West of our country, as well as with New
York and Boston, will now deliberately and offensively enter upon and pursue a poiicy
toward our fishermen whicJi, if persisted in, can but end either in a suspension of commercial
intercourse, by land and sea, between her and ourselves, or in consequences even mjre grave.

A LAW TO MAKE A PERPETUAL UECORD OF THE FACTS.

And furthermore, in regard to seizures of American vessels made ' ^ ^^e summer
which has just passed, inasmuch as a true record of the facts under which the seizures were
made may be lost, by death of the victims, or by wanderings of a class so migratory as seamen,
or by other casualties, and inasmuch as Congress may see fit to compensate American fisher-
men for the injuries wantonly inflicted on them by the rude hand of tyrannical Canadian
officials there having been no adequate American force at hand for their protection, your
committee advise tho enactment of the fcjllowing :

« Bill for the appointment of a commission to investigate concerning losses and injuries,
inflicted since December thirty-first, eighteen hundred and oighty-five, on United States
citizens engaged in the North American fisheries.

" Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of Ame-
rica in Congress assembled, That the President be, and is hereby authorized to appoint a
commissioner to proceed to such places in the United States or olsewhore as many be
designated by the Secretary of State, to take testiunny, under oath or affirmation, in relation
I6b-U

210

to the lossea and injuries inflicted since the thirty-first of December, eighteen hundred and
eighty-five, by British authorities, imperial or colonial, upon citizens of the United States
engaged in the fisheries on the north-east coasts of British North America. Said commissioner
shall everywhere have, in respect to the administration of oaths or affirmations and the
taking of testimony, the same powers as a commissioner of a circuit court, and shall be paid
the same fees as are prescribed for similar services of a commissioner of a circuit court,
together with travelling expenses."

No. 116.
Sir H. Holland to the Marquis of Lansdowne. ^

^No. 19.) DowNiNQ Street, 24th January, 1887.

My Lobd,— With reference to mj predecessor's telegram of the 24th, and to
your reply ot the 26th ultimo, I have the honour to transmit to you, for the informa-
tion of your Government, a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office enolosing a note
to the United States' Minister at this Court, in reply to a request from his Govern*
ment that the owners of the " David J. Adams " might be lurnishod with copies of
ceriain documenis relating to the case.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.)

H. T. HOLLAND.

•GoverDor General,

The Most Honourable

I'he Mabquis of Lansdowne,
&c., &o., &o.

[fineloaore No. I.]
^ Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

i ' J

Foreign Office, 11th January, 1S87.

Sir, — With reference to your letter of the 29th ultimo, I am directed by the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affitirs to transmit to you, to be laid before Mr. Secretary Stanhope, a oopy
of a note which has been addressed to the United States' Minister at this Court, in reply to
his note of the 2nd ultjmo, requesting that the owners of the " David J . Idams " be furnished
with copies of the original reports stating the charges on which that vessel was seized by
the Canadian authorities.

lam, &c..

The Under Kboretart op State
Colonial Office.

(8d.) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

ClKolMore No. S ]

Th» Earl of Iddesleigh to Mr Phelps.

FoRBioN Office, 11th January, 1887.

Sir,— Her Miyesty Government have had under their consideration the request contained

in your note of the i'nd ultimo, to the effect that the owners of the " David J. Adams " may

be furnished with copies of the original reports stating the charges on which that vessel was

seized by the Canadian authorities ; and I have now the honour to state to you that if the

a. hundred and
United States
1 commissioner
actions and the
i shall be paid
i circuit court,

y, 1887.

24tb, and to
the informa-
osing a note
hie Govern-
ith copies of

LAND.

^ J- Phblps, Esq.

IDDESLEIQH,

■y, 1SS7.

Secretary of
lope, a copy
, in reply to
>e furnished
■ seized by

SFOTE.

(No. v.)

Vide U.S. Senate
Report Ho.

No. m.

WABHiNaroN, 2eth January 1887

'J-^« ^ Mr LoBD,_r hare th- k ^'"'^'^^''o^. 2eth January 1887
Qaestion": ^ '^' ^'" «>«°ded therein relitiJe *o' f?'** i)«*«°^

•nTBhiXanZf"®'®^''*^ copies of a'Sennrf" 1^7?°/ to transmit to rnn/w"7.*

, ** ''*o fishery

I have, &c,, . ,

HiBE^cenency (^') ^. S. SACKVILLE WEST

i i

887.

contained
ams " may
vessel was
that if the

No. 177.
<No. 26.) ^''^ ^""^'^ '' <^'^^<^l Office,

^■""Ito .ufhorfetb^'J^"-'?!, state., r^^

212

You will observe, from the aooompanying Minato of Ooanoil, that in reply to a
telegram from the Seoretaiy of State for the Colooiea, dated the 6th November last,
copiert of Orders in Council, approved on the 18th of the same month, containing full
statcraentfl of facts regarding the dotontion of the above-named vessels, were enclosed
in my despatches Nos. 232 and 283 of the 29th November last.

I have, &o..

The Rt. Hon.

The Seobetaey of State

for the Colonies.

(Sd.) LANSDOWNB.

[BncloBure No. 1-]
(493 G.)

Certified Copy q/ a Report of a Committee of the Honorable the Privy Council, approved 6y>
Hia Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the I5th January, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy C'.'.icil have had under consideration a despatch dated
22nd November, 1886, from the Righ' Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies,,
enclosing letters from Mr. Secretary K^^^aru, hearing date 19th October, and referring to the
cases of the schooners "Everitt Steele '■ ur -' " Pearl Nelson."

The Minister of Marine and Fisherii^ o whom the despatch and enclosures were-
referred, reports that in reply to a telecram irom the Secretary of State for the Colonies, an
Order in Council, passed on the 18th November last, containing a full statement of facts
regarding the detention of the above-named vessels, was transmitted to Mr. Stanhope. It
will not, ttierefore, be necessary to repeat this statement in the present report.

The Minister observes, in the first place, that the two fi«hing schooners, the " Everitt
Steele " and " Pearl Nelson " were not detained for any alleged contravention of the Treaty
of ]818, or the Fishery Laws of Canada, but solely for the violation of the Custom's Law. By
this law all vessels of whatever character are required to report to the Collector of Customs
immediately upon entering port, and are not to break bulk or land crew or cargo before this
is done.

The Minister states that the Captain of the " Everitt Steele ' had, on a previous voyage,
entered the Port of Shelburne on the 25th March, 1886, anH after remaining for eight hours
had put to sea again without reporting to the Customs. For this previous offence, he was,
upon entering Shelburne Harbour on the 10th Sepit^mber last, detained, and the facts were
reported to the Minister of Customs at Ottawa. With these facts was coupled the Captain's
atatement that on the occasion of the previous offence he had been misled by the Deputy
Harbour Master, from whom he understood that he would not be obliged to report unless he
remained in harbour for 24 hours.

The Minister accepted the statement in excuse as satisfactory, and the " Everitt Steele "
was allowed to proceed on her voyage.

The Customs Law had been violated. The Captain of the " Everitt Steele " had admitted
the violation, and for this the usual penalty could have been legally enforced. It was, how-r
ever, not enforced, and no detention of the vessel occurred beyond the time necessary to
report the facts to headquarters and obtain the decision of the Minister.

The Minister submits that he cannot discern in this transaction any attempt to interfere
with the privileges of United States' fishing vessels in Canadian waters or any sufficient cause
for the protest of Mr. Bayard.

The Minister states that, in the case of the " Pearl Nelson," no question was raised as to
her being a fishing vessel, or her enjoyment of any privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of
1818. Her Captain was charged with a violation of the Custom's Law and of that alon<), by
having, on the day before reporting to the Collector of Customs at Arichat, landed ten of his
crew.

This he admitted upon oath. When the facts were reported to the Minister of Customs he
ordered that the vessel might proceed upon depositing $200.00 pending a fuller examination.
This was done, and the fuller examination resulted in estabjishing the violation of the law
and in finding that the penalty was legally enforceable. The Minister, however, in consi-
deration of the alleged ignorance of the captain as to what constituted an infraction of the
law, ordered the deposit to be returned.

In this case there was a clear violation of Canadian law, there was no lengthened deten-
tion of the vessel, the"deposit was ultimately remitted and the Uniteil States' Consul General
at Halifax, expressed himself by letter to the Minister as highly pleased at the result.

218

Steele"

dmitted
ras, how-:
(ssary to

nterfere
it cause

ed as to
Jreaty of
llone, by
\n of hia

Itomshe
lination.
■ the law
In consi-
In of the

deten-
iGeneral

The Minister observes that in this case he is at a loss to discover any well-founded grie-
vance or any attempted denial of or interference with any privileges guaranteed to United
States' fishermen by the Treaty of 1818.

The Minister further observes thiEit the whole argument and protest of Mr. Bayard
appears to proceed upon the assumption that these two vessels were subjected to unwarrant-
able interfereDce, in that they were called upon to submit to the^ requirements of Canadian
Customs law, and that this interference ;vas prompted by a desire to curtail or deny the privi-
leges of resort to Canadian harbours for t^v> purposes allowed by the Treaty of 1818. It is
needless to say that this assumption is entirely incorrect.

Canada has a very large extent of sea coast with numerous ports into which foreign
vessels are constantly entering for purposes of trade. It becomes necessary in the interests
of legitimate commerce that stringent regulations should be made by compulsory conformity
to which, illicit traffic should be prevented.

These Customs' regulations all vessels of all countries are obliged to obey, and these
they do obey without in any way considering it a hardship. United States fishing vessels come
directly from a foreign and nob distant country, and it is not in the interests of legitimate
Canadian commerce that they should be allowed access to our ports without the same strict
supervision as is exercised over all other foreign vessels. Otherwise there would be no guar-
antee against illicit traffic of large dimensions to the injury of honest trade and the serious
diminution of the Canadian revenue. United States' fishing vessels are cheerfully accorded the
right to enter Canadian Ports for the purposes of obtaining shelter, repairs, and procuring
wood and water, but in exercising this right, they are not and cannot be independent of the
Customs' laws.

They have the right to enter for the purposes set forth, but there is only one legal way
in which to enter and that is by conformity to the Customs' regulations.

When Mr Bayard asserts that Captain Forbes had as much right to be in Shelburne
Harbour seeking shelter and water " as he would have had on the high seas carrying on
under the shelter of the flag of the United States legitimate commerce," he is undoubtedly
right, but when he declares as he in reality does, that to compel Captain Forbes in Shelburne
Harbour to conform to Canadian Customs' regulations, or to punish him for their violation, is
a more unwarrantable stretch of power than " that of a. seizure on the high seas of a ship
unjustly suspected of being a slaver," he makes a statement which carries with it its own
refutation. Customs' regulations are made by each country for the protection of its own trade
and commerce, and are enforce! entirely within its own territorial jurisdiction ; while the
seizure of a vessel upon the high seas, except under extraordinary and abnormal circum-
stances, is an unjustifiable interference with the free right of navigation common to all
nations.

As to Mr. Bayard's observation that by treatment such as that experienced by the
" Ever tt Steele" " the door of shelter is shut to American fishermen as a class," the Minis-
ter expresses his belief that Mr. Bayard cannot have considered the scipe of such an asser-
tion or the inferences which might reasonably be drawn from it. If a United States' fishing
vessel enters a Canadian port for shelter, repairs or for wood and water her Capkain need have
no difficulty in reporting her as having entered for one of these purposes and the " Everitt
Steele " would have suffered no detention had her Captain on the 25th March simply reported
his vessel to the collector. As it was, the vessel was detained for no longer time than
•was necessary to obtain the decision of the Minister of Customs, and the penalcy for which
it was liable was not enforced. Surely Mr. Bayard does not wish to be understood as claiming
ior United States' fishing vessels total immunity from all Customs regulations or ai intima-
ting that if they cannot exercise their privileges unlawfully they will not exercise them
at all.

Mr. Bayard complains that the " Pearl Nelson," although seeking to exercise no com-
mercial privileges, was compelled to pay oomiaercial fees such as are applicable to trading
vessels. In reply the Minister observes that the fees spoken of are not " Commercial fees ;"
they are harbour masters' dues which all vessels making use of legally constituted harbours
are by law compelled to pay, and entirely irrespective of any trading that may be done by
the vessel.

The Minister observes that no single case has yet been brought to his notice in which
any United States' fishing vessel has in any way been interfered with for exercisini; any rights
guaranteed under the Treaty of 1818, to enter Canadian ports for shelter, repairs, wood or
water ; that the Canadian Government would not countenance or permit any such inter-
ference, and that in all cases of this class when trouble has arisen, it has been due to the
violation of Canadian Customs law, which demands the simple legal entry of the vessel as
soon as it comes into port. ,

Hi I

ii'l

The Committee, concurring in the above Report, recommend that Your Excellency be
moved to transmit a copy thereof to the Bight Honourable the Secretary of State for th»
Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council.

No. 118.
Govtmor General to Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Ottawa, let February, 1867.

Siii,_WiL> reference to Mr. Stanhope's despatch of the 30th December last,^
transmitting a copy of a note from the United States' Minister in London, enclosing
an outline ior an ad interim arrangement between the British and United States'^
Governments on the Hubject of the North American Fisheries, together with a copy
of a despatch from Mr. iayard, containing Romo observations tbereon. I have the
honour to forward herewith a copy of an approTod report of a Committee of the
Privy Council of Canada containing the views of noy Government on the subject.

I hare, &c.,

(Sd.) LAN&DOWNE.

The Bi^rht Honourable

The Secbetart o} Statk,

For the v, 'onic!-.

[Eiclosure No. 1.]

[P.C. No. 540, G.]

Ckbtivied Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Cotmcil, approved by
His Excellency the Oovemor General in Coimcil on the ist February, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch
dated 30th December, 1886, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, forwarding, for the information of the Canadian Government, a note received
through the Foreign Office from the United States' Minister in London, enclosing a draft of a
memorandum for an arrangement between the British and United States' Governments on
the subject of the North American fisheries, entitled a " proposal for the settlement of the
question in dispute in relation to the fisheries on the north eastern coasts of British North
America," accompanied by a despatch dated Washington, 15th November, 1886, from Mr.
Bayard, United States' Secretary of State, containing some observations thereon. Mr. Secre-
tary Sti.nhope requests Your Excellency to [obtain, at the earhest possible moment, from
Your Excellency's advisers their views on Mr. Bpyard's proposals and to report them to Her
Majesty's Government.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and enclosures have been
referred, reports that Mr. Bayard suggests that as the season for taking mackerel has now
closed, " a jieriod of comparative serenity may be expected, of which advantage should be
taken in order to adopt measures which will tend to make more harmonious the relations
between Canada and the United States as regards the fisheries on the coasts of Canada "

The Minister observes that while any indication of a disposition on the part of the United
States' Government to make arrangements which might tend to i)ut the aii'aira of the two
countries on a basis more free from controversy and misunderstanding than at present
exists, must be hailed with satisfaction by the Government of Canada, it is to bo regretted
that the language in which Mr. Bayard refers to what has taken place during the past year
indicates a disposition on his part to attribute to unfriendly motives the proceedings of the
Canadian Government and a tendency to misapprehend the character and scope of th&

xcellency be
State for th»

Council.

1887.

tnber last^
, enclosing^
:ed States'^
th a copy
bavo the
ee of the
abject.

VNE.

meaourea which have bee t ~^''''^'''''=================zr--

(frequently aooJ«r.L ■ y *''eatinent bv fl.li , ^ conatruotion of fhl A ^^^ ^*>^ months
rights of jfeSdT? ^ri^^^'^^^^^ndlt:}^^^^^^^^ «f isTs,"

not one of ihem ^,o '''^''•' ^f"'-" open to 1),1 !? Canadian Governm«nt . !? ?® ,^'''^ ^«<^n

the illei-al act,^>-''l''^'°'"'ed to these conwr/^'*'^' ^^^^ *" have En „ ' "'"' ^^'^ courts

'^•J'o had com.So , ' '"''"'''''^ breaches [; JfJT^.*^ "technical Wolatin! ^'^"'^,; ^^^^
Minister" ;ituul h„ i'lr"""' '•" » 'oltlm™. ,.l ■ "'"" '^■°'"'

iii^iiiiipi

216

which entrance into bay<i and harbours is permitted by said Article, are hereby agreed to
be taken to be such bays and harbours as are ten or less than ten miles in width, and the
distance of three marine miles from suoh bays and harbours shall be measured from a
straight lino drawn across the bay or harbour in the part nearest the entrance at the first
point when the width does not exceed tea miles."

This provision would involve a surrender of fishing rights which have always been
rogiirded as the exclusive property of Canada, and would make common fishing grounds of
territorial waters which by the law of nations have been mvariably regarded both in Great
Britain and the United States as belonging to the adjacent country. In the case, fir instance,
of the Bale des Chaleurs, a peculiarly well marked and almost landlocked indentation of the
Canadian coast, the ten mile line would be drawn from points in the heart ol Canadian terri-
tory, and almost seventy miles distant from the natural entrance or mouth of the bay. This
would be done in spite of the fact that, both by Imperial legislation and by judicial interpre-
tation, this bay has been declared to form a part of the Territory of Canada. See Imperial
Stat., 14 and 15 Vic, Cap. 6.'{, and Mowat t7a. McPhee, 5 Sup. Court of Canada Reports, p. 66.
The Convention with France in 1839 and similHr conventions with other European
powers, although cited by Mr. Bayard as sufficient precedents for the adoption of a ten-mile
limit, do not, the Minister submits, carry out bis reasoning.

Those conventions were doubtless framed with a view to the geographical peculiarities
of the coasts to wliioh they related . They had for their object the definition of boundary lines,
which, owing to the configuration of the coast, perhaps could not readily be settled by refer-
ence to the law of nations and involve other conditions which are inapplicable to the territorial
waters of Canada.

Mr. Bayard contends that the rule which he asks to hive set up was adopted by the
Umpire of the Commission appointed under the Treaty of 1»54, in the case of the United
States' fishing schooner " Washington," that it was by him applied to the Bay of Fundy and
that it is for this reason applicable to other Canadian bays.

The Minister submits, however, that the rule laid down by Mr. Bates witli regard to the
Bay of Fundy should not be treated as establishing the respective rights of Canada and of the
United States as to bays and harbours not included in the terms of the reference, and in
relation to which there was no agreement to abide by the decision of the Umpire and no
decision by him.

It may reasonably be contended that as one of the headlands of the Bay of Fundy is in
t!ie territory of the United States any rules of international law applicable to that bay are not
therefore equally applicable to other bays, the headlands of which are both within the terri-
tory of the same power.

As to the second paragraph of the first article the Minister suggests lliat before such an
article is acceded to, and even if the objections before stated should bo removed, the article
should be so amended as to incorporate the exact language of the Convention of 1S18, in
which case several alterations should be made. Thus the words " and for no other purpose
whatever " should be inserted after the mention of the purposes for which vessels may enter
Canadian waters, and after the words " as may be necessary to prevent " should be inserted
" their taking drying or curing fish therein, or in any other manner abasing the privileges
reserved &o."

To make the language conform correctly to the Convention of 1818, several other verbal
alterations which need not be enumerated here, would be necessary in order to prevent
imaginary distinctions being drawn hereafter between the Convention of 1818 and any agree-
ment fif later date wh ch may be arrived at.

The Minister moreover suggests that inasmuch as Mr. Bayard has from time to time
denied the force and authority of the Customs, Harbour Shipping and Police laws of Canada,
it may be well in order to remove the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of hia
Government, to insert a proviso expressly recognizing the V;ilidity of such enactments.

The proviso in Article I, in which it is stipulated that any arrangement which may be
arrived at by the Coinmision shall net go into effect until it has been contirnied by Great
Britain, and the United States should provide for confirmation by the Parliament of Canada.
2. llie Minster submits that Article II of the proposed arrangement, is, in his opinion,
entirely inadmissible. It would suspend the operations of the Statutes of Great I'ritain and
Canada, and of the Provmces now constituting Canada, not only as to the various offences
connected with fishing, but as to Customs, harbours and shipping, and would give to the fish-
ing vessels of the United States privileges in Canadian ports', which are not enjoyed by vessels
of any otlier class, or of anv other nation ; such vessels would for example, bo free from the
duty of reporting at the Customs on entering a Canadian harbour, and no safeguard could be
adopted to i)revent infraction of the Custom laws by any vessel asserting the charac-
ter of a fishing vessel of the United States.

fini
the
sho
int(

Bby agreed to
i<ith. and the
urea from a
« at the first

always been
ig pronnds of
)oth in Great
f'»r instance,
iation of the
nadiau terri-
o bay. This
iial interpre-
Be Imperial
ports, p. 66.
r European
)f a ten-mile

undy is in
)ay are not
1 the terri-

re such an
the article
'f 1«18, in
r purpose
tnay enter
> inserted
privileges

people. «»Preine authori y t Z'^" '^ *'-'C "1[T°"' ^« ^epSVed 0^°?"^ *hat

« It would bfl » ^- *''''® on aios/ ;^* '"'"nd by Clf T.°.^ *?«"• ur«-

218

facts or arguments withdraw from a position taken up deliberately, and by doing so, in
effect, plfii'l guilty to the whole of the oharKes of oppression, inhumanity, and bad faith
which, in language wholly unwarranted by the oircumstances of the case, have been made
against it by the public men of the United States.

Snob a surrender on the part of Canada would involve the abandonment of a valuable
portion of the national inheritance of the Canadian people, who would certainly visit with
just reprobation thoae who wore guilty of so serious a neglect of the trust committed to their
charge.

The Minister, while, however, objecting thus strongly to the proposal as it now stands,
considers that the fact of such a proposal having been made may be regarded as affording an
opportunity which ha'^^, up to the present time, not been offered for an amicable comparison of
the views enterttinerl by Your Excellency's Government and that of the United States, and
he dcbires to point out that Mr. Bayard's proposal, though quite inadmissible, in so far as
the ('ondition.s attached tn it are concerned, appears to be, in itself, one which deserves
respectful examination by Your Excellency's advisers. The main prinoiple of that proposal
istliat a mixed Commission stiould be appointed for the purpose of determining the limits
of those territorial waters within which, subject to the stipulations of the Treaty of 1818, the
exclusive right, of fishivig belongs to Great Gritain.

The Minister cordially agrees with Mr. Bayard in believing that a determination of those
limits would, whatever might be the future commercial relations between Canada and the
United iStutes, either in respect to the fishing industry, or in regard to the interchange of
other con:nio(lities, be extremely desirable, and he believes that Your Excellency's Govern-
ment will bo found ready to co-operate with that of the United iStates in effecting such a
settlement.

Iloldii g this view the Minister is of opinion that Mr. Bayard was justified in reverting to
the preceilent aflorded by the negotiations which took place upon this subject between Great
Britain and the United States after the expiration of the Keciprocity Treaty of 1854, and ho
concurs with him in believing that the memorandum communicated by Mr. Adams in 1S66 to
the Earl of Clarendon affords a valuable indication of the hues upon which a negotiation
directed to the same points might now be allowed to proceed.

The Minister has already referred to some of the criticisms which were taken at the time
"by Lord Claieniioii to the terms of the memorandum. Mr. Bayard has himself pointed out
that its concluding paragraph, to which Jjord Clarendon emphatically objected, is not con-
tained in the memorandum now forwarded by him. Mr. Bayard, appears, however, while
taking credit for this omission, to have lost sight of the fact that the remaining articles of the
draft memorandum c atnin stipulations not loss open to objection and calculated to affect
even more disadvantagoously tho permanent interests ot the Dominion in the fisheries
adjacent to its coasts.

The Minister submits tl at in his opinion, there can be no objection on the part of the
Canadian Government to the appointment ot a mixed commission, whose duty it would be to
consider and report on the matters referred to in the first three articles of the memorandum
communicated to the Earl of Clarendon by Mr. Adams, in 1866.

Should a commission instructed to deal with these subjects be appointed at an early date,
the Minister is not without hope that the result of its investigations might bo rei)orted to tho
Ctoveinmeiits afh-cted without much loss of time. Pending the determination of the ques-
tions which it would discuss, it will, in the opinion of the Minister, be indispensable that
United States fishing vessels enterin'^ Canadian bays and harbours should govern themselves
not only according to the terms of tho Convention of 1818, but by the regulations to which
they in common with other vessels are subject while within such waters.

The Minister has, however, no doubt that every effort will bo made to enforce those
regulations in such a manner as to cause the smallest amount of inconvenienro to fishing
vessels entering Canadian {'orts under stress of weather or for any other legitimate purpo-:e,
and he believes that any representation upon this subject will receive the attentive coiisi.
deration of Your Excellency's Ciovernement.

The Minister in conclusion would lemiud Yo;ir Excellency that Your Government has
always been willing to remove any obstacles to the most friendly relations between the
people of Canada and the United States.

Your Government has not only been disposed from the fiist to arrive as such an arran-
gement as that indicated in the report, with regard to the fisheries, but likewise to enter
into such other arrangements as might extend the commercial relations existing between
the two countiies.

The Committee concur in the foregoing and they submit tho same for Your Excellency's |
J^proval.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McGEE,

ClerK; Frivij Council.

by doing so, in
', and bad faith
have been made

it of a valuable
iainly visit with
nmitted to their

it now stands,
1 as afibrdiiig an
le comparison of
ited States, and
le, in so far as
which deserves
3f that proposal
ining the limits
Jatyof 1818, the

lination of those
'anada and the
interchange of
lency's Govern-
ffeoting such a

in reverting to

between Great

3f 1854, and ho

dams in 1866 to

a negotiation

ton at the time
ilf pointed out
id, is not con-
however, while
; articles of the
lated to affect
n the fisheries

the part of the
it would be to
memorandum

t an early date,
eportod to the
1 of the ques-
pensabie that
rn themselves
tious to which

enforce those
ico to lishing
nato purpo-:e,
-tentive consi-

/^lyrnment has
between llie

iUch an arran-
Hviso lo enter j
iling between

TieHoDourable,

^^SDOWNE.

No. 180.

Knclos

"08. 1 Hu(

of No. 174,

^ have, &c.,
(Sd.)

**'•' <S:c., &c^

S- T.HOLLAND.

TTreaty No. 9.j

fBncIosure No i j

vy Council.

^ have, &o.,

^^^•^ L. S. S. WEST.

220

[No. 42.]

No. 181.
Sir Mtnry Holland to Lord Lantdoume.

DowMiNQ Stbiit, 23rd February, 1887.

Mt Lord, — I have the honour to transmit to Tour Lordship, for coramunioatioQ
to your Government a oopv of a letter from the Foreign Office, with its enolosaree,
respecting the case of the United States' Schooner *' Sarah H. Prior;" and I am to
rei^aest that I may be favoured with a report upon the alleged oondaot of the oaptaia
of the Canadian revenue cutter " Critic" on the occasion referred to.

I have, &0.,

- GovernorOeneral,

The Most Honourable

The Habquis of Lanbdownb, G.C.lii.G.

&c., &c,,

(Sd.) H.T. HOLLAND-

AC.

oau

[BnolMnra No. I.]
Foreign Offict to Colonial Offict.

FoRBioN Offiob, 17th February, 1837.

Sib,— I am directed by the Marqoia of Salisbury to transmit to you to be laid before Sir
Henry Holland, a copy of a despatch from Her Miyesty'a Minister at Washington, enclosing
a copy of a note from the United States' Secretary of State requesting that an investigation
may be made into the case of the United States' schooner " Sarah H. Prior," and I an to
request that a report may be obtained from the Dominion Gorernment on the subject.

I am, &c.,

(Sd.)

J. PAUNCEFOTB.

Thb Under Seoretabt of Statb,
Colonial Office.

[Bnclosare No: 3.]

Sir L. S, West to Marquis of Saliahury,

[Treaty No. 21.] Washington, 28th January, 1886.

My Lord, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith, copy of a note which
.1 have received from the Secretary of State, as well as copy of an affidavit whioh aooom-

?anied it, asking for an investigation into the case of the American schooner " Sarah H.
rior " as therein set forth.

I am, &c.,

The Marquis of Salisbury,
&c., &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

&c.

wry, 1887.

ooramunioatioD

i it8 ODolosarM,

and I am to

of the captain

)LDAND

lary, 1837.

laid before Sir
[ton, enclosing
I investigation
," and I ana to
subject.

TOEFOTE

lary, 1886.

' a note which
rhioh aocom-
er" Sarah H.

WEST,

Notary Pu'tj^-^.

222

No. 182.
The Oolmial Office to Lord Lamdowne.

DoTfNiNa Stebet, 24th February, 1887.

Sib, — ^I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Oolonies to inform yoa that
the undermentioned Parliamentary Papers have been sent to you by Book Post.

Title of Paper.

OorreBpondence relating to the f ieheries Question.

No. of Oopies.

I have, &o,,

(Sd.)

ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

The Offiobk Admimistbbino

the Government of Canada.

'« (8

(^Tekgram.')

No. 183.
Secretary of State to Governor General,

24th February, 1887.

Tour despatch of Ist February has been considered carefully by Her Majesty's
' Government, who will communicate with that of the United Stetes in general con-
currence with the views laid down by your Ministers respecting the proposal for a
mixed Commission made by Mr. Bayard. I will address you furtner, however,
regarding one or two points.

Her Majesty's Government, while endeavouring to procure this ad interim
arrangement, feel it ri^t to intimate to yoa that they are disposed to think, after
much consideration of the entire subject, that the best and simplest settlement of the
present difficulties might be arrived at if both parties would agree so as to permit the
discussion of the more extended commercial arrangements — to revive, for a term at
least, '" not permanently, the condition of things which existed under the Treaty of
Washington, fish and fish productions being again reciprocally admitted duty free,
and the fishery being once more reciprocally thrown open.

They are, however, of opinion that it would be the clear interest of the Domi-
nion that no suggestion of a pecuniary indemnification should be made in proffering
' this arrangement

(Sd)

SECRETARY JF STATE.

J .

aary, 1887.

nform you that
Book Post.

No. of Oopies.

ERBERT.

ary, 1887.

Her Majesty's
n general oon<

Eroposal for a
er, however,

is ad interim
10 think, after
)Iement of the
to permit the
for a term at
the Treaty of
ed duty free,

of the Domi-
in proffering

STATE.

(.telegram.)

^o. 184.

^°'"™^-™-°*«"^../*«.

[No. 46]

. ^ MY liO

information

No. 186.

" - -^s-?s..

^iave,«&c.,

. °""*''««' Of »««..„.

L5^5:5ai^»..^:~~::;;:—

' <^o:«,i., Office '""' <«<^> J.PAUKCEPoi^.

i.!r

884

[Enclosure No. 2.1
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.

Washinoton, iioth January, 1887.
My Ix)rd, — I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith an article from the

[Treaty No. 22.]

New York " Evening Post," setting forth the motives ol the Republican Party in bringing in
the so-called anti Canadian Bill.

I have, &c.,

The Marquis of Salisbury.
<fcc., &c., &c.

(Sd.) L. S. S. WEST.

LEuclosure No. 3.]
ExTRvcT/rom the New York ^'Evening Post" of 21th January, 1887.
THE ANTI-CANADIAN BILL.

1 he unanimity with which the Senate Fishery Bill was passed and the indifference with
which it has been received by the country betoken anything rather than war. There is per-
haps some party politics behind the curtain. The Democrats must not allow the Republicans
to pose as the sole defenders of the country's honour against foreign aggression. Without
reference to the merits of the Bill, they must forestall any imputation of want of patriot-
ism. This can be easily managed because the execution of it is in the hands of a Democratic
Administration. The Bill provides that the President jnay suspend commercial intercourse
with Canada, more or less, whenever our fishing rights, under the Treaty of 1818, have been
wantonly infringed. 'I his is a grant of power to the President of a very extraordinary kind,
no less, in fact, than the power to ruin thousands of American merchants. No such power
would have been granted by the Republicans without a political end in view. This end
obviously is to catch the President and his party on one or the other horn of a dilemma. If
he does not exercise the power conferred upon him. it will be said that he has come short of
a patiiotic dutj'. If he does exercise it, more or less suffering will ensue on our own side of
the border, and for this he will be held responsible.

The responsibility for suspending trade relations ought never to be surrendered by the
legislative power. At the time when Napoleon Bona,^arte was issuing his Berlin and Milan
decrees, and the British Ministry their Orders in Council, the Congress of the United States
passed the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts, decreeing in fixed terms the suspension of
commerce with the offending Powers, and giving the President power merely to relax the
operations of the Acts when one or the other of the off'ender.s should desist from the injustice
complained of. The Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts were total failures in practice. Yet
Congress preserved its dignity and its prerogatives by keeping within its own hands the
power to close the ports of the United States, giving to the President the discretion merely
to open them in certain specified contingencies. In the present case the power of closing
and opening is surrendered to the President in a spirit of gush which is open to strong sus-
picion. When Senator Frye utters such fulsome praise of the President as is found in the
recent Senate debate, it is well to enquire what it signifies. In our judgment it means that
Mr. Frye wants him to make a liberal use of the dangerous power contierred upon him. It
may do his Administration some harm. It can do him no good unless the provocation offered
by the Canadians is more extreme than anything yet offered, for, if a justifiable case for non-
intercourse exists now, it is the bounden duty of^ Congress to declare and enforce it, and not I
leave it to the discretion of the Executive. The bill itself is an expression of doubt whether j
any such case now exists. The report which accompanies the Bill is still more so.

Since the settlement of the ^/aftama dispute there has been nothing to feed the old I
animosities against Great Britain springing out of the two wars with the Mother Country!
except the Irish grievance, and this has beei much mollified by the creation of a strong!
Irish party in England under the lead of Mr. Gladstone. Accordingly there is no echo to tlie|
ranting speech of Senator Ingalls. It has no true ring because it strikes no chord in the
hearts of the people. Mr. Ingalls is playing upon a cracked instrument. The effects pro!
duced upon the hearers are those of flatulence and discord. The Canadians themselve/
are not highly interested in the performance. 'J hey appear to regard it as a breach of goo.|

225

muary, 1887.

article from the
ty in bi'inging in

WEST.

87.

itlifference with
. There is per-
he Republicans
ision. Without
want of patriot-
)f a Democratic
jial intercourse
818, have been
^ordinary kind,
Vo such power
iew. This end
a dilemma. If
i come short of
3ur own side of

Jndered by the
rlin and Milan

United States
J suspension of
y to relax the
n the injustice
practice. Yet
wn hands the
cretion merely
wer of closing

to strong sus"

found in the
it means that
upon him. It
)cation offered
9 case for noii-
I'ce it, and not
loubt whether

so,

feed the old
3ther Country
1 of a strong!

echo to th(

1 chord in tin
e effects proj
s themselvei
reach of goo.

■^^^^

f Treaty Kq. 18.]

?fy Lord _ t u
New V, :; ^ nave

f BacIoBure No. $ 7
^^-^ L S. s. WIST,

o™ S^ "".'y on,. „„„. , "■='"""«» .» B«™,. '"""'" '»«'•

226

judgment, and to consider the Senate measure aa the more expedient of the two schemes.
Ketalmtion, so far as may be practicable, should be strictly in kind : Canadian fishermen and
their produce should be dealt with in the same spirit in which American fishermen and their
produce are dealt with in Canadian ports ; and the extreme policy of non-intercourae should
be held in reserve for another year. If the House will accept the Senate Bill as a substitute
for its own measure, and send it to the President with the imbroken support of both partiea,
the responsibility for protecting the rights of American fishermen will be clearly defined.

The United States' Senate deserves the thanks of every patriotic American. The decisive
vote by which the Adnoinistration's timorous arbitration proposals were condemned at the
last Session has been followed this week by the passage of the Fisheries Retaliation Bill by a
vote practically unanimous. Party distmctions were dropped. The Senate rose to a high
level of patriotism in defence of National honor. The series of unneighbourly, brutal and
illegal outrages upon American commerce in Dominion waters has been resented with
becoming vigour and dignity. The Senate, with only one dissenting vote — and that vote
cast under a fantastic interpretation of the measure — has armed the President with full,
adequate and just powers of retaliation. At his discretion United States' ports can be closed
against Canadian vessels, fresh or salt fish or any of the products of the Dominion can be
seized in American territory, ships and goods can be forfeited, and persons implicated in the
violation of this law can be fined and imprisoned. This policy will be heartily supported by
public opinion in the United States.

Senator Ingalls' incisive questions, in regard to the real purpose of the Senate Bill, were
well-timed, and served to bring out invigorating exhibitions of American feeling. It was
unnecessary, however, to ask whether the Bill was mtended as a pacific or as a hostile measure.
On its face it is a measure of retaliation, pure and simple. If the warning be unheeded by
the Dominion Government, it may become necessary, another year, to have recourse to more
extreme retaliatory legislation. Such measures are defensive in character. It is a serious
mistake to consider thera in the light of war measures. The real war measures are the wan-
ton outrages which have involved the necessity for retaliation ; and the effect of a vigourous
defensive policy on the American side will be markedly pacific, since it will tend to prevent
the recurrence of hostile acts. That this will be the result of the passage of the Senate BftI
by the House we have very little doubt. Already the Canadian Government is showing
works meet for repentance. Three days aftet the introduction ot retaliatory measures in
Congress, Consul General Phelan received from the Canadian authorities a check for $400,
the restored fine on the schooner " Marion Grimes," the flag of which was hauled down by
order of the swaggering commander of the "Terror." Another schooner was released on
Monday. Illegal seizures and brutal outrages will cease when tlie Ottawa officials perceive
that the British Minister is no longer the confidential adviser of Secretary Bayard, that the
Administration has renounced its flabby policy of inaction, and that the American people are
determined not to have the National honour compromised.

[Bnclosure No. 8.]
ExTiiACT /roOT the "New York World" of 27 tJi January, IS87.

A I.ES80N FOR CANADA.

The Canadians have never displayed wisdom in their action on the fishery question.
Dependent in a measure on the trade of the United States for their prosperity, they have
constantly pursued a policy d' bluster against her powerful neighbour instead of a policy of
conciliation. Their object has been to force a misnamed "reciprocity," with the advantages
largely on their side, instead of such a lair and equitable Commercial Treaty between the
two countries as would advance the interests of both and create those friendly feelings
which would be the beat guarantee of an honest observance of the obligations on both sides.

Some time ago the Canadian Parliament enacted a law whidh authorized the seizure of
Americ£*i vessels in violation of what we consider our rights under the Treaty of 1818. The
Governor General of the Dominion felt so much doubt about the propriety an^ expediency
of the Act that he withheld his signature and referred it to the Home Government. Before
the new law was made complete by the Royal approval, American vessels were seized under
its provisions without a sbi^dow of legality. Subsequently the Act received the Queen's
approval.

This is certainly pjovocation enough to prompt some decisive movement on the part of
the Goveniiuent oi' the United States, either through the President or Congress. The

227

le two schemes.
1 fishermen and
rmen and their
ercourae should
[ as a substitute
of both parties,
rly defined,
n. The decisive
udeinned at the
liation Bill by a
e rose to a high
urly, brutal and
1 resented with
-and that vote
isident with full.
•ts can be closed
)ominion can be
tnplicated in the
ily supported by

Senate Bill, were
feeling. It was
hostile measure,
be unheeded by
recourse to more
r. It is a seriouB
ures are the wan-
;ct of a vigourous
1 tend lo prbvent
of the Senate B|l
nment is showing
,tory measures in
a check for $400,
} hauled down by
r was released on
officials perceive
Bayard, that the
ierican people are

|7.

[fishery question,
ferity, they have
ad of a policy of
the advantages
laty between the
[friendly feelings
Ins on both sides.
id the seizure of
Ity of 1818. The
Tan'l expediency
prnment. Before
fere seized under
Ved the Queen's

|nt on the part of
Congress. The

Administration has done nothing but " protest," while in the face of its expostulations the
objectionable law received the Koyal assent. Congress now acts through the law which
authorizes the President to retaliate for Canadian injustice to our filshing vessels by closing
American ports to Canada's trade.

There is nothing of bullying and bluster about this course. It is a measure entirely
justifiable and one which Canada can control. If American vessels are fairly dealt with and
Treaty obligations are faithfully observed the law will be inoperative. If American rights
are violated, retaliation is just and proper and entirely within the practice of nations.

Nobody wants war witii Greal Britain, nor will there be any war. The rant of politicianB
in search of cheap popularity amounts to nothing. But Canada must be taught that if she
desires to remain on good terms with her neighbour she must act with courtesy and fairness.
If she neglects the lesson it will be at the cost of the interests of her own people.

No. 186.
Sir JET. Holland to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

[No. 49.] Downing Stbeet, Ist March, 1881.

My Lord, — I have the honour to transmit to you, for any observations which
your MiniBters may wiah to otfer upon the subject, a copy of a despatch received
tbroagh the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington with a paper
containing certain questions respecting the fisheries pat by the Secretary of the
Treasury to Professor Baird, of the Fish Oommissioa, as well as the answers returned
thereto.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) H. HOLLAND.
Governor General

The Most Honourable

The Mabquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G.,
&c., &o., &c.

(Treaty No. 25.)

[Bnclosnre No. l.]
Sir L, West lo the Marquis of Salisbury,

Washington, 5th February, 1887.

My Lord, — I have Che honour to enclose to Your Lordship herMvith a paper containhig
certain questions respecting the fisheries pui, by the Secretary of thi Treasury to Professor
Baird, of the Fish Commission, as well as the answers returned thereto.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) L. S. WEST.
Thb Marqwis of Salisbury,
&c., &c., &c.

[Bnclosnre No. 2 ]

Questions put tt Professor Baird by the Secretary of the Treasury on the fisheries, aivl
answers returned thereto : —

1. What are the descriptions offish which the American fishermen desire to take either
in tlio jurisdictional waters of British Nortli America, or in the open seii, or upon bays near
the British colonial pob'sessicpis ? Answer. Mackerel is the. only species of any importance
166-15^

228

which the American &shermen desire to take within the three-mile limit ; but at present the
advantage to be derived from any privilege of fishing within the three-mile limit is compara-
tively insignificant.

2. In the method of fishing in the open sea, of what importance is the right to enter in a
commercial way British colonial ports in the neighbourhood? Anatoer. Unly to purchase
either salt barrels or ice. The privilege, however, of landing cargoes of fish at provincial
ports for shipment to the United States is of considerable importance to vessels engaged in
the mackerel fishery, and with it should be coupled the privilege of refitting.

Some of the Oloucester owners of vessels are opposed to going to and from provincial
ports on account of the loss of time thereby incurred, but as a considerable percentage of the
inen employed have families in the Provinces, they urge upon the owners the necessity of
obtaining bait in these localities.

3. The same question in regard to the fishing on the permitted coasts and the commer-
cial entry in the prohibited bays and harbours, but not for fishing 7 Anawer. There is at

£ resent comparatively little fishing by American vessels on that portion of the coast to which
ee access is given by the Treaty of 1818, but vessels fishing in that vicinity should have the
same privileges in other ports as are accorded to other vessels, as it would seem unwise to
discriminate, and it would, perhaps, owing to the few settlements of any importance on the
permitted coast be more convenient for the vessels to enter ports in the prohibited districts
to purchase the necessary articles than to go out of their way in an opposite direction where
there might be any uncertainty of securing them.

4. t<nat is your estimate of the total tonnage of American vessels and the number of
fishermen therein engaged in the Canadian and North Atlantic fisheries in 1886, and the total
value of their catch 7 Answer. 1,956 vessels, aggregating 115,130 tons, with crew numbering
17,996 men. The fleet is estimated to have been divided as loUows : —

1,530 vessels in the food fish fishery.
215 in the shell fish and lobster fishery.
177 in the capture of whales and seals.
34 in the menhaden fishing.

5. What change has, in your view, come to American fisheries since the last full year of
the Washington Treaty, in regard to the quantity, character, and general features of that
industry 7 Answer. During the year mackerel nas been peculiarly scarce. The limited
catch cannot, however, in any way be accoimted for by the restiu'^ions placed on American
vessels within the three-mile limit.

6. What are the new features in the diminished necessity for the purchase of bait in
British and American ports 7 Answer. The employment ot the gill net, obtained from Nor-
way for catching cod fish which renders bait no longer necessary.

7. Have you ascertained new facts of public interest in regard to the decreasing import-
ance to American fishermen of the inshore Canadian fisheries ? Answer. The decreased
impoitance is due to : —

(1) The increased size of American vessels, which did away with the necessity of fishing
close to land where harbours could be made in case of storms and of landing to dry their fish.

(2) The substitution of the purse seine for hand lines in the capture of mackerel, which
has necessitated fishing in deeper water, and at a greater distance from shore.

(3) From the change in the location of the mackerel, which has for the last few years
enabled Ame:ican vessels to obtain full cargoes in the vicinity of the American coasts, instead
of going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where they formerly met with better success, but where
of late years, prior to the present season they have found fishing unsatisfactory.

No. 187.

Lord Lansdoume to Sir Henry Holland.

[No. ST.] Ottawa, 9th March, 1887.

Sir, — In conseqaence of the repeated complaints which have been addressed to-
Her Majesty's Government, by that of tho United States, of Iho manner in which the
Canadian authorities have acted in enforcing against American fishing vessels the
provisions of the Convention c 818 and tho Acts of Parliament passed for the purnoso

it present the
it is compara-

: to enter in a

y to purchase

at provincial

lis engaged in

3m provincial
ientage of the
I necessity of

the commer-
. There is at
oast to which
)uld have the
sm unwise to
rtance on the
•ited districts
ection where

le number of
md the total
fv numbering

full year of
ures of that
The limited
n American

e of bait in
d from Nor-

Jing import-
e decreased

ty of fishing
ry their fish,
kerel, which

st few years
asts, instead
i, but where

1887.

droBsed to
which the
roHseld the
ie purposo

*he Npeoi'a
ifir the last
-events of
aenied priVi.
infractions of
whether any
*fio Fisheries

33. enjoiS'uoor L"?«i.°-der which &° •"«i'-««tf?n? aVer Jl/!';?'^?^'"'' of

consideration an5 to u.^Jl^TV®^'^' hZsrei t^° !°?'f*'' °°d cre^ " °>'«aJ venture
, oarrv out theHA ,\r ; concil atorv ««;»;* • ° another nassflo-^ » .^ *^® extreme

Jntentions ?f th! /"^* ^«a«on there h«aT ^'^'sters affords n«
Mfei-rod havoTl' r^y case in whick „„,''"» ^"olod. I™""™ from tk»

230

illnBlration is afforded by the langnage used in the report recestly presented to Con-
gress by Idr. Edmunds, from the Committee on Foreign Eelations, which contains the
following passage : —

'* Go the I2ih May, 1870, the Dominion Act, 33 Yio,, chap. 16, was passed,
repealing the third section of the last>mentioned Act on the subject ot bringing vessels-
into port, &c., and provided, in lieu thereof, that any of the officers or persons before
mentioned might bring any vessel being within any harbour in Canada, or hovering
in British waters, within three miles of the coast into port, search her cargo, examine
her master on oath, &o., without any previous notice to depart, which had been required
by the former Act. So that an American vessel fishing at sea, being driven by stresa
of weather, want of wood or water, or need of repairing damages, which should run
into a Canadian harbour, under the right reserved to it by the Treaty of 1818, the
moment her anchor was dropped or she was within the shelter of a headland was, at
the discretion of the Canadian official, to be immediately seized and carried into port,
which might be, and often would be, many miles from the place where she could
have her safe shelter or could obtain her wood and water or repair her damages.

" The Committee thinks it is not too much to say that such a provision is in view
of the Treaty and of the common principles of comity among nations, grossly in
violation of rights t^ccurod by the Treaty and of that friendly conduct of good neigh>
bourhood, that should exist between civilized nalionH holding relations such as ought
to exiflt between the United States and Hor Majesty's Dominions. "*****

"From all this it would seem that it is the deliberate purpose of the British
Government to leave it to the individual discretion of each one of the numerous sub-
ordinate mngislratee, fishery officers, and Custom officers of the Dominion of Canada
to seize and to bring into port any American vessels, whether fishing or other, that
ho finds within any harbour in Canada, or hovering within Canadian waters, "

7. It is, I venture to submit, impossible to contrive any system for enforcing
regulations for the protection of the Canadian Fisheries, or for the prevention of
smuggling along the Canadian coa&t, no matter how liberal the spirit in which those
regulations might be conceived, under which the initiative to be taken in each case
should not bo left to " the individual discretion " of Canadian officials. If no such dis-
cretion is allowed to these, if every intruding vessel is to be free after committing an
act of treppass to depart without hindrance from the place in which that act was
committed, subject merely to the chance of her being made liable for Mibsoquent
legal proceedings, the protection which it was intended to afford to the interests of
the Dominion would become illusory and valueless.

8. The same argument applies to the enforcement against the American fishing
vesBols of the Canadian Customs law. The acts of vessels which have been prooeoded
against under this law are constantly represented, as for instance on page lU of the re-
poit already quoted to bo "merely formal or technical violations of some Canadian Cus-
toms Statute or Regulation." The Statute which has been enforced in these cases is,
as I have more than once had occasion to point out, one which is consistently put into
operation against all vessels resorting to Canadian waters nor would it bo possible to
oease enforcing it against a particulur class of vessels without giving to them oppor-
tunities for systematically, and with complete impunity, evading the law upon coasts
of which the configuration is particularly favourable to the operations of smugglers.

9. For these reasons I cannot hold out the expectation that my Govei'nment will
abandon the position which I have described, and which may bo summed up in the
statement ihat it cannot recognizo the right of the United states' fishing vessels to
resort to Canadian waters except lor the purposes specified in tho Convention of 1818,
and that it considers that its officials should have the discretion of determining in
what cases and to what extent, subject to the ultimate decision of the Courts, vessels
entering those waters for a lawful purpose should comply with the requirements of
the municipal law of the Domir.ion. With this reservation, my Goverument desires
to aftbrd (o all foreign vessels every facility for availing themselves of the privileges
to which they are entitled, and to avoid, as far as possible, attaching to the exercise
of those privileges any condition of an irritating or vexatious character.

6'
Wj

boi

Col

fro I

dela
was

ccrta

iosH c

thep

Deco.m

and it

as i>08{

The m

[No. 31.J

Mvi

■Troasory (

I provisions

2HI

y^^ ^'li favour me ^ thin l^'^^^^Woo^foth^rr^r ^^'^^rHbhZ^T^^

- -predion of ^'-^^We airea'<ly;e/^^^^^^^^^^

No. 188.

[No. 74.J

^ANSDoiy^^B.

to and Janding of

382

mackerel caught daring the npawniog seaaon, and aoth^riaiuj tho Prosideot 1o pro*
toot the righta of Amoricaa fiahing vessels.

I have, &o.,

(Sd.) L. S. SACKV; LLE WEST.
His flzcellenoy

The Marquis of Lansdownb, G.O.Af.G.,
&c., &c., &o.

1887. DEPiRTMKNT No. 32.

LEnoloiare No. 1 ]
CIRCUL/kR.— THK FISHERIES.

TbBASUBT DbPARTMBNT, BCRBAn OK NATKiATIOK,

Washihoton, D. C, 16th March, 1887.

To Collectors of Vustoma and others :

The attention of oflScers of Custoias and others is invited to the provisions of the recent
Acts of Congress printed below, one relating *' to the importing and landing of mackerel
caught during the spawning season," and the other authorizmg the " President of the United
States to protect the rights of American fishing vessels, American fishermen, American
trading and other vessels, in certain cases," &o.

(Sd) C. B. MORTON,

Commissioner.
Approved :

(Sd.) C. S. FAIRCHILD,

Acting Secretary, <

Ak Act belatlvg to the Importing and Landing of Maokerei, caught DURTNa the Spawning

Season.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress, assembled. That for the period of five years from and after the first day of March,
eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, no mackerel, other than what is known as Spanish
mackerel, caught between the first day of March and the first <lay of June, inclusive, of each
year, shall be imported into the United States or landed upon its shores : Provided, however,
That nothing in this Act shall be held to apply tc mackerel caught with hook and line from
boats, and landed in said boat- , or in traps and wuirs connected with the shore.

Sec. 2. That section forty-three hundred and twenty-one of the Revised Statute is
amended, for the period of five years aforesaid, so as to read before the last sentence as
follows : *' This license does not grant the right to fish for mackerel, other than for what is
known as Spanish mackerel, betveen the first day of March and the first day of June, inchi-
sive, of this year." Or in lieu of the foregoing thore shall be inserted so much of said
peiiod of time as may remain unexpired under this Act.

Sko. G. That the penalty for violation or attempted violation of this Act shall be forfeit-
ure of license on the i)art of the vessel engaged in said violation, if a vess(>l of this country,
and the forfeiture to the United States, according to law, of the mackerel imported or
landed, or sought to be imported or landed.

Sec. 4, That all laws in conflict with this law are hereby repealed.

Approved, 28th February, 1887.

An Act to Authokize tub Prksiuent of the United States to Protect and Defend thb Rkjiits
Of American Fishin(; Vessels, American Fishkrmen, American Tradino and other Vessels,
IN certain cases and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America i
in Congress assembled, That whenever tho President of the United States shall be satisfied
that American fishing vessels or American fishermen visiting or being in the waters or at any!

C^o.

10 pro-

ST.

[OK,

lb, 1887.

bhe recent
mackerel

he United
American

atoner.

SPAWXiNa

jf America
' of March,
IS Spanish
le, of each
f, however,
|l line from

I Statute is
lutence as
jr what is
lune, inclu-
Ich of saitl

I be forfeit-
country,
Iported or

[lIB RltillTS

' America \

satistieil

1 or at any j

ports or places of thA Ti '♦■ i. ^^~~~~~^^^^^~^^^^^=;=^^^^^s^»

the United States shall Ha fofp*5''!u''**^''«' Ports or places -or »hf ""'' ^J**'*^' or other-
permit under the laws ofthe'uS!''. S*f ""^ «"«» ««ES^ VesJeS ^r Th' '^^ ^''T'^«°* «>'
places in the British dom nJnn. ^xr*"^.^'"'®' ^ touch and tra.L 1?L„, '^»*'«''niPn, having a
privilege of enter ngSnor?'^^°''*^^'"«"«"' "« ^S\^Lu\l°'^^ P"""^"' P'«°« <"•
same regulations as mat i^- P?f * °' P"^'''8» place or places In ?hi^ '^*^® '*«®" denied the
or shali^e urjust y ;j;j!l';/^''«'» '^PP'ic'tble to tSg vessJsTthi"''"^; '^'^'^ ""d*"- tK
harassed therein or ,wf "^ '''"'assed in respect thereof nr^t *^® '^^^^ '^''oureJ nation!
fully sold to tri^ve si o'f IIT'^'^A ^'''^^^''^^nfZh^^^^^ *'« ""J"««y -«ed o^
United States shall* be sSt Lfiij ? T^^ ^''■^onvBd nation ; or wheneviltr T^ ^?«''« t*® 'a'^'
crews, so arriving at or be „„.>. i'l 1?^,?"'«'' ^«««els of the UniJe J 4a^ ^'^'}^^^^ of the
ot North America are or *!?£,? 8»fh British watersor ports or n?„^lu p?u®^' *^«"' masters, or
to the vessels tW,°^. , ^" ^*'«^3^ ^ave been denie/anv of fh^ ^-"^ *'*® ^""^h dominions
harassed i^riptt of the'«l Jo ''^'"'^ P^ *»>« 'no't favored nafion''^' '^^'T «'««''ded
thereof, then, affin dther or^i ' f''' "^'^"'"y ^««d orClefl t°^ °/„r?u"^ ^^*«d <»•
President of the Un te f ^f a? • °^^H<'*' cases, it shall be lawful rn^?u"?, \^ ^^^ authoritiea
to vessels, their m„sSn„.f^'' '" ^^ discretion, by procTamaHnn ' J '^^.^^ ^« *^« <^"ty of the
into the Waters, ports Tr ^tZZ'' "^ ^'j.^ ^"''^h domiiK o" North^. *^*^ ^**'«°*' *» deny
to vessels in distS ^tril^f °^'R' '^'^'^'" ^^^ United Steles Avifh^ Amer.ca, any entrance
proper), whetZr Sh vp'i? T^.^f '•- °^ n^^eding suppfies L I« *^ n^''-^^"""' in regard
voyage.orby waVofsomn ?r>"^r««^°™« directWom said 1^ • .^'^^ident shall stem

illegal, and^aU veS'* L*^"^ '""^^ Proclamation, or any Zt S'"" °/*^^P"'-Po«es of SS
the United States contra °^«^°°i« '" °°^'n«or'beinrwitE?n tS ^^? ' '' ''^'"''^y declared
^nd such ibrfeituf; shaiM^ ^J^""^ Proclamation, shal? be forf!5f« 7"^"!' P'"'^' °'- P'^^es of
same eifect as in Thf ® ?°'°™*'d and proceeded Tnon in 7k ^'^ *° *'>« United States-
waters or jlS ^ t" Um>d ".ff ^' "'' «°^« ^^h'L S/tSt o„' or"' '?^"""«'- '^"d with tfa^
upon. Every pSson who ll?''- ? ."""^''^''^ ^ law may now b« ^f'""^^ <"■ '^^'•'S 1° the
of the PresideSt Se in nS''''''*'^'*»yoftheprovSns7thk e"'* proceeded

on conviction therTo^shall KZrhe^tr^^^''^^ »>« de"mei gu ,tt°JftZl P'-«°^*'"''«on
imprisonment for a term not ei^J^-^.''^ * ^"« ""t exceeding one fhn^ '"'^demeanor, and,
oretion of the court "" ""' '^°'^^'"« ^^^^ y«^ars, or by bor^sS pSSnl^°^ •"^'.''1^
Approved, 3rd March, 1887. puni'^iments, m the dis-

No. 190.
LorJ Lansiotme to Sir If. nollamJ.

■r\d

« para^r.iph of

')f my Gjvecn-

afoiciga li^h-

\m\

234

iDg veHKC'l liUH ontorotl a Cunadian burbonr for a lawfal purpose, and in the purRuance
of her treaty rifjhte, to oxeroice the occoHHary ttuporvir^ion over the conduct of hor
maHtur and crow, anil to guard u^ainat infractions of the CuHtomn law and other
StauitoH binding upon foreign vohsoIs while in Cunadian waters, without placing an
armed guard on boavd, or pevontingVooHonablo communication with the shore.

My udvitters are, in regard to all such matters, fully prepared to recognize that
A difletcnue hhould bo made butwoon the treatment of veHHeln ^ona ;?:/a entering u
Canadion hurboor for hhelter or repairs, or to obtain wood and water, and that of other
veHNols of the same ulasa entorint^ such harbors ostensibly for a lawful purpose, but
really with the intention of breaking the law.

(Sgd.) LANSDUWNE.

The Right Hor.ourable,

Sir Hkn^y Holland, Babt,, G.C.M.G.,
i&C., &o., &o.

821.

[Eaclosuro No. !•]

Cbrtivisd Copy of a Repoi t of a Commitlee of ihe Honotirable the Privy Council, approved
by Ilia ExctUency the Governor General in Council, on the 'I'ird March, 18^7.

The Committeo of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated
16th December, ]<SS6, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonics,
transmitting acoi-y of a letter from the Foreign Oftice covering copy of a de8i)atch from Her
Majesty's Minister at Washington, enclosing notes which he has receiveci from Mr. Bayard,
United Slates' Secretary of State, protesting against the conduct of the Dominion authorities
in their dealings with the United States' iishing vessels "Laura Sayward " and "Jennie
Seaverns," and roquestiiip to be furnished with a report on the subject for communication
to the Government of the I'liited States.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries to whom the despatch and enclosures were referred
for immediate report, observes that Mr. Bayard talces exception to the " inhospitable and
inhuman conduct " of the Collector of Customs at the Port of Shelburne, N.S., in refusing to
allow Capt. Kose of the '• Laura Sayward " to buy sutlicieni food to last himself and crew on
their homeward voyage, and complains of the action of the Collector in " unnecessarily
retaining '" the papers of the vetsel. Mr. JJayard bases his represensation upon the annexed
declaration tuade by Capt. Rose, but sup[iorted by no other testimony.

The iViiiister states ihat immeiliately on receipt of the despatch above mentioned, a
copy of the chaiges was forwarded to the Collector at the Port of Shelburne and liis state-
ment in reply thf-reto is annexed.

The Minister believes that Collector Atwood's statement is a reabonable and sufficient
answer to the allegations made by the Captain of the " Sayward," anil leaves no pround of
justification for tlie strong language used by Mr. Eayard in his note to Sir L. Sackville West.

The Minister further observes that witti reference to the " Jennie Seaverns," Mr. Bayard
complains of the conduct of Capt. Quigley, of the "Terror," in preventing the Captaia of tlio
"Jennie Seaverns " from landing to visit his relatives in Liverpool, N.S., and in forbidding hi^
relatives to visit him on board his vessel, and in placing a guard upon the " Seaverns " w'' '
she was in port. These complaints are based upon the affidavit of Captain Tupjier, ol
"Seaveins,' a copy of which is attaohed. The statements of Captain Quigley and his ;
officer, Bennett, aie submitted in reply, and seem to afibid ample proof that no violence
injustice «as done to the fishing schooner.

The Minister is of the opinion that the Captain of the ' Jcannie Seaverns " has nothing to
complain of. Jle came in Eolely for shelter and this was not denied liim. Ho was requested
to leport at the Customs, with which request he, upon his own evidence, willingly complied.
The other precautions talten by Captain Quigley were simply to ensure that while shelter
was bein^; liud the provisions of the convention and of tae Customs law were not violated.

The ^Minister, however, while assured that the vessel in question suffered no deprivation
of or interference with her rights as defined by the Convention of 1818, is of opinion that in
jpursuance of the spirit of uniform kindly interiiretation of the law which it has been the con-

I taut aim of the Government of Canada to exemplify in itu dealings with United Stated' finher-
inen, it is possible for the ofHcers in oharge of the cruisers to efficiently guard the rights of
Caniidian citizens and enforce the provisions of the law without in such cases as the above
finding it necesa^iry to place un armed guard ^}n board the fishin<,' vessel, or preventing what
may be deemuu reasonable communication with the shore.

The Committee concurring in the repor^of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, recom>
mend that Your Excellency be moved to transmit acopy of this Minute to the Kight Honour-
able, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the purpose of communication to the Qovem-
ment of the United States.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.)

JOHN J. MoGEE,

Clerk, Prioy Council.

[GccloBure No. S.J

{Affidavit of Medeo Rose.)

I, Medeo Rose, master of the schooner " Laura Sayward," of Gloucester, being duly
sworn, do depose and say that on Saturday, 2nd October, being then on Western Bank on a
fishing trip, and being short of provisions we hove up our anc'ior and started for home.

The wind was blowing almost a gale from the northwest and being almost dead ahead
we made slow progress on our voyage home. On Tuesday, .^th October, we made Shelburne,
Nova Scotia, and arrived in that harbour about 8 o'clock p.m. on that day, short of provis-
ions, water and oil to burn. On Wednesday I sailed for the inner harbour of Sholburne,
arriving at the town about 4 p.m. On going ashore I found the Custom House closed, and
hunted up the Collector and entered uiy vessel and asked permission from him to buy 7 lbs.
sugar, 3 lbs. coffee, ,^ to 1 bushels potatoes, ftnd 2 lbs. buttor, or lard, or pork and oil enough
to last us home, and was refused.

I stated to liim my situation, short of provisions and a voyage of 250 miles before, and
plead witli him lor this slight privilege, but it was of no avail. I then visited the American
Consul and naked his assistance and found him powerless to aid me in this matter. The
Collector of Customs held my papers until the next morning, although I askod for them
as soon as I found I could not buy any provisions, say about one and a-half hours after I
entoieil, but ho rehised to give them to me until the next morning. Immediately on roceiving
my papers on 'I'hursday morning, I started for homo arrivinj.; on Sunday. I think the treat-
ment I reccix I'd harsh and cruel, driving myself and crew to sea with a scanty sni)ply of
provisions, we having but little ilour and water, and liab'o to bo bufleted for days before
reaching home.

(Sd.) MEDEO ROSE.
Mass. Esskx, ss., )

13tli October, 1886. \
Personally appeared Medeo Rose and made oath to the truth of tlio above statement.

Before me,
(Sd.)

AARON PARSONS, N.P.

[Enclosure No 3.]
^Collector AluooH to Commissioner of Customs.)

Custom Hocise, Shelburne, .'ith January, ISsT.

Sir, — With reference to the statement made by Medeo Rose, master of the schooner
" Laura Sayward," 1 beg to say that, in many particulars it is not true am? is very unjust.
ITie Custom Housr- was not closed as stated. OlHce hours are supposed to be from i) a.m. to
4 p.m., but masters of vessels, American fishermen particularly, are allowed to report their
Tessclii, inward and outward, and obtain clearances at any hour between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.,

It?

lis

"(Sundays excepted), and the ofSoe is always open. On the 6th October last, I left at 4 -,.„

iMid went to an Agricultural Exhibition not an eighth of a mile distant, say a three minutesi
walk, and left word at the office to tell any one who called where I could be found. I had!
been on the grounds about fifteen minutes when Captain Rose put in aa appearance, and I atl
once came to the office and he reported his veasel, stated that he was from tlie Bank, bound]
home, and can*" in to fill water and wanted provisions as follows, viz, : 7 lbs sugar, 3 lbs.]
coffee, 1 bushel potatoes, and 2 lbs. butter. This was all. I took a memo, and attached to |
his Inward Beport, and oil is uot mentioned. Stated that he had plenty of ftour, fish uot
other provisions, sufficient for voyage home.

1 gave him permission to fill water at once, but as the Treaty made no provision for pu^ I
chase of sujpplies, I would telegraph the Department at Ottawa, and no doubt it would be '
allowed. Captain Bose expressed his willingness to remain until a reply was received. He
called at the office next morning (Thursday), at G 30 a.m., and finding I had not received a
reply, said, as the wind was fair and a good breeze, he would not wait longer, and wouli take
a cleara!nce, which I gave him. I told him an answer to telegram would probably be received
by 10 a.m. I did not consider it a case of actual distress by any means, as by the master's
own statement, he had plenty of other provisions, and all that he really and actually needed {
was to fill water.

The statement that I held his papers, although he asked for them, &c,, and that I refused
to give them to him until next morning, is all false. He did not ask further until next
morniog when he got his clearance. The statement that the treatment he received was
harsh, and driving him to sea havu..g little water and fiour, <&c., is all untrue, as what I have
already stated will prove. Captain Medeo Rose was here with his vessel on the 23rd
November last, and entered his vessel and obtained clearance at ei^i: in the evening. Was
here again on the 27th November, and remained five days for repau^, and nothing was said
by him of the " inhuman conduct " or "harsh treatment'' on the part of the Collector
towards him.

The above is t, plain statement of the facts, and many of the statements can be corrobated
by the American Consul of this port, if referred to him.

I am, &o.,

(Sd.)

W. W. ATWOOD,

Colleclor.

J. Johnson, Esq.,

Commissioner of Custo;ns,
Ottawa.

[GQcIc^nre Nc. 4.]
Affidavit of Joseph Tapper.

T, Joseph Tupper, master of schooner " Jennie Seaverns," of Gloucester, being duly
sworn, do depose and say :— That on Thursday, 2dth October, while on my passage hoaie
from a fishing trip, the wind blowing a gale from south-east and a heavy sea running, I was
obliged to enter the harbour of Liverpool, N.S., for shelter. Immediately on coming to anchor,
was boarded by Captain Quigley of Canadian cruiser " Terror " who ordered me to go inshore
at once and report at Custom House, to which I replied that such was my intention. He
gave me permission to take two men in the boat vvith me, but they must remain in the boat
and must not step on shore. I asked Captain Quigley if I could, after entering, visit some of
my reliitions who resided in Liverpool and whom I had not seen for many years. This privi-
lege was denied me. After entering, having returned to my vessel, some of my relatives
came to see me off. When Captain Quigley saw their boat alongside my vessel, he sent an
officer and boat's crew who ordered them away, and at sundown he placed an armed guard
on board our vessel who remained on board all night and was taken off just before we sailed
in the morning.

T ^umplied with the Canadian laws and had no intention or desire to violate them in
any way, but to be made a prisoner oa board my own vessel and treated like a suspicious
character grates harshly upon the feelings of an American seaman, and 1 protest against such

237

I treatment and reBjjec"^ fully ask from m> own Oovemment prdtection from such urjust,
luofriendly and aioitrary treatment.

(8d.) JOSEPH TUPPER.

Mas3., Essex, ss., )

4th November, 18S6. J . ,,

Personally appeared Joseph Tupper and made oath to the truth of the above statement. ■

Before me, | .

(Sd.)

AARON PARSONS,

Notary Public.

L Enclosure No. 5.]

Captain Quigley to Deputy Miniater of Fiaheriea,

NnwoASTLB, 19th January, 1887.

Sir,— In rekrence to the American schooner " Jennie Seaverns," of Gloucester, I find
she arrived on Thursday, 28th October, as stated <n his complaint, at Liverpool, N. 8., and
after she anchored^ I sent Chief Officer Bennett on board with instructions telling him what
the law was, so that he could not do anything through ignorance of it, and get his vessel in
trouble. These instructions were to report his vessel at the Customs before sailing, and to
take two of his crew a^^i boat with him when he did go for that purpose, but the rest of his
crew were not to go ra shore, and that after he reported, no person from his vessel was to go
on shore, as he got all be put in for, viz , shelter, and he reported his vessel putting in for
thai purpose and for no other>-not for the purpose of letting his crew on shore.

'ihe boat that was ordered from his vessel was from shore, and was not allowed alongside
of these vessels as it gave the crews a chance to get ashore with them or to smuggle provis-
ions alongside, so they were ordered oflf in all cases. See Chief Officer's Statement regarding
it, also his statement regarding the men who rowed the captain on shore.

I never prevented the men who went asL'Ore with the masters of vessels from landing
and going with the masters to the Customs House if they wished, nor gave instructions to
prevent them.

I placed two watchmen on board this vessel as I did in all other cases, to prevent them
from breaking the law Ir. any respect through the ni(;ht, and they were taken off in the
morning before he sailed.

It is not true that 1 boarded the vessel as he states. I never spoike to him. There were
two other American seiners in at the same time ana were treated in the same way, less the
watchmen which were no.' required in their case, as they were close to me and I could see
what was done on board thbn at all times, from my vessel. These are the facts.

1 have the honour to be, Sir, '

Your obedient servant,

Majob John Tilton,

Deputy Minister of Fisheries.

(Sd.) THOMAS QUIGLEY.

[EncIoBure No. 6.]
Statement of Firtt Officer Bennett.

I, Albert Bennett, late First Officer of Dominion Cutter "Terror," Captain Quigley,
remember boarding the American seiner "Jeannie Seaverns," of Gloucester, U.S., at the
Port of Liverpool, N.S., on the 28th of October last past. Boarded her. Ordered Captain
Tupper to report at the Ct'stoms at Liverpool aforesaid, which he did, taking with him two
men in his boat. Never told Captain Tupper not to allow his men to leave his boat while on

238

shore. Further, Captain Tupper, to the best of my knowledge and belief, never intimated i
me that he had friends or relatives that he wished to visit in liverpool, N.S.

Seeing a boat alongside, I went on board and and ordered them away. Captain Tupped
told me he did not know the visitors, and further, did not wish them on board his vessel. ]
Further, during the time the " Jennie Seaverns " was in the harbour of Liverpool, N.8.J
Captain Quigley never was on board her, I boarding her and carrying out his instructions
me.

(Sd.) ALBERT BENNETT,

Late First Officer, Cutler "Terror."

H0PEWKI.L Cape, N.B.,

14th January, 1J187.

No. 191.

Lord Lamdowne to Sir Henry Holland.

Ottawa, 2nd April, 1887.

Sir, — I have the hononr to enclose herewith a cortihod copy of a Privy Council
Order respecting the case of the United States' schooner, " Mollie Adams," which I
formed the subject of your predecessor's despatches Noa. 218 and 272 of the 6th I
•October, and 16th December, respectively.

I have to express my regret that it shoald have proved impossible to supply you
with the necessary information bearipg upon this case at an earlier date. Some time
was, however, taken in collecting the evidence embodied in the reports, copies of j
which accompany the minute, and the occurrence of the General Elections for the
Federal Parliament to seme extent interrupted the course of business in the public
Departments and increased the delay.

Tou will find in the report of my Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and in the
enclosures appended to it, a full and, I think, satisfactory reply to the whole of the
charges made by the Government of the United States against the coaduct of the
Canadian officials Goncorned in the matter of the " Mollie Adams."

I would venture to draw your especial attention to the concluding passages of
the Minister's Report in which he earnestly deprecates the manner in which in this,
as well as in other cases in which disputes have arisen under conditions of a similar
character, the Government of the United States has not hesitated to adopt without
any enquiry, and to support with the whole weight of its authority, ex parte charges
entirely unconfirmed by collateral evidence, and unaccompanied by any official
attestation.

In view of the fact that owing to the action of the Government of the United
States in terminating the Fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington, a large body
of American fishermen have suddenly found themselves excluded from waters to
which they had for many years past resorted without molestation, and that the duty
of thus excluding them has been thrown upon a newly constituted force of Fishery
Police, necessarily without experience of the difficult and delicate duties which it ia
called upon to perform, there would be no cause for surprise if occasional cases of
hardship or of over-zealous action upon the part of the focal authorities engaged in
protecting the interests of the Dominion were to be brought to light. It is the
earnest desire of my Government to guard against the occurrence of any such caseti,
to deal in a spirit of generosi1|r and forbearance with United States' Fi&bermon
reeorting to Canadian waters in the exorcise of their lawful rights, and to take
effectual measures for preventing arbitrary or uncalled for interference, on the part
of its olfioialp, with the privileges allowed to foreign fishermen under the terms of
the Convention of 1818,

Tlio difliculty of acting in Nuoh spirit must, howovor, hi greatly increased by
the course which has boon pursued iu this and in numerous other cases ahuady

brought to your notice in founding not only the most urgent rcmonstranccH, but the
moBt violent and offonBive char'^cB and the most unjust imputation of motives upon
complaints Buch as that pat forward by the Captain of the " Mollie AdamB," a person
go illiterate that ho appeared not U. bavo been qualitied to make oat the ordinary
entry papers on his arrival in a Ccaadiin port, but whoso hlatement.s, many of which
boar upon the face oi them ev^itince of their untriiHtworthine;iB, appear to bavo been
accepted in globo without question by the Secretary of State.

Yoa will, I cannot help thinkfng, concur in ibo opinion oxpre^sod in the Minis-
ter's Eeport that sach hasty and indiscriminate accu.sations can only have the effect
of prejudicing and ombittorinf; public feeling in both countries, and of retarding the
prospect of a reasonablo settlement of the differences which have unfortunately
arisen between them upon theise subjects.

I have, Ac, ''■■

Tbe Richt Honourable

Sir Henry Holland,

&c., &c.,

(3d.)

LANSDOWNB.

&G.

tli;

523^.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Certified Copy of a Report of a Committee qf the Honourable the Privy Council f»r Canada^
approved by Hia Kccellency the Oovemor General in Council on the Mst March, 18S7.

Vide No. 134 and
encloaures.

ihe Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated 6tk
October, 1886, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the
Colonics, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign OfBce enclos-
ing copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington,
with a note from the Sei . etary of State of the United States, calling attention to tho
alleged refusal of the ColL itor of Customs at Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, to allow tho
master of the United States' fishing vessel " Mollie Adams," to purchase barrels to hold
a supply of water for the return voyage, and also a farther despatch dated 16th December,
1886, referring to the same s<5hooner the "Mollie Adams" and her alleged treatment at
Malpeque, Prince Edward Island and Port Medway, Nova Scotia, and requesting an early
report on the circumstances of this case.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries to whom the said despatches and enclosures were
referred, submits the following report thereon :

Mr. Bayard's note of 10th September calls attention to the alleged refusal of the Collec-
tor of Customs at Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, to pAIovt the master of the " Mollie Adams " to
purchase barrels to hold a simply of water for hich the vessel had prit into port.. The
report of the Sub-Collector of Customs at Port J: .grave, which is hereto annexec'., and
which he expresses his readiness to verify upon oath, shows that the " Mollie Adams " was
fitted out with a water tank, which was reported as leaking, that the Collector offered tv
borrow barrels for carrying the water on board if the tank were made tight, and evenoflTered
to send a man on board to perform this work, that while the Captain of the schooner anti
he were in conversation, one of the crew brought the information that the cook had suc-
ceeded in caulking t, e tank. That thereupon the Sub-Collector borrowed the seven barrels
with which the crew supplied water for their vessel, that the barrels were returned to th*
Collector, and the Captain appeared well pleased with what had been done. The good-will
^the Sub-collector is also shown in his giving the men a letter to his superior officer ia
explanation of the circumstances, and recommending that the purchase of barrels be allowed,
a step which was rendered unnecessary by the arrangements later made.

The SubCollectoi , in answer to his enquiry, as to what had become of the water barrels
in use on board the vessel, was informed that they had been filled with mackerel. This
answer goes to prove that Mr. Murray was acting strictly within the scope of his duty in
■iscortnininj; that the barrels sought to be purcha-wd were not to be usod for an illicit pur-
pose.

240

The Colonial Secretary's despatch No. 272 of the 16th December, 1886, refers to the
same schooner the " MoUie Adams " and her alleged treatment at Malpeque, Prince Edward
Island, and Port Medway, Nova Scotia.

In this case Mr. Bayard's representations are based solely upon a letter written to him
by the Captain of the vessel, under date 1 2th November, which is unsupported by any other
evidence, and upon the strength of which Mr. Bayard proceeds to charge the Canadian
authorities with " churlish and inhospitable treatment," and with exhibiting a coldness anJ
-jdeness of conduct at variance with the hospitable feelings of common humanity.

The Minister of I'drine and Fisheries submits as a compK^^te reply to the allegations
contained in Captain Jacobs' letter: (I.) The statement of th>? Collector of Customs at
Malpeque, P.E.I. (2.) T'he statement of Captain Mcljaren, of the Canadian cruiser " Critic,"
and (3) The report of the Collector of Customs at Port Medway.

The two formeif officers although giving their reports without concert, agree upon the
main points at issue, and the statements of all three are clear, straightforward and reasonable
and in marked contrast to the sensational and improbable story related by Captain Jacobs.

Captain Jacobs declares that on or about the 26th September last, during very heavy
weather, he fell in with the barque '' Neskilita," which had run on a bar at Malpeque Har-
bour, and became a total wreck. That he took oft the crew, 17 in number, at 1 2 o'clock at
night, carried them to his own vessel, fed them for three days, and then gave them $60 with
which to pay their faro home, and provisions to last them on their way. He states that the
Captain of the Canadian cruiser " Critic " came on board, was told the circumstances but
ofl'ered no assistance, and that no one on shore would take the wrecked men unless he
became responsible for the payment of their board.

The Collector at Malpeque, in his report says, that early on the morning after the wreck,
so soon as the news reached him, he repaired to the harbour to see what assistance could be
given, that he there met the Captain of the "Neskilita" in company with Captain Jacobs,
and was told by the latter that the crew of the wrecked vessel were comfortably cared for on
his vessel, and that nothing more could be done.

Captain McLaren, of the " Critic," says that he at once visited the " Mollie Adams," and
was told by Captain Jacobs that " he had made all arrangements for the crew."

The Collector and Captain McLaren agree in stating from, information gathered by them,
that the crew of the wrecked vessel came to shore in their own boat, unassisted, and aff^r
boarding a Nova Scotia vessel, were invited by Captain Jacobs, with whom the Captain of :he
" ^eskilita " had before time sailed out of Gloucester to go on board the " Mollie Adams."

The Collector was asked by the Captain of the " Neskilita " if he could assist himself aud
crew to their homes, and answered that he could not unless assured that they were them-
selves without means for that purpose, in which case he would have to telegraph to Ottawa
for instructions. The Captain of the *'Ne«kilita" made no further application.

The Minister observes that it is the practice of the Dominion Government to assist ship-
wrecked and destitute sailors in certain cases of great hardship to their destination or homes,
but in all cases it must be clear that they are destitute, and the application for assistance
must be made to Ottawa through the Collector of Customs. Had such an applicatioa been
made by the Captain of the " Neskilita " it would have received due consideration.

In answer to the charge that board could not be obtained for the wrecked crew, it is
stated by Captain McLaren that the crew of a United States' vessel wrecked about the same
time found no difficulty in getting board, and that the Captain of the <' Neskilita" had him-
self arranged to board with the Collector, who expressed surprise at his failing to come.

Captain Jacobs complains that he was not allowed to land from his vessel the material
saved from the wreck. To this charge the Collector replies that he received no intimation
of any wrecked material, except the crew's luggage, being on board the " Mollie Adams,"
and that Captain Jacobs made no request to him legarding the landing of wrecked material,
and that he (the Collector) gave all assistance in his power to the Captain of the " Neskilita"
in saving material from the wreck.

It was subsequently discovered that Captain Jacobs had on board the " Mollie Adams "
a seine from the wrecked vessel belonging to the underwriters, for takiug care of which,
when obliged to take it up. Captain Jacobs claimed and was paid the sum of ten dollars.

Captain Jacobs states that he was put to a loss of ten days' fishing by his detention with
the '' Neskilita ". The reports of both the Collector and Captain 2IcLaren agree in giving a
▼eiy different and sufficient reason, viz.,— very bad weather and consequent inability to fish,
a disability experienced by the whole fishing fleet at that time anchored in Malpeque.

The second complaint of Mr. Bayard is that when Captain Jacobs, experiencing a dearth
of provisions as a consequence of his chantable action, shortly after put into Port Medway
and asked to purchase half a barrel of flour and enough provisions to take him home, the
Collector, " with full knowledge of all the circumstances," refused the request and threatened
him with seizure if he bought anything whatever.

241

The Collector's report, hereto anoexed, shows that Captain Jacobs entered his port on
the 25th of October, fully one month after the occurrence at Malpeque, that in entering he
made affirmation that he called for shelter and repairs and for no " other purpose whatever."
That just before leaving he asked permission to purchase half a bairel of flour, and when
asked by the Collector if he was without provisions, he repUed that he was not, adding that
he had "a good supply of all kinds of provisions except flour, and enough of that to last him
home unless he met some unusual delay."

Under these circumstances the Collector did not give the p<;rmi8Bion asked, but he
made no threat of seizure of vessel or imposition of a penalty,

Mr. Bayard supports the complaint of Captain Jacobs that ho was charged fees for
entering his vessel at Canadian Customs, and that these fees vsriei at different ports ;
being for instance lu cents at Souri«, P.E.I., 5U cents at Fort Mulgrave, ind 50 cents, at Port
Hood, at which latter port Captain Jacobs sent his brother to eni>er for him, hut was
inlbrmed that his entry was illegal, and that he, as master, must himself enter his vessel.

He complains of being obliged to pay twice, once for his brother's entry and once for
his own.

The Minister states, with regard to this that no Collector of Customs in Canada is autho-
rized to charge a fee for entering or clearing a vessel, nor for any papers necessary to do
this. 8ailing masters however, who are unused to the law or not competent to make out
their papers, are in the habit of employing persons as Customs brokers to make out their

gapers for them, and for this service these brokers charge a small fee. These are not
ovemment officers nor under Government control, and their services are voluntarily paid
for by those who employ them . The small fees of which Captain Jacobs complains need
not have been paid by him if he had been willing or qualified to make out his own papers.
That he was not so willing or qualified, and that he employed a broker to make out his
papers is conclusively shown by the following telegram received from the Collector at Port
Hood, the charges at which port Mr. Hecretary £ayard so vigourously denounces.

Copies of Telegrams.

Deputy Minister of Fisheries to Collector , Port Hood, N.S,

Ottawa, 16th March, 1887.

" Did you during last season exact from Captain Solomon Jacobs, of schooner ' MoUie
Adams ' ^ny charge tor reporting or other service at Port Hood ? If so, please state amount
received and for what."

Collector, Port Hood, to Deputy Minister of Fisheries.

Poet Hoon, N. S., 16th March, 1887.

" Solomon Jacobs, of schooner 'Mollie Adams,' sent one of his crew to report 13th Sep-
tember las-t. He made report. 1 told him, however, tha,t the report should be made by the
master. A few hours aftei wards Jacobs himself came and reported, They got Dan. McLen-
nan, who is now in Halifax, to write out the reports. I believe he charged them 25 cents
Bach for brokerage. No other charges whatever were made."

The Minister states that he has no doubt that the other payments at Customs ports
alluded to by Mr. Bayard were made for services rendered Captain Jacobs by persons making
out his entry papers, and which he does not appear to have been qualified to do so himself.

W ith reference to Mr. Bayard's reiteration of Captain Jacob's complaint that in different
harbou s he was obliged to pay a different scale of dues, the Minister of Marine submits
that in v'anada there are distinct classes of harbours ; some are under the control of a Com-
mission appointed wholly or in part by the Government, under whose management improve-
ments are made, and which regulates, subject to the approval of the Government, tlie har-
bour dues which are to be paid by all vessels entering such ports and enjoying the advantoge
therein provided.

Others are natural harbours, in great part unimproved, whose limits are generally defined
by Order in Council, and for which a Harbour Master is appointed by Government, to whom
all vessels entering pay certain nominal Harbour Master's fees, which are regulated by a
general Act of Parliament, and which constitute a fund out of which the Harbour Master is
l»aid a small salary for his services in maintaining order within the harbour. The Port of St.
John, N. B., is entirely under municipal control, and has its own stated and uniform scale of
charges.

166—16 B

242

:'^-|

Harbour dues are paid whenever a veBsel enterB a port which is under Commission, and
Harbour Master's fees are paid only twice per calendar year by vessels entering ports noi
under a Commission. Sydney belongs to the first class, and at that port Captain Jacobs
paid the legal harbour dues. Malpeque and Fort Mulgrave belong to the second class, ani
in these Captain Jacobs paid the legal Harbour Master's fees, which lor a vessel like his, of
from 100 to 200 tons, is $1.50 That he paid only $1.00 in Malpeque is due to an error of the I
Harbour Master, who should have charged him $1.50, and by this error Captain Jacobs saved]
fifty cents, of which he should not complain. For full information as to the legal status of I
Canadian Harbours, Mr. Bayard is respectfully referred to the Canadian Statutes, 36 Vic, |
cap. 63 ; 42 Vic, cap. 30, and 38 Vic, cap. 30.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries believes that after a thorough perusal of these, Mr.
Bayard will not cite the payments made by Captain Jacobs as evidences of the " irresponsiblo j
and different treatment to which he was subjected in the several ports he visited, the only
common feature of which seems to have been a surly hostility."

The Minister submits that from a careful consideration of all the circumstances, he cao-
not resist the conviction tha^ in this whole transaction Captain Jacobs was more concerned j
in making up a case against iht< Canadian authorities than in unobtrusively performing any
necessary acts of hospitality, and that his version of the matter, as sent to Mr. Bayard, is
utterly unreliable.

The "Neskilita" was wrecked off a Canadian harbour; the crew, it is stated, came'
ashore in their oivn b( at and unastiisted. A Canadian Collector v^ \s at hand offering his ser-
vices, and within easy appeal to the Government, and the Captain fa Canadian cruiser was in
port, yet Captain Jacobs wou'i iippeivr, by his own story, to have aken complete charge of
the Captain, to have ignorec^ uil profte^ 3 of assistance, and to h; ■> constituted himself the
sole guardian and spokesman of the wrecked crow, to have been 1 short the one sole man
actuated by kindly, humane feelings, among a horde of cruel and unsympathetic Canadians.

For any exercise of good will and assistance to Canadian seamen in distress, by either
foreign or native vessels, the Canadian Government cannot but feel deeply grateful, and
stands ready, as has been its invariable custom, to recognize suitably and reward such ser-
vices, and when Captain Jacobs performs any necessary act of charitable help towards
Canadian seamen in distress, without the obvious aim of manufacturing an international
grievance therefrom, he will not prove an exception to Canada's generous treatment.

The Minister observes that in a despatch to the Governor General, dated 27 th December,
1886, and in reference to this same case, Mr. iStanhope writes: — "With reference to my
Despatch No. 272 of the 16th instant, relating to the case of the United States' tisliing vessel
" Mollie Adams," and referring to the general complaints made on the part of the United
States' Government of the treatment of American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, I think
it right to observe that whilst Her Majesty's Government do not assume the correctness of
any allegations without first having obtained the explanations of the Dominion Government,
they rely confidently upon your Ministers taking every care that Her Majesty's Govern-
ment are not placed in a position of being obliged to defend any acts of questionable justice
or propriety."

The Minister while thanking Her Majesty's Government for the assurance conveyed that
it will not ''assure the correctness of any allegations without having obtained the explana-
tions of the Dominion Government " and whilst assuring Her Majesty's Government that
every possible care has been and will be taken that no " acts of questionable justice or pro-
priety " are committed by the officers of the Dominion Government, cannot refrain from call-
ing attention to the loose, unreliable and unsatisfactory nature of much of the information
supplied to the United States' Government, and upon which very grave charges are made and
very strong language officially used againt the Canadian authorities. For instance, as stated
in a previous part of this report, the strong representationu made by Mr. Bayard in the case
of the " Mollie Adams " are based solely upon a letter written by Captain Jacobs not even
accompanied by an official attestation and not supported by a tittle of corroborative evidence.

It does not appear that any attempt was made to investigate the truth of this story un-
reasonable and improbable as it must have appeared, as the letter written by Captain Jacobs
bears date 12th November, while Mr. Bayard's note based thereupon is dated 1st December.
It would seem only fitting that, in so grave a matter, involving alike the good name of a
friendly country, and the continued subsistence of previous amicable relations, great care
should have been taken to avoid i' <) use of such strong and even hostile language, based
upon the unsupported statements (fan interested skipper, and one whose ibputation for
straightforward conduct does not aj^pear to be above reproach ; if credence is to be given to
the attached description taken from the Boston Advertiser, of a transaction said to have
occurred in his native city, and in which Captain Jacobs appears to have played no enviable
part.

243

Commission, 80(k
ntering ports nol
art Captain JacobJ
second class, and
vessel like his, oft
o an error of the!

tain Jacobs saved [
»f legal status of
statutes, 36 Vic.,

' 's stated, came
otfenng his ser-
lan cruiser was in
nplete charge of
uted himself the
ihe one sole man
letic Canadians.
istress, by either
ply grateful, and
reward such ser-
e help towards
an international
batmen t.
27 th December,
eference to my
es' fishing vessel
; of the United
tn ports, I think
J correctness of
m Government,
U'esty's Govern-
tionablejustice

s conveyed that
I the explana-
i^ernment that
justice or pro-
frain from call-
le information
3 are made and
mce, as stated
"d in the case
obs not even
itive evidence.
;his story un-
'aptain Jacobs
I St December,
d name of a
s, great care
iguage, based
bputation for

be given to
said to have

no enviable

Vide PHnwd
Senate Docu-
ment referred
to.

Numerous other instances of like flimsy and unreliable foundations for charges made
against the 'Canadian authorities in regard to their treatment of United States' fishing vessels
cannot have failed to attract the attention ot Her Majesty's Government in the despatches
which from time to time have reached it from the United States .

The Master of a United States' fishing vessel, imperfectly understanding the provisions
of the Coij'.-<^ntion of 1818, the requirements of the Canadian Customs' laws, or the regulations
of Canadian ports, having perhaps an exaggerated idea of his supposed rights, or it may be,
desirous of evading all restrictions, is brought to book by officers of the law. He feels aggrievea
and angry and straightway conveys his supposed grievance to the authorities at Washington.

Thereupon, without any seeming allowance for the possibility of the statement being in-
accurate or the narrator unfriendly, and with apparently no attempt to investigate the truth
of the statement, it is made the basis of strong and unfriendly charges against the Canadian
Government. Canada has suffered from such unfounded representations and against tiia
course adopted by the United States* Government in this respeot the Minister enters his
most earnest p.otest.

As an additional instance of the manner in which evidence is gathered and used to the
prejudice of the Canadian case, the Minister calls attention to a communication submitted to
the Senate of the United States by Mr. Edmunds, and which forms printed Document No. 54
of the 49 th Congress, 2nd Session. This is the report of Mr. Spencer F. Baird,
United States' Fish Commissioner, containing a list, with particulars, of 6^
New England Figging Vessels, which had, as he alleged^ " been subjected to
treatment which neither the Treaty of 1818, nor the principles of International
law would seem to warrant."

The Minister observes that it will appear, from a perusal of this report, that these 68
cases were made up by Mr. Bpird's officer from answers of owners, agents or masters of fishing
vessels, in response to a circular-letter sent to all New England fishing vessels, inviting them
to forward statements of any interference with their operations by the Canadian Government.

Not a single statement was investigated by the Commissioner, or any one acting for him,
and not a single statement is accompanied by the affidavit of the person making it, or by
corroborative evidence of any kind. In most instances, neither date, locality, nor name of
Canadian officer is given, and an analysis of many of the. cases affords primd facie evidence
that they embody no real cause for complaint. Yet Mr. Baird and his officer, Mr. Barley
vouched for the correctness and entire reliability of these 63 statements. They were gravely
submitted to the Senate as trustworthy evidence of Canadian aggression, and became no
doubt powerful factors in influencing Congressional legislation hostile to Canadian and British
interests.

The Minister, while inviting attention to, and strongly deprecating such action, as above
recited, on the part of the United States, takes occasion, at the same time, to express his
entire confidence that the rights of Canada will not thereby be in any degree prejudiced in
*he eyes of Her Majesty's GG7emment.

'I'he Committee concur in the foregoing report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
and they recommend that Your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this Minute, if
approved, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.

(Sd.) JQHN J. MoGEE,

Cltrk, Privy Council^ Canctda.

[Bnclosure No. 2.]

Port Mulgravb, N,S., 1st November, 1886.

Sir,— Referring to your letter of the 2<th October, I b^ to say that on Monday the 30th
August, the schooner "Moliie Adams," of Gloucester, Mass., Solomon Jacobs, Master, passed
two Customs ports in the Strait of Canso before coming to my port. In foot he sent his
boat (dory) with his brother and a Capt. Campbell to me, to see if 1 won' lOW him to get
seven empty barrels to put water in. I asked the men what they did with their water
barrels. They told me that they filled them with mackerel and that their tank leaked. I
told the men that I had no power to allow them to purchase barrels, but I would borrow
barrels to fill with water if they would caulk the tank. I also gave them a letter to take to
my superior, asking him to allow Captain Jacobs to purchase the barrels. They went on
board, told their story and the captain anchored his vessel and came ashore to see me. I offered
to send a man on board to caulk the tank. In the meantime one of the crew came on shore

let— 16J

f'i

244

m . f

Pv'i

I "

and said that the cook had succeeded in tightening! the tank, that it held salt water. I then I
borrowed the seven barrels to fill the water which they did, and I returned the barrels ngain,
mud the captain was well pleased, as he appeared so.
, ir this is not satisfactory I can make oath to the foregoing.

I am, &o.,
(Sd.)

JoHM TiLTON, Esq.,

Deputy Minister of Fisheries,
Ottawa.

DAVID MURRAY, Jr,

Sub- Collector Customs.

[Eocloaure No. 3 1

Malpeque, P.E.L, 7th January, 1887,

Sib, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th December,
ooTering statement made by Captain Jacobs, and now adjoin statement of facts as personally
known by and communicated to me of wreck of " Neskilita," on Malpeque Bar, on Sunday
night, 26th September last. Information reached me early on the followmg morning, and I
at once proceeded to the harbour to see what assistance could be given in the case, where I
met Captain Thornborne of "Neskilita," and Captain Jacobs in company, and was informed
by latter that the crew were on board his vessel and assured that everything that could be
done for their comfort had been done. I was also given to understand that during the nigiit
the ciew had abandoned their schooner and came in the harbour unassisted, in their seine-
boat and boarded a Nova Ib'cotia schooner lying in the harbour, and were next morning
invited by Captain Jacobs to make bis vessel their home. I was also informed by Captain
McLaren, commander of the Canadian cruiser « Critic," that he also tendered bis assistance
and was rather haughtily received by Captain Jacobs, with the information that the crow
were aboard his vessel and that he (Captain McLaren) did not think the case demanded him
to force his assistance.

With regard to the wrecked naterial aboara of Capt. Jacobs' vessel, I have only to say
that this is the first intimation I have ever heard of such material being aboard his vessel,
except the crew's baggage, and that assuredly Captain Jacobs did not so far as 1 can recol-
lect, make any request of me whatsoever with regard to the landing of wrecked material.

With reference to the saving of material from the wrecked vessel, 1 would wish to say
that I rendered the Captain of the " Neskilita " all necessary assistance in procuring suii able
men to do that work (and who were thus employed by him) and although lam aware that
Captain Jacobs did accompany the Captain of the "Neskilita" to the wreck, I cannot say
in what capacity or under what authority he did so.

So far as the assertion that the crew received the means to take them home from
Captain Jacobs is concerned, I know nothing positive, except that he (Captain Jacobs)
asked me if the Canadian Government would remunerate him for his attention to the crew,
and feeling that I had nothing to do with him, I merely replied that I did not know. But, I
may say that shortly after the wreck occurred, the Captain of the "Neskilita" asked me if
I could render them (the crew) any assistance in getting home, and I answered that I could
not unless I was assured that they themselves were without the means of doing so, and that
in any case I would have to telegiaph to the Department at Ottawa for instructions. Here
the matter stopped, the captain making no further application.

With regard to the delay of ten days said to be occasioned (Captain Jacobs), by reason
of the shipwrecked crew, 1 may say that during the ten or fourteen days following on the
said shipwreck, we had an almost continuous period of stormy weather, with the exception of
a couple or so of fine days, which were taken advantage of by the fishing fleet, and one at
least by Captain Jacobs himself, but by all reports received by me, resulting in little or no
Oktcbes of mackerel.

Thete, so far as I can now recall them to memory, are the true facts in the case.

I am. Sir, &c.,

(Sd.) JAMES M. MACNUTT,

John Tilton, Esq.,

Deputy Minister of Fisheries,
Ottawa.

Sub-Collector.

245

[Bncloiure No. 4.]

Qbobobtown, P.E.I., 6th January, 1887.

Dear Sir, — Yours of the 29th ultiiao to hand. In reference to the first part of the state *
I ment made by Captain Jacobs, I would say that he may have been oft Malpeque, at the time
the wreck occurred, but I do not think he took the crew off, as, so far as I could learn at the
timo, they came ashore in one of their own seine boats, and went first to a Nova Scotia vessel
I and afterwards on board the *< Mollie Adams."

On the morning after the wreck occurred, I went on board the " Mollie Adams," and
I was immediately told by Captain Jacobs that he had mode all arrangements for the crew, and
having secured a team, was going with the Captain of the " Neskilita," to the Custom House
to noie a protest. As I could see by the conduct of both Captains that I was not wanted, I
returned to my own vessel. Afterwards in the course of a conversation with the Captain of
the " Neskilita," he informed me that he had sailed out of Gloucester for some time, and in
the course of that time with Captain Jacobs.

As to the statement that he could not get a boarding house for his crew, I think it is false,
as the crew of one of the American vessels wrecked ab )iit the same time had no difficulty in
getting the people to board them. Once, while talking with Mr. Maonutt, the Collector of
Customs at Malpeque, he mentioned that the Captain of the " NeskiKta," had engaged to
board at his place, and he expressed his surprise that he was not coming. Both Captain
Jacobs and the Captain of the " Neskilita " were committing a fraud in trying to get off with
the seine of the wrecked vessel, as it belonged to the underwriters, and i think that it was
the prospect of getting Captain Jacobs to get away with the se'ne, that prevented the Captain
of the ''Neskilita" from asking me for assistance. However, Captain Jacobs, on finding he
could not carry out his fraud, presented a claim of $10 for the salvage of the seine and gear,
which sum was paid him by Mr. Lem, Poole, of Charlottetown, who was acting in behalf of
the underwriters. It may be possible that Captain Jacobs stayed at Malpeque after I sailed,
but, if so, it was his own fault, as the crew of the " Neskilita " had gone home before them.

It is my opinion that Captain Jacobs need nbt h ive lost one hour of time, for during the
time the " Neskilita's " crew were on board his vessel, the fleet with the exception of one or
two small vessels, was anchored at Malpeque, and unable to put to sea owing to the heavy
sea on the bar.

After the occurrence of the wreck, about the 20th September, Captain Jacobs cruised in
the North Bay and on the Cape Breton coast, and not until the 24th October, was he reported
as passing through Canso bound home.

As to the paying of the crew's passage home, I can say nothing, except that if he did, he
did voluntarily, as the Captain of the "Neskilita" could have sent his crew home without
his assistance.

Yours respectfully,

(Sd.) WM. MoLAREN.
JoH.v TiLTON, Esq.,

Deputy Minister of Fisheries,
Ottawa.

[Bnclosure No. 5.]

Custom House, Port Mbdway, 6th January, 1887.

Sir, — In reply to your letter of the 30th ultimo, enclosing extract of statement made by
Capt. S. Jacobs, of the schooner " Mollie Adams," I have to say, that on the 25th October
last, Capt S. Jacobs, of the schooner " Mollie Adams," reported at this office. His report is
now before me, in which he swears that he called here tor shelter and repairs and for no
other purpose. After making his report, and when about leaving the ofnoe, Capt. Jacobs
asked if I would allow him to purchase a half barrel of flour. I a vod him if he was without
provisions and he rt-plied that he was not, adding that he had a good supply of all kinds of
provisions except (lour, and enough of that to last him home, unless he met with some
unusual delay. I then told him that under the circumstances I could not give him permis-
sion to purchase the flour, but no threat was made about seizing his vessel or imposing any
penalty whatever.

Ihe above I am quite willing to substantiate under oath, and can produce a witness to
the truth of the statement.

I am, &c..

The Deputy Minis ibr of Fisheries,

Ottawa, Canada.

(Sd.) E.

E. LETSOM,

CoUeetor.

246

'ti [Enoloinre No. 6.]

From the Botton, United States, ^' Advertiser" of ISith. November , 188G.

Glovoestkr Politics,

An appearance of Ballot Stuffing — George Morse Nominated for Mayor.

Glocoxster, Nov. 13th.— At a citizens mass meeting held here this evening, Lawyer Taft,
chaliman, io nominate a mayor, a committee conBisting of J. J. Whalen, Albert F. Babson,
Captain Solomon Jacobs, J. N. Denniton and Edwin L, Lane was appointed to count ballots.
After much wrangling one informal and three formal ballots were taken, when Mr. Dennison
made a minority report, accusing Captain Solomon Jacobs of stuffing the ballot box. William
T. Merchant counted the ballots while being cast, making 264, but the committee reported
312 cast, which tended to show that Jacobs had put in 48 illegally.

Much excitement prevailed, and a motion was made that he be dismissed from the com-
mittee. The chairman called for Jacobs to come forward and explain his action, but it was
found that he had disappeared. He was in favour of David J. Robinson as candidate for
mayor, but went over to William A. Pew, Jr.

Another ballot was taken and Dr. George Morse received the nomination.

(No. 73.)

No. 192.

Sir H. Holland to Lord Lansdcwne,

DowNiNQ Street, *Jih April, 18S7.

Mr LoBD, — I bave Ibe hononr to transmit to yoa, for the information of your
GovernmeDt, wiih reference to previouH correBpondence, copy of a despatch Irom
Her llajeety'B Minister at Waebington, forwarding a precis of the debate in tho
United States' House of Bepresentatives on the Retaliatory Bill.

I have, &c,,

(Sd.)

Governor General

The Most Honourable,

Tbb Mabquis of L^nsdownb,

&o., &c., &c.

H. T. HOLLAND.

No.

tbc
coi
refi
of a
of <
piai

(Treaty No. 28.)

[EneloBDre No. 1.]
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.

Washington, 24th February, 1887.

Fide CoDgreseional My Lord,_I have the honour to enclose to Your Lordship herewith

Record, 3Sid Feb- copies of the Retaliatory Bill as passed by the House of Representatives
raaiy, 1887. yesterday by a vote of 252 to 1.

Ihis Bill is a substitute for the Senate Bill, and authorizes the stopping of cars carrying

goods in transit, provided for under Article XXIX of the Treaty of 1871. This clause, it was

objected, would be in violation of the Treaty, and was an invasion unworthy of a civilized

conntry.

Cbb-

23rd
askl
"Cri
fishi
(jepti

follov
oomp

er Taft,
Babson,
ballots.
BDnison
nrilliam
eported

he com-
it it was
date for

37.

)f your

■j Iroia

in th&

887.

lerewith
mtatives

carrying
le, it was
civilized

247

The Senate Bill, on the contrary, was retortion—it was retaliation in kind—always the-
moat efficient. The House, however, revised to adopt the argument and adhered to th»
(Substitute Bill which was unanimously carried.

I have the honour to enclose a p6cis which I have made of the debate.

I am, &a,f
/ (Sd.) L. S. 8ACKVILLE WEST.

, [Bnclosnre I in No. 1.] ,.

Extract from the " Congressional Record " of 25th February, 1887. (See " Congressional
Eeoord " of that date.)

No. 193.

Lord Lansdowne to Sir Benry Holland.

Canada, Govkbnmknt Housi,
(No. 112.) Ottawa, 12th April, 188t.

Sib, — I caused to be referred for the consideration of my Government a copy
No. 181. **f yoor despatch, No 42, of the 23rd of February laui, transmitting copy of
a letter from the Foreign Office, with its enoloBurea, respectirg the case of
the "Sarah H. Prior," and requesting to be furnished with a report upon the alleged
conduct of the Captain of the Canadian revenue cutter " Critic " on the occasion
referred to, and 1 have now the honour to forward to you herewith a certified copy
of an approved fieport of a Committee of the Privy Council embodying a statement
of Captain McLaren of the " Critic " with reference to the oircumBtanoes com-
plained of.

I have, &c.

To Bight Honourable,

Sib Hsnbt Holland, Babt.,

&G., &C.,

(Sd.)

LANSDOWNE.

&a.

[Enclosure No. 1.]

Ceetified Cop-x of a Report of a Committee of the Bonovrable the Privy Council for CanadOf
approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 1th April, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated
23rd February, 1887, from the Bight Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies
asking that an investigation be made into the conduct of the Captain of the Canadian cruiser
" Critic " as regards the treatment extended to Captain McLauchlan, of the United States'
fishing schooner " Sarah H. Prior " in the harbour of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, in
(teptember last.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch was referred, submits the
following statement of Captain McLaren, of the " Critic," with reference to the circumstance
complained of. ..fv '

248

( In or iiI>out tho 14th September, I SHO, Ciiptaia Mol^uichlan, ol' the "Sarali H. IVior,"
«anio on bnuni the (lovernment cruiser " Oritio," at Mnlpeque, Prinoe Edwar.l [tilund, wanting
to know if ho would be irifiiaging on the laws by paying the captain of the sohooner <' John
Ingalls " a Huiall H\nu of money for the recovery of a seine which he said he had lost a few days
beloi'o, and wliioli iiad heoii picked up by the said captain.

I told him tliMt I would not interfere with him if the captain of the " Ingalls " chose to
run the rlMk of taking the matter in his own hands, but that the proper course would be for
the ciptnin of the ".loJiu Tngalls " to report the matter to the Collector of Custoni't, who was
•Iso Kuceiver of Wrecks, i.nd then if he (Captain McLauohlun) could prove that tho seine
was his, ho could rouovor it by paying the costs. Captain MoLauohlan then said, that as the
Beine was uU torn to pieces he would not bother iiimself about it

The captain nf the " John Ingalls " did not come to see me about the matter, and I heard
nothing of it afterwards.

(Sd.) w. McLaren.

The Committee respectfully advise that Your Excellency bo moved to forward the fore-
going statement of Captain Mcliaren to the Right Honourable the Secrotary of State for the
Colonies in answor to his despatch of the 23rd February last.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

No. 194.

Sir H. Holland to Lord Lansdowne.

<No. 18.)

Downing Stbeet, 14th April, 183 r.

My Lord, — With reference to prevfoas correspondence, I have the honoar to
transmit to you, for the information of Your Lordship's CI'OTernmeDt, a

sure Na i ''^P^ ^^ *^® reply which tte Bfarqais of Salisbury has made to Mr.

of No. 170. PhelpH* note of the 3rd of December last, on tho subject of the proposed
ad interim arraogemeDt relative to tho North American Fisheries.

ViJi

1 have, &o.,

Oovornor Gareral,

The Most Honourable

The Mabquis op Lansdownb,

&c., &c., &o.

(Sd.) n. T. HOLLAND.

[BncloBure No. 1.]
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. White.

FoREioN Office, 24th March, 1887.

Sir,— In a note of the 3rd December last, addressed to my predecessor, Mr. Phelps wa«
good enough to transmit a copy of a despatch from Mr. Bayard, dated the 15th
of the preceding month, together with an outline of a proposed ad interim
arrangement *' for the settlement of all questions in dispute in relation to the
fisheries in the North-Eastern Coast of British North America."

Her Majesty's Government have given their most careful consideration to
that communication, and it has also received the fullest examination at the hands of the
Canadian Government, who entirely share the satisfaction felt by Her Majesty's Government

Vide Enclo-
sares No^. 1
ft 2 of No.
165.

ior,"
tiling
,)oha
lUys

MO to
36 for
o was
noine
u the

heard

e fore-
f jr the

da.

il.

noar to

ment, a

to lir.

fOpoHed

ID.

387.

lips waa
15th

I to the

tion to
I of tho

249

at any imlioation on the part of that of the Uniturl States of a disposition to mike iirrangn
m^nts which mi^ht tend to put the afTaira of the two countries on a basis more free from
oontrovursy and misunderstanding than unfortunately exists at present. The Canadian Oov-
<«riimont. however, deprecate several passages in Mr. Bayard's despatch, which attribute
unl'riendly motives to their proceedings, and in whicli the character and scope of the
int'SHures they have taken to enforce tho terms of the Convention of lS18are,asthcy believe,
entirely misapprehended.

They insist that nothing has been done on the part of the Canadian authorities since the
termination of the Treaty ot Washington in any sucli spirit as that which Mr. Bayard con-
df mns, and that all that has been done with a view to the prote^^tion of the Canadian
fisheries, has been simply for tho purpose of guarding the rights guaranteed to tho i)eoplu ot
Canada oy the Convention of 181H, and of enforcin)i the Statutes of Great Britain and of
Canada in relation to the fisheries. They maintain that such Statutes are clearly within the
|)Owers of the respective Parliaments by which they were passed, and are in conformity with
the Convention of I8IH, especially in view of tho passage of the Convention which provides
that tho American fishermen shall bo under such restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent
them from abusing the privileges thereby reserved to them.

There is a passage in Mr. Bayard's despatch to which they have particularly called the
attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is the following :

" The numerous seizures made have been of vessels quietly at anchor in established
ports of entry, under charges which up to this day have not been particularized sufliciently
to allow of intelligent defence ; not one has been condemned after trial and hearing, but
many have been fined, without Hearing or judgment, for technical violation of alleged
Commercial Regulations, although all commercial privileges have been simidtaneously
denied to them."

In relation to this paragraph the Canadian (fovernment observe that tho seizures of
which Mr. Bayard complains have been made upon grounds which have been distinctly and
unequivocally stated in every case ; that, although the nature of the clmrges has been invar-
iably specified and duly announced, thoso charges have not in any case been answered ; that
ample opportunity has in every case been afforded for a defence to bo submitted to the
Executive authorities, but that no defence has been offered beyond tho more denial of the
right of the Canadian Government : that the Courts of the various Provinces have fieen open
to the parties said to been aggrieved, but that not one of them lias resorted to those Courts
for redress. To this it is added that the illegal acts which are characterized by Mr. Bay.-ird
as " technical violations of alleged Commercial Regulations," involved breaches, in most of the
^ases not denied by the persons who had committed them, of established Commercial
Regulations, which, far fiombeingspecially directed or enforced against citizens of the United
States, are obligatory upon all vessels (including those of Canada herself) which resort to the
harbours of the British North American coast.

I have thought it right, in Justice to the Canadian Government, to embody in this noto
almost in their own terms their refutation of the charges brought against them by Mr.
Bayard ; but I would prefer not to dwell on this part of the controversy, but to proceed at
once to the consideration of the six articles of Mr. Bayard's memorandum in which the pro-
posals of your Government are embodied.

Mr. Bayard states that he is " encouraged in the expectation that the propositions
embodied in the memorandum will be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, because in
the month of April, 1 866, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, sent forward to Mr. Adams,
at that time United States' Minister in London, the draft of a Protocol which, in substance,
coincides with the Ist Article of the proposals now submitted."

Article 1 of the memorandum, no doubt to some extent, resembles the draft Protocol
submitted in 1806, by Mr. Adams to Lord Clarendon (of which I enclose a copy for conve-
nience of reference), but it contains some important departures from its terms.

Nevertheless, the article comprises the elements of a possible accord, and if it stood
alone, I have little doubt that it might be so modelled, with the concurrence of your Govern-
ment, as to present an acceptable basis of negotiation to both parties. But, unfortunately, it
is followed by other articles, which, in the view of Her Majesty's Government and that of
Canada, would give rise to endless and unprofitable discussion, and which, if retained, would
be fatal to the prospect of any satisfactory arrangement, inasmuch as they appear, as a wh^le,
to be based on the assumption that upon the most important points in the controversy the
views entertained by Her Majesty's Government and that of Canada are wrong, and those of
the United States' Government are right, and to imply an admission by Her Majesty's
Government and that of Canada that such assumption is well founded.

I should extend the present note to an undue length were I to attempt to discuss in it
«ach of the articles of Mr. Bayard's memorandum, and to explain the grounds on which Her
Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to them. I have, therefore, thought

250

it more convenient to do so in the form of a counter-memorandum which I have the honour
to enclosp, and in which will be found in parallel columns, the articles of Mr. Bayard'a
inemorandam and the observations of Her Majesty's Government thereon.

Although as j ou will perceive on a perusal of those observations, the proposal of your
Government aa it now stands is not one which could be accepted by Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, still Her Majesty's Government are glad to think that the fact of such a proposal
having been made alibrds an opportunity which, up to the present time, had not been
offered for an amicable comparison of the views entertained by the respective Governments.

The main principlo of that Proposal is that a mixed commission should be appointed for
the purpose of determining the limits of those territorial waters within which., subject to the
stipulations of the Convention of 1818, the exclusive right of fishing belongs to Great Britain.

Her Majesty's Government cordially agree with your Government in believing that a
determination of these limits would, whatever may be the future commercial relations
between Canada and the United fetates either in respect of the fishing industry or in regard
to the intc-rchar-se of other commodities, be extremely desirable and they will be found
ready to cooperate with your Government in effecting such settlement.

They are of opinion that Mr. Bayard was justified in reverting to the precedent afforded
by the negotiations which took place upon this subject between Great Britain and the United
States after the expiration of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and they concur with him in
believing that the draft Protocol communicated by Mr. Adams in J 866 to the Earl of Claren-
don affords a valuable indication of the lines upon which a negotiation directed to the same
points might now be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Bayard has himself pointed out that its concluding paragraph, to which Lord Claren-
don emphatically objected, is not contained in the 1st Article of the memorandum now for-
warded by him ; but he appears to have lost sight of the fact that the remaining Articles of
that memorandum contain stipulations not less open to objection, and calculated to affect
even more d'sadvantageously the permanent interests of the Dominion in the fisheries
adjacent to its coasts.

There can be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the appointment
of a mixed Commission, whose duty it would be to ponsider and report upon the matters
referred to in the three first Articles of the draft Protocol communicated to the Earl of Clar-
endon by Mr. Adams in 1866.

Should a Commission instructed to deal with these subjects be appointed at an early
4late, the result of its investigations might be reported to the Governments affected without
much loss of time. Pending the tera)ination of the questions which it would discuss, it would
be indispensable that United States' fishing vessels entering Canadian bays and harbours
should govern them wives not only according to the terms of the Convention of 1818, but by
tha Uegulations to which they, in common with other vessels, are subject while within such
waters.

Her Majesty's Government, however, have no doubt that eve^y effort will be made to
enforce those regulations in such a manner as to cause the smallest amount of inconvenience
to fishing vessels entering Canadian ports under stress of weather, ' for any other legitimate
purpose.

But there is another course which Her Majesty's Government are inclined to propose,
and which, in their opinion, would afford a temporary solution of the controversy equally
creditable to both parties.

He? Miyesty's Government have never been informed of the reasons which induced the
Ctevernment of the United States to denounce the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washing-
ton, but they have imderstood that the adoption of that course was in a great degree the
resultof a feeling of disappointment at the Halifax Award, under which the United States
were called upon to pay the sum of £1,100,000, being the estimated value of the benefits
which would acur>ie to them, in excess of those which would be derived by Canada and Hew-
foundland from the operation of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty.

Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Canada, in proof of their earnest
desire to treat the question in a spirit of liberality and friendship, are now willing to revert
for the coming fishing season, and, if necessary, for a further term, to the condition of things
existing under the Treaty of Washington, without any suggestion of pecuniary indemnity.

This is a proposal which, I trust, will commend itself to your Government as being based
on that spirit of generosity and good-will which should animate two groat and kindred
nations, whose common origin, language, an ' institutions constitute as many bonds of amity
and concord.

I have, (fee,

(Sd.) SALISBURY.

£ri

the
incl

ren
Brif
and
nam

excl
Briti
1818
char

secu:
the]
wate
abuB

andj

expe

tions

]

upon

andd

treat]

by an

togiv

ment

acts a

Obs

Tl
tion of
future

Ermit
•a th
harbou
part ne
Th
garded
territor
Britain
of the I
the Can
territor
This wo
interpre

251

[Eoclosare No. 2.]

Dbaft Protocol communicated by Mr. Adams to the Earl of Clarendon, in 1866.

IrVbereas in the 1st Article of the Convention betweei^ the United States and Great:
Britain, concluded and signed in London on the 26th October, 1818, it was declared that —

" The United States hereby renounce, forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed
by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry or cure fiph on or within three marine miles of any of
the coafsis, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, not
included within certain limits heretofore mentioned."

And whereas differences have arisen in regard to the extent of the above-mentioned
renunciation, the Government of the United States and Her Majesty the Queen of Great
Britain, being equally desirous of avoiding furthei misunderstanding, have agreed to appoint,
and do hereby authorize the appointment, of a mixed Commission for the following purposes,
namely : —

1. To agree upon and define, by s series of lines, the limits which shall separate the
exclusive from the common ri^ht of fishery, on the coasts and in the seas aujacent, of the
British Xorth American Colonies, in conformity with the 1st Article of the Convention of
1818. The said lines to be regularly numbered, duly described, and also clearly marked on
charts prepared, in duplicate, for the purpose.

2. To agree upon and establish such regulations as may be necessary and proper to
secure to the fishermen of the United States the privilege of entering bays and harbours for
the purpc e of thelter ; iind of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining
water ; and to agree upon and establish such restrictions as maybe necessary to prevent the
abuse of the privilege reserved by said Convention to fishermen of the United States.

3. To agree upon and recommend the penalties to be adjudged, and such proceedings
and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy trial and judgment with as little
expense as possible, for the violation of rightb and the transgression of the limits and restric-
tions which may be hereby adopted.

Provided, however, that the limits, restrictions and regulations which may be agreed
upon by the said Cocnission shall not be final, nor have any effect, until so jointly confirmed
and declared by the United States and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, either by
treaty or by laws mutually acknowledged and accepted by the President of the United States,
by and with the consent of the Senate and by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain.

Pending a definitive arrangement on the subject, the United States' Government engages
to give all proper orders to oflScers in its employment; and Her Britannic Majesty's Govern-
ment engages to instruct the proper Colonial or other British officers to abstain from hoslile-
acts against British and United States' fishermen respectively,"

sed the
lasliing-
Iree the
States
)enetit»
^d Mew-

rnest
I revert
' things
lity.

based
tindred

amity

[Bnclosnre No, 3 ]

Observations on Mr. Bayard's Memorandum. — iVide Enclosure No. 2, 0/165, 2>age 179.)

The most important departure in Article I from the Protocol of 1 86<) is the interpola-
tion of the stipulation, " that the bays and harbours from which American vessels are in
future to be excluded, save for the purposes for which entrance into bays and harbours is
permitted by said nrticle, are hereby agreed to be taken to be such harbours as are 10 or
less than 10 miles in width, and the distance of three marine miles from such bays- and
harbours shall be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay or harbour \n the
part nearest the entrance at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles."

This provision would involve a surrender of fithing rights which have always been re-
garded as the exclusive property of Canada, and would raake common fishing grounds of
territorial wateis which, by ihe law of nations, have been invariably regarded both in (iri'at
Britain and the United States as belonging to the adjacent country. In the case, for instance,
of the Bale des Chaleurs, a peculiarly well marked and almost landlocked indentation of
the Canadian coast, the ten-mile line would be drawn from points in the heart of Canadian
territory, and almost seventy miles distant from the natural entrance or mouth of the bnj%
This would be done in spite of the fact that, both by imperial legislation and by judicial
interpretation, this bay has been declared to form a part of the territory of Canada. (.See

2Si

Imperial Statu t>»i 14 and 15 Vic, chap. 63 ; and "Mowat v. McPhee 5 Supreme Court of
Canada Reports page 66.)

The convenriion with France in 1839, and similar conventions with other European
powers, form no precwdents f ^r the adoption of a ten-mile limit. Those conventions were
♦loubtless passed with a view to the geographical peculiarities of the coast to which they
related.

They had for their object the definition of boundary lines, which, owing to the confi-
guration of th'i coast, perhaps could not readily be settled by refereace to the lawof niitioas
and involve other conditions which are inapplicable to ths territorial Waters of Canada.

This is shown by the fact that in the French convention the whole of the oyster beds in
Granville Bay, otherwise called the Bay of Cancale, the entr;'nce of which exceeds ten miles
in width, were regarded as French, and the enjoyment oi them is reserved to the looal
fishermen.

A reference to the action of the United States' Government and to the admission made
by their statesmen in regard to bays on the American coasts, strengthens this view ; and the
case of tlie English ship "Grange" shows that the Government of the United States in 1793
claimed Delaware Bay as being within territorial waters.

Mr. Bayard contends that the rule which he f,?ks to have set up was adopted by the
nmpire of the commission appointed under the Coi ntion of 1854 in the case of the United
States fishing schooner " Washington," that it was by him applied to the Bay of Fundy, and
that it was for this reason applicable to other Canadian bays.

It is pubmitted, however, that as one of the headlands of the Bay of Fundy is in the terri-
tory of the United States, any rul f .f international law applicable to that bay are not there-
fore equally applicable to other bays, the headlands of which are both within the territory of
the same power.

The second paragraph of the 1st Article does not incorporate the exact language of the
Convention of 1» 18. For instance, the words "and for no other purpose whatever," should
be inserted after the mention of the purposes for which vessels may enter Canadian waters,
and after the words " as may be ner-^ssary to prevent," should be inserted "their taking,
arying, or curing fi^h therein, or in any other manner abusing the privileges reuirved," &c.

To make the language coriibrm correctly to the Convention of 1818, several .>;her verbal
alterations, which need not be enumerated here, would be necessary.

Article fl would auspeud the operation of the Statutes of Great Britain and of Canada,
and of the Provinces now constituting Canada, not only as to the various ott'enoes connected
with fishing, but a to Customs, harbours and shipping, and would give to the fishing vessels of
the United States privileges in Canadian ports which are not enjoyed by vessels of any othor
class, or of any other nation. Such vessels would, for example, be free from the duty of
reporting at the Customs on entering a Canadian harbour, and no safeguard couid be
adopted to pre: ^nt infraction of the Customs laws by any vessel asserting the character of a
fishing vessel of the United States.

Instead of allowing to such vessels merely the restricted privileges reserved by the Con-
vention cf 1818, it would give them greater privileges than are enjoyed at the present time
by any vessels in any part of ihe world.

Article III would deprive the Courts in Canada of their jurisdiction, and would vest
that jurisdiction in a tribunal not bound by legal principles, but clothed with supreme
authorify to decide on mojt important rights of the Canadian people.

It would submit such rights to the adjudication, of two naval oUicers, one of them belong-
ing to a foreign country, who, if they should disagree and bo unable to choose an umpire,
must refer the final decision of the great interests which might be at stake to some person
chosen by lot.

If a vessel charged with infraction of Canadian fishing rights should be thought worthy
of being subjected to a "judicial examination," she would be sent to the Vice- Admiralty
Court at Ualilax ; but there would be no redress, no appeal, and no reference to any tribunal
if the naval officers should think proper to release her.

It should, however, lie observed, that the limitation in the second sentence of this
Article of the violations of the Convention which are to render a vessel liable to seizure, could
not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

For these reasons, the Article, in the form proposed, is inadmissible j but Her Mi^esty's
Government are not indisposed to agree to the principle of a joint enquiry by the naval
officers of the two countries in the first instance, the vessel to be sent for trial at dalifax,
if the naval officers do not agree that she should be released.

They fear, however, that there would be serious practical difBcultios in giving effect to
this arrangement, owing to the great length of coast, and the delays, which must in conae-
<iuence be frequent, in securing the presence at the same time and plase of the naval officers
of both powers.

f»

Article IV is also open to grave objection. It proposes to give the United States'
fishing vessels the same commercial privileges as those to which other vessels of the United
States are entitled, although such privileges are expressly renounced by the Convention of
1818 on behalf of fishing vessels, which were thereafter to be denied the right of access to
Canadian waters for any purpose whatever, except those of shelter, repairs, and the purchase
of wood and water. It has frequently heea pointed out that an attempt was made, during
the negotiations which preceded the Convention of 1818, to obtain for the fishermen of the
United States the right of obtaining bait in Canadian waters, and that this attempt was
successfully resisted. In spite of this fact, it is proposed, under this Article, to declare
that the Convention of 1818 gave that privilege, as well as the privilege of purchasing other
supplies in the harbours of the Dominion.

Article V proposes to give retrospective effect to the unjustified interpretation sought to
be placed on the Convention by the last preceding Article.

It is assumed, without discussion, that all United States' fishing vessels which have been
eeize-i since the expiration of the Treaty of Washington, have been illegally seized, leaving as
the only question still open for consideration, the amount of damages for which the Canadian
authorities are liable.

Such a proposul seems to Her Majesty's Government quite inadmissable.

Article VI calls for no remark.

No. Ifi5.

The Governor General to Sir Henry Holland.

[No. 140. J

Government House,

Ottawa, 27th April, ISST.

Lid vest
tupreuie

jbelong-

impire,

person

I worthy
luiiralty
tribunal

of thiti
|e, could

Majesty's
le naval
Idaliiax,

Iffoct to

conao-

1 officers

Sib, — With reforer.ce to previous correspondence on the ful>joct of the Finhery
QuoBtior, I have Iho honour to transmit to you a copy of an approved Minute of my
Privy Council, to which is appended a copy of the Special Instrucliorm issued for thi»
season to Iho officers in command of vessels employed in the protection of the Cana-
dian Fisheries on the Atlantic coast.

I have much f)leasure in calling your attention to t le passages in which the
Minister impresses upon such cfficeis that in carrying out iheye instructions they are
to te most careful not to fctrain the interpretation of the law in tho direction of inter-
fieience with the rights and privileges rexBaining io the United States' fishermen in
Canadian waters, under the Convention of 1818, and that tho largest liberty compa-
tible with tho full prctcction of Canadian interests is to bo granted to United
Stales' vessels in obtaining in Caniidian waters the privileges to which tboy are en-
titled under that Convention.

Tou will also observe that it has been determined to authorize the captains of
ciuisers in harbours to which United States' fis-hing vessels are accustomed to resort
lor shelter or ly, to take entry from and grant clearance to tho Masters of such vof-selu
wittout requiring them to go on shore for that purpose. This step has been taken
in order to avoid the delay which has in some cases inevitably taken place owing to
tho necessity of requiring Matters of these fishing vessels to report to the collec-
tor at the ncaiest Customs port, which might bo at some distance from that part of
tho harbour which tbu vessel had entered.

I have, &c.

(Sd ) LANSDOWNE.
The Right Honourable

Sia Henpy HoLLANr,

&c., &o , &c.

[763.]

254

[Enolosure No. 1.]

Certified C3opy of a Report of a Committee of tht Honourable the Privi/ Council, approved
tm^^ St*y -^w Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the 'loth April, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries, submit for Your Excellency's approval, the annexed Special Instructions to
the Officers in command of the Fisheries Protection Vessels.

(Sd.) JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk, Privy Council.

To the Honourable

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

[Bnclosnre No. 2.]

Department of Fisheries, Canada,

Ottawa, 16th April, 1887. '
Special Instructions to Fishery Officers in command of Fisheries^ Protection Vessels.

Sir, — In reference to the letter of this Department, dated 16th March, 1886, 1 have to
intimate to you that during the present season, and until otherwise ordered, you will be
guided in the performance of the duties entrusted to you by the instructions contained in
that letter.

I have every reason for believing that these have been executed with eiBciency and firm-
ness, as well as with discretion, and a due regard to the rights secure!! by Treaty to foreign
fishing vessels resorting to Canadian waters.

I desire, however, to impress upon you that, in carrying out those instructions and pro-
tecting Canadian inshore fisheries, you should be most careful not to strain the interpretation
of the law in the direction of interference with the rights and privileges remaining to United
States' fishermen in Canadian waters under the Convention of 1818. To this end, the largest
liberty compatible with the full protection of Canadian interests is to be granted United
States' fishing vessels in obtaining in our waters, shelter, repairs, wood and water. Care
should be taken that while availing themselves of these privileges, such vessels do not engage
in any illegal practices, and all proper supervision necessary to accomplish this object is to
be exercised, but it is not deemed necessary that in order to effect this an armed guard should
be placed on board, or that any reasonable communication with the shore should be pro-
hibited, after the vessel has duly entered, unless sufficient reasons appear for the exercise
of such precautions.

In places where United States' fishing vessels are accustomed to come into Canadian
waters for shelter only, the Captain of the Cruiser which m-iy be there is authorized to take
entry from and grant clearance to the miisters of such fishing vessels without requiring thoiu
to go on shore for that purpose. Blank forms of entry and clearance are furnished to tlie
Captains of Cruisers ; these, after being filled in, are to be forwarJeJ by the Captain of the
Cruiser to the Customs Officer of the ports within whose jurisdiction they have been used . in
cases of distress, disaster, need of provisions ibr the homeward voyage, of sickness or death
on board a foreign fishing vessel, all needful facilities are to be granted for relief, and both
you and your officer- will be carrying out the wishes of the Department in courteously and
freely giving assistance in such instances.

The above special instructions, while designed with regard to the fullest, recognition of all
lawful rights and reasonable liberties to which United States' fishermen are entitled in Cana-

255

lil, approved
387.

3r of Marine
jtraotions to

Council.

SfoJS'pa^ctnon^^^^^^^^ enforcement of the provisions of the

mg or transhipping of cargoes bruSfcedsS;'«K°^' P''«P*"ng *» Ash, procuring bait, tr^T
are manifest violations ofThe Snve^tion of 18?8 aSl'Iff.rr'' ""^'^^ '^« three-^r^ile 'liSt.
and m these cases your instr^.tU^nV^Sl^'li^^:^^^^^^^

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) GEO. E. FOSTER,

Minister of Marin e and FisherUs.

J87. •

Vessels.

6, 1 have to
you will be
sontained in

cy and firm-
<y to foreign

tns and pro-
berpretation
ig to United

the largest
ited United
rater. Caro
) not engage

object is to
uard should
juld be pro-
)he exercise

) Canadian

sed to take
lifing thoin
shed to tlie
jtain of tha
in used . In
ss or death
f, and both
beously and

iiition of iM
od in Cana-