A1^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 LI ilii 12.5 u, U^ 12.2 I' S IAS 1 2^ SBSS 1.25 III 1.4 16 < 6" ► 7^ V v: /A '■^ '/ Photographic Sdences Corporation '^^V^ ^\^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO (716) •72-4503 o r ,>% f/. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et 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 the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le 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 t bliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ □ □ D D D D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques 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/ Planches et/ou Illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure 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 ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies r~L^ages discoloured, stained or foxed/ L_J Pages ddcoior^es, tachet^es ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes r~~KShowthrough/ l—J Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppi^mentaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D 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 peiure, etc.. ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fapon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X v/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmad h«r« has b««n r«produc«d thcnks to tho gonarotity oi: Vancouver Public Library L'oxomplairo film* f ut raproduit grAca A la ginArositA da: Vancouver Public Library Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in Itaaping with tha filming contract apacifications. Laa imagaa auivantaa ont At* raproduitas avac la plus grand aoin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattatA da I'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Original copias in printad paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the 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. Les exemplairas originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commen^ant par le premier plat at en terminant soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplairas originaux sont filmAs en commen^ant par la pramiire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »■ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole ^^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those toe 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: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s ^1 dm taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film* * partir de Tangle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche * droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n*cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m*thode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 NC UNITED STATES. No. 1 (1887), i ^ ^f GORRESPONDENOE RSLATIVB TO THB NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES: 1884-86. Pretented to both Houie$ of Parlianunt ty Command of Her Majesty. February 1887. PEINTBD FOB HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE BY HARRISON AND SONS, niNTimS IN OBDIHAMT TO MMk MAJIITT. And to bo purchHed, (Itbtr directly or tkfOHh any BootcMlitr, rrom BYBB AMD SPOTTISWOODE. Bait Haboiho Bvbmt, Flut Stuit, Z,C., AND 92, Amnodon Stkibt, Wmtmiimtib, B.W, j Ok ADAM AHD CHARLES BLACK, Nokth BkiDOC, Ioimivubi oft HODCItS, FIGGIS, & Co., 104, Gmrok Bnun, Douih. s'DR No. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Name. Mr. West To Colonial Offlcp Colonial OlFice Mr. West To Coloninl Office CotoninI Office , , jt It • To Colonial Office. . Colonial OfSee . Mr. Lowell Colonial OflRce To .Vrr. Wen .Mr. Wert 10 II 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 SO 21 To Sir L. Wert rJ'elegraphic) Colonial OAice To Colonial Office. Colonial Office Date. May 4, 1884 Juno 3, 12, .. July 12, Nov. 20, Dec. 4. Jan. 17, 1885 Feb. 13, 24, Mar. 3. . 7, Apr. 20, Jiin? 29, July 16, 18. 20, Aug. 2-2, Sept. 5, 19, SUBJEHT. Renew.ll of Ueeiprocity Treaty (jf 1854. Joint Hesolution intrnducud in House iif Rfpreieu- tativea for - . • . • • • • Transniittincr copy of No. 1. What Innguagre should ?4r. West hold if nskcd by Uniti'd States' G-' -i"., .. •• .. Temporary arrangement prolonging operation of Fisl'ery Ariicles to the Ist January, 1880. Copy uf notice and correspondence . . .. Temporary arrangement. Copy of despatch to Canadian and Newfoundland Governments. Her Majesty's Government trust terms are satis- factory . Negotiations on termination of temporary arrange- ment Di'sirable that Canadian and Newfound- l.ind GoTcrumcnts arrive at conclusion ab to course to be adopted ,. .. Relerence to No. 15. Concur in terms of proposed despatch Ic Canada and Newfoundland Ueferenee to No. 1 6. Copy of despatch to Canada and Newfoundland in sense of Keferi-nco to Nos. 15 and 17. Temporary arrange- ment sa'istaclory to Canadian Government. Copy of despatch trom Governor-General .. Reference to No. 18. Copies of despatches from Governor-General of Canada and Newfoundland reporting steps taken respecting coming nego- tiations r» •• •• .. Transmitting copy of No. 19. Approval of Her Majesty's Government for action in negotiation of temporary arrangement .. ., .. Page I ! 2 2 No. 28 98 24 26 26 27 28 S9 ao ai 32 .iS 6 1 34 35 7 ■4 36 8 12 37 36 13 1 89 13 1 40 18 41 19 B^t 42 19 1 43 19 ■ 44 20 Ql 1 45 46 47 22 TJBU Oy OOMXUVIt. HI 4 No. lis 98 •a 9S SC a; '28 90 SO ai 39 .S3 34 35 36 37 as 39 4U 41 49 43 44 45 46 47 Nam*. Sir L. Weit (Telegraphic) Coloula! Office To Colonid Office Colonial Office TuSirL. W«it .. Sir L. Wett ColoninI OlDco To ColoninI Offico To Sir L. Wf.t . Colonial Office Sir L. Wett Colonial OfDco Sir li. Wont Coloniil Office Sir U We.t To Sir I.. West To Colonial Office . Mr. Bayartl to Mr. Phelps .. (Telcgropliic) [84] Date Got. 10, ises Dec. 11, 1). 14. 31. Jan. 5, 16, 16> ae, 88C Feb. IS, Mar 23. 18. 31, ^4, Apr. 21, 11. 14, 30, May 11, u, 11, 12, la, 24, 2(5, 27, i;: SOBJKCT. Tranimitting eopr of a Circular iaaued bjr t Committee of the Boiton Fiih Bureau, rMom- mending arrangement between United StatM, Canada, and .Newfoundland for reoiprocal td- niitaion, free of duties, of products of fliheriea . . Fishery .Articles. Text of passam in President's Message respecting. Proposal to appoint • Commission . .. >• Contemplated negotiations. Copy of despatch from Governor-General of Canada. Newfound- land to confer with Canada reapectinfr . Transmitting copy of No. 33, Should any com- munication be made to Sir L. West relative thereto ? . Answers Ko. 25. Suggest satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government should ibe expressed, and their readiness to join in proposed Coraminsion Address a note to Mr. Bayard in sense of No. 26 .. Reference to No, 27. Has addressed a note to Mr. Bayard in sense of Joint Kesolutinn introduced in the House of Repr». senttttivc! for renewal of commercial relatioM with Great Britain. Copy of Appointment of Commission. Report of debate in Senate on Resolution that Sennto ought not to sanction . . . . . . . . . . Copies of Nos 29 and .30 communicated to Canadian High Commitsloner. Suggest Conference with Sir C. Tupper and Sir A. Gait Concur in Conference proposed in No. 31 Appointment of Commission. Regret of Her Majesty's .jvernment at reports that United States will not proceed to. Do United States* Government propose to issue warning to United States' tiahermen ?. . Appointment of Commission. Steps proposed by (iovernor-(jenoral of Canada in opening speech 10 Legislature if negotiations for fail . . Reference to No. 33. United States' Government do not propose to issue warning to United States' fishermen . . . , TransniittiniT copips of instructions to fishery officers, and of n warning notice issued by Canadian Governmtnt . . . . Reported argument of United States' Consul-General at Halifax relative to provisions of Treaty of 1818. Copy of correspondence with (lovernor- (icneral of Canada respecting .Appointment of Commission. Resolution against adopted in Senate . . . . Kepoiled argument of United .States' Consul- General at Halifax on provisions of Treaty of IS 18 (see No. 37). Copy of despatch from (jovernor-General of Canada on Seizure of United States' vessels "Joseph Story" and " David J. Adams." Copy of note from Mr. B,ay.ird commenting on . " David ,1. Adams' " seizure. Copies of Resolutions and Hills in House of Representatives aiid Senate respectiTif .. ,. ., ., " David J. .\dams " seizure. Copy of private correspondence with Mr. Bayard respecting Treaty of ,818. .Memorandum embodying views of United States' Representatives and others as to position of the United States respc ting '• David J. Adams " seizure. Copy of Mr. Bayard's reply to note of the 12th instant (see No. 42) . . Seizure of United States' vessels in Canadian waters. " David J. ,\dams." Conversation with Mr. Phelps respeclinji; . . Seisnrc of United Stales' vessels in Canadian waters. Copy of No. 40. For Report from Canada United Stat«*' (Government desire to arrive at amicable and just solution of fishery and trade question. Action of Canadian Government calculated to obstruct settlement ,S69 99 94 94 95 as 96 96 26 97 27 28 28 99 99 30 34 3S 36 37 40 43 44 44 49 46 46 2 nr TABU or oommm. No. 48 49 80 SI S9 IS S« ' 56 67 S8 39 60 61 63 63 64 66 66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Num. ToSirLWMt .. SirL. Weit Mr. Phelpi To Sir L. Weit .. Colonial Offee .. To Mr. Phelps . . To Colonial Office , To SirL. West .. Colonial Office M?. Phelps Colonir' Olfi'-e Sir :Vr..t Dite. May 99, 1886 SI. 91. 91, June 1, 1. 2. 2, 8, 3, 4, 4, 6, 2, 9, To Mr. Phelps Sir L. West 69 To Sir L. West . . To Colonial Office, . Sir L. West May 30, 0, June 3, 4, 14, 8, 2), 21, 15, Colonial Offico •• July 3, Sir L. Weot 3, Mr. Phelps 16, To Colonial Office 17, Mr, Hardinge .. 12, ,» ,1 •• • • 12, SoajBCT, Plge Copy of No. 47. Convenation with Mr, Phelps on proTiiirns of Treaty of 1818 ..47 " David J, Adams " seisure . Copy of further note from Mr. Bayard oommendnff on . . .47 " Jennie and Julia." Warning given to br Canadian authorities. Copy of note from Mr. Bayard commenting upon . . . . . . SO "David J. Adams" i»iiure. Copy of despatch from Oovernor-General of Canada respecting. Copy communirated to Mr. Bayard . . SO Bill No. 1 36 pending in Canadi.in Parliament, and Customs Circular No. 371. Copy of telrg'-am from .Mr. Bayard protesting aftalnst .. ..01 Reference to No. 40. As to friendly interchange of personal views between himself 'ind Mr. Bayard.. Si Seiiures of United States' vessels. Conversation with Mr. Phelps re9pecii..g . . . ..59 Copy of Bill to amend 31 Vici., cap. 01 respecting fishing by foreign vesseW in the territorial watnra of the Dominion of Canada . . '. ■ . . S2 Acknowledges rec'pt of No. 52 .. . S4 '' Ddvid J. Adams " seiture. Copy of No. 49. Sutigesting lieport from Canada on . . . . 54 *' Josppli Story " and " Dnvid J. Adams " seiiures. Will receive immediate and friendly considera- tion of Her .Majesty's Government. Answers No. 40 . . . . . . . . 54 " Joseph Story," " David J. Adams," and " Ella M. Doughty " seizures. Reports from Canada respecting .. .. ..54 " David J. Adams " seisure. Acknowledges receipt of No. 57. Observations of Dominion Government requested by telegram . . . 57 *' David J. Adams " seizure. Arguments against . 57 "Dnvid J. Adams" and "Ella M. Doughty" seizures. Copies of further despatches from Canada respecting. ., . ..63 Canadian Bill No. 136, and Customs Circular No. 371. Copy of note from Mr. Bayard pro- testing against (see also Nos. A2 and 55) .. 64 "Sistern." Fine imposed on remitted by United States' Acting Secretary of the Treasury . . 63 " Houlctt " and " Matthew Keany," and other United imitate!)' fishing-vessels interfered with by Canadian authorities. Note from Mr. Bayard respecting . . . . 65 Reference to No. 41. Bill relating to American ship ping has passed Congress. Copy of . . 66 Acknowledges receipt of No. 6i .. 67 " Annie iM. Jordan " threatened v\0\ seizure. Copy of note from Mr. Bayard protest. og against action of ('anadian authorities. Her Majesty's Govern- ment will be held liable for loss and damage suiitained . . . . . .. . . 67 Canadian Bill No. 136, &c. Ma'.'er will receive c.ireful consideration. Refers to No. 6.') l°8 " Annie .M. Jordan." Copy of No. 68. For Report from Dominion Government. . . . . . 68 Headland lines. Alleged warnings by Cai.adian authoi-ities to United States' vessels to keep out- side. ('o|iy of note from Mr. Bayard protesting iigain't; cases of "Martha A. Bradley," " Rattler, " " Eliza Boynton," and " Pioneer " . 69 '• Sisters." Release of. Copy of despatch from Canada (see also No. 64) .. .. ..69 " City Point." Detention of. Copy of note iitm .Mr. Bayard protesting against .. ..71 Transmitting copy of telegram from .Mr. Bayard requesting a stop put to tlio action of the Caiadian authorities .. .. .. ..72 •City Point" detention. Copy of No. 73. For telegraphic Report from Canada . . . . 72 " Novelty." Protest of Mr. Bayard against action of Canadian authorities respecting . . . . 73 Cunudian cruizer '■ Middleton." Protest of Mr. Bayard .igainst action of .. .. ..73 TJLBUi Of OOimMTI. No. 78 79 91 92 93 i/5 96 97 98 99 100 lOJ 102 108 104 Name. To Sir L. Wo«t >i n 80 II M 81 To Mr. Philips . 82 83 1* M * Colonial Office 84 Tc Colonial Office 85 Mr. Hardinge 86 87 To Colonial Office To Sir L. West 88 Colonial Office 89 90 To Sir L. WeM Mr. Hardinge l» II To Colonial Office. To Mr. Hurdinjc . . Mr. Hardinge .. Colonial Office .. To Colonial Ortice Sir L. West Colonial Office .. To Mr. Phelps . . To Sir L. West .. 11 II •• To Colonial Office Date. July -J.'!, 1886 9S. S3. 98. 26, 28, 17. Aug. 2, 4. «i lOi July 31, Aug. 2, 17, 18, 10, 23. 26, 18, 18. 28, Sept. 1. Aug. 19, Sept. 4, 4, Sl'BJCOT. " Joseph Story," " Darld J. Adams," and "Jennie and Julia " aeiiuret. Copy of Reporta of Priry Oouneil of Canada on. For communication tc United Statei' Go\arnment . . Canadian Bill No. 136. kc. Extract of deipatch from Governor-General of Canada on. Refers to No. 63 . . Headland question. Ananers Nn. 71. No such instructions issued ns are complained of Corapluints against Canadian authorities. Answers No. 74. Canadian views will shortly be placed before the United States' Government by Sir L. West.. .. „ Copy of No. 78. Answers No. 6" .. "City Point." Iteference to No. 75. Copy of tolegrophic correspondence with Canada . . " Novelty " and other vessels. Protests of Mr. Bayard a)!ainat action of Canadian cruiser •' General .Middleton. Copies of Nos. 76 and 77. "General Middleton." Reference to No. 77. Purtlier protest from United States' Go ein- tnent '• General Middleton." Copy of No. 85. , "City Point." Reference io No. 73. Copy of No. 8i> • . • « . • . • Copy of No. 84 sent lo Canada, also a telei^ram for full pariicularii of all United States' Sshiug- vesscla deiaed or warned off . . Recordn conversation with Mr. Phelps .. " Thor..as F. Bavard " and " Mascot," Complaints against treatment of from the United States' Government . . . . . . . " David J. Adams " case. &c. Copies of Nos. 78. 79, and 80 communicated to United Statei>' Government "Thomas F. Bayard" and "Mascot." Copy of No. 90. Suggusta that Colonial Governments issue special instructions to the local authorities to prevent rights granted by Convention of 1818 being infringed " Thomas F. Bayar-l " and " Mascot." Reference to No. 9U. Inform United States' Government immediate inquiries will be made, with the view that the rights secured by the Convention to the United States' fishermen shall in no wise be prejudiced " Rattler." Protest against treatment of from the United States' Government . . "David J. Adams" "'Ella M. Doughty." "City Point," George W. Cushing," " C. B." Harring- ton " seizures. Reference to No. 86. Report from Canada respecting, with other information "Rattler." Copy of .No. 94. For Report from Canada . . " Golden Hind." Protest from the United States' Government against the actio) of the officer commanding the " E. F. Conrar ' .. "City Point." Reference to Ixo. 87. Copy of note to Mr. Secretary Bayard " Thomas F. Bayard '' and " P.lascot." Reference to No. 92. Copy of despatch to Canada and Newfoundland. Copy of correspondence with the latter Colo ly .. .. Hopes that th^ xvo Governments may effect such an equitable revision of the Treaty of 1818 as may reconcile conflicting interests Complaint from the United States' Government against Captain Quigley, of tiie Canadian cruizer " Terror." '• Shiloh " and " Julia Ellen" cases. . Captain Quigley. Reference to No. 101. Report from Canada asked for " Thomas F. Bayard " and " Mascot." Iteference to No. 90. Copy of No. 99. Address communi- cation to Mr Bayard Captain Quigley. Copy of No. lU], for Report from Canada Page 75 85 S9 89 90 00 91 91 92 92 92 93 93 94 94 9.7 95 96 106 lOf! 107 107 109 110 111 III 112 TAau 09 oowtxum. No. 105 106 107 10* 109 110 111 119 iia 114 115 US 117 118 11» 120 131 132 123 134 125 Namt. To Sir L. Wait . . To Golonid Offloe ColonM Offle« Mr. Pheipi Colonitl Ofloc ., SirL. Weit To Colonial Office To Sir L. Wett . , 136 127 128 139 130 131 132 133 134 SirL. West To Colonial Oflice H It To Mr. Phelps .. Colonial Office I* fi • • SirL. Weit To Sir L. West Colonial Office 'lo Sir L. Woit Sir L. We«t To Colonial Office Colonial Office ToSirL. VVcit .. Dau. Sept. 6, 11, 11. le, It. IS. 18. 11. 97. 30, ao, 30 17. 24, Oct. 4, 6, 11, 15, 19. 12. 23. 25, 3U, 20, 21, Nov. 4, 4, 4, 3. 1886 Subject. <-Oolik« HiBd." Reference to No. 97. Imme- diate inquiry will be made. Inform Mr. Bayard . '•Uolden Hind." Copjr of No. 97, for immediate Report. The warning under the ciroumitanoei ■tated would appear to be a diitinct breach of the Conven'ion of 1818 " Ellr M. Doughtv." Reference to No. 59. Re- port from Cuada . . Reply to No. 100. Preienl t!mo inopportune for toe reriiion of the Treaty of 1818. Suggetti an ad mttrim conitruetion of the Treaty ai it now ezitta Headlandi. Reference to No. 71. Warning! alleged to have been giren by the Collector of Customs at Canso. Report from Canada " Novelty " and " General Middlelon." Heferrnce to No. 84. Report from Canada " Thomas F. liayard " and " Mascot." Reference to No. 99. Hoport from Newfoundland '* Rattler." Refcrecoe to No. 96. Telegram from Canada . . . . . . . . . . " Mollie Adams." Refused water-barrels at Port Mulgravo, Nova Seotia. Complaint from the United States' Gnrtrnment . . . . , . ■' Kattk'r." Reference to No. 112. Defers action until fuller Reports are received Headlands. Extract from Inclosuro 2 in No. 109. Communicate to Mr. Bayard . . Canadian cruiaer ''General Middloton." American vessel " NoTelty." Copy of Inclosures 2 and 3 in No. 110. Communicate copies to Mr. Bayard .. "Thomas R Bayard" and "Mascot." Reference to No. 103. Copyof No. Ill "Thomas F. Bayard "and "Mascot." Reference to No. 103. Copy of note to .Mr. Bayard " Crittenden." Complaint from thu United Slatea' Government of her trcatniunt at bleep Creek, in tlic Straits of Canso . . . . " MoUio Adams." Copy of No. 1 13. For Report from Canada "Crittenden.' Copy of No. 119. For Report from Canada . , . . . . . , .Acknowledges Nu. 108. The note U under the careful consideration of Iler Majesty's Govern- ment .. .. .. .. ., "Rattler." Reference to No. 114. Report from Canada .. Coasting trade of the Dominion of Canada. Copy of despatch forwarding Customs Circular in relation lo , , . . Acknowledges Nos. 116 and 117. Has communi- cated inclosures in to the United States' Govern- ment " Rattler." Copy of No. 1 23. Communicate "General Middleion." Reference to No. 86. Report from Canada as to the action of Captain Kent "General .Middleton." Copy of No. 127. Com- municate to Mr. Bayard " Everett Steele." Alleged to have entered Siiel- burne. Nova Scotia, for shelter, water, and repairs, and to have been detained by the "Terror." Complaint from the United States' Government " Pearl Nelson." Complaint from tho United States' (iovernment against her treatment by the Customs officials at Arichat, Nova Scotia . , "Everett Steele." Copy of No. 129. For Report from Canada . . , , . . , , "Pearl Nelaon." Copy of Nu. 130. For Report' from Canada . . . . , . Canadian Act " Further to amend the Act re- specting Fishing by Foreign Vessels." Copy of correspondence with the Dominion " Everett Steele " and " Pearl Nelson." Acknow- ledges Nos. 129 and 130. Report called for from Canada 113 119 111 120 134 136 129 130 130 ISl 131 139 133 133 133 134 134 134 134 136 137 137 137 139 189 141 148 143 143 145 No. 185 Co 136 137 138 Sir I3U Co 140 Sir 141 To 143 143 144 145 Ml 146 To 147 Co 148 TABLi or OONTIHm. ▼u No. IW IM 1S7 138 130 140 141 149 14S 144 145 146 147 148 Nftoi*. Colonial Offleo . M •• Sir L. Wait Colonial OMro Sir L. West To Sir L. Woit Mr. Phelpi To Mr. Phelpi . . Colonial Office Dtto. Nor. 17, 1B80 IS. 19. ». 93. 19, 96, 96, 96, 9S, 97, 30. Deo. 1, 1, SUMMT. « lUttUr," « JulU Ellon," and " Slillo." Conduet of Captain Quioloy. Reference to Not. 104 and 198, lieportt from Canada " Marion GrimM." Lowering; of her flag by the Citnadian eutler ■* Terror." Report from Canada apologiiioK " Maicot." Keferenee to Noi. 99 and 99. Complaint againit Cuitomi at Magdalen Iilandi. lieport from Canada on . . . , '•General Middleton." Keferenee to No. 19B. Content! of communicated to the United Stateii' Government . . . . , . " Everett Steele " and " Pearl Nelion." Uererence to Nos. lai and 139. Copy of lelrgram to Canada . " Laura Say ward " and " .lennie Seaverni." Com- plaint againit Captain Quigley and the Collector of the port of Shelburne from the United Sutei' Governmeit , . , . " Hattler." &c. Complaint! ogaind Captain Quigley. Copy of No. 133. Communicote incloiurei to Mr. Havard « Mascot. ' Copy of No. 137. Cowmunicate to Mr. Bayard " Marion Grimei." Copy of No. 136. Communi- coto to Mr. Bayard Canadian Act. Reference to No. 1 33. Authentic eated copy of " Marion Orimei." Complaint againit Captain Quigley from the United States' Government . . Reply to No. 108. Hopei the United Statei' Government will obtain t. ra Congreii the neces- sary powers to enable them to make some definite proposals for the negotiation of a mutually advan- tageous arrangement .. .. ,. Canadian Act. Reference to No. 144. Order in Council aiienting to " David J. Adams," and general question of the North American fisheries. Report by the Dominion Miniater of Justice 146 150 161 163 164 1S4 166 166 166 167 168 166 169 170 My Loi n tion int. Willi Gi R<'solut Poreigr safTsnur exproSSi tho Trei by tho t this son Decern Ml Joi renewal Treaty ' States a 18(10, i proyisio the frc( connect and wh( AAuci satilRicI Rti Araerici •If roqucstf rostorat that all Bi'itish " each coi [ Correspondence relative to the North American Fisheries. No. 1. Mr. Weit to Earl OrannUe.—(Recnved May 17.) My Lonl, Wathington, May i, ISSl. I HAVE the honoiir to incloso li«rcwith to your Lordship copies of a .Wtint l^gpolu- tion introdnc orl into the llouso of RoprewntativoB, requesting the President to iiegotiato witli Great Britain lor a renewal of the Canadian Rceiprocity Treaty of 1H54. This Resolution was not acted upon. It would appear, however, that the Comniitteoon Foreign Affairs, to whom it was referr«'d, is doubtful if such a Treatjr would now Lo naETsiactory, and it is proposed in consequence to report and substitute for it a Resolution, eSpRJiStng the opinion of the House in favour of negotiations looking to a commercial agreement without undertaking to specify its t^rms or encroaching upon the province of tho Treaty-making power. It is expected that some action may l)e taken on the matter by tlio end of this week. I liave addressed a despatch to the Marquis of Lausdowne in this sense, and have forwarded to his Excellency copies of the Resolution. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. /9lf' ' Inclosure in No. 1. 48th Congress. — Ist Session. — H. Res. 32. IX THE IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. December 11, 1883. — Read twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and • I- -- " ordered to be printed. MR. MAYBURY introduced the follow^ng^ Joint Resolution: — Joint Resolutitm roque8tin!j.tli(i''Br^i'dtfH.1i' top*' nfore Earl Granville, a copy of a despatch ivom tlie Ollicer administerir.;; the Government of Newfoundland, inclosing an extract from a Miimtt> of t\w Hxecutiv<« Coiim-il of the Colony on the subject. Lv\\ (Jranville will, no doubt, accord to tlie represi-ntations of the Executive Council of Newfoundland sueli support a.s may be possible in any negotiations which may take place with the United States' Government in regard to this question. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. H. Administrator Carter to tlie Earl of Derby. My Lord, Government House, Newfoundland, May 20, 1884. I HAVE Mii> honour to transmit to your Lordship copy of an extract of a Minute of the Executive Council, expres.sive of tiieir views on the subject of your Lordship's despatch of the IlOth .lanuary last, with reference to the approaching termination of the Fishery Vrticles of the Washington Ti-eatv. I have, &c. (Signed) F. B. T. CARTER. Iijclosui^J.S. iTi'.Nf>- 3> E.rtracl froi'ib M'lniiten of Cnu')ml,'M'ay 10, 1884. THE iiiuhr ili>.i )iu'al»le Secretary of .Statefor the Colonies having in his despatches of tlie .\n\ .May ami th(> 2>tUtJi(.»(ymbir last cxptwsfd 'x desire to be informed of any vn;ws whieli this (iovcrnnieiii niight hare tv> otfer rdgardingthe expiry of the Fishery Clauses of the Wasiiington Treaty: The Couiu'il woiUd observe that the operation of these clauses has been found useful to the trade of thiseoiintry in rcujard to tlie free admission of the Newfoundland prodiifi- info the markets of the United States. A state of trade relations has arisen under Iliesi> pi-ovisions. tlu' (iistiirl)aiieeof whicli would be attended witli inconvenience and iMJ\nv, Tlie opeiiiii!;' of new markets woiihl be a work of time and possible ditlleulty, tMul meanwhile losses on shi|iio('iits might n-asonably be apprehended. Thi> Cniiih'il an- thcrerorc di'>iiroiis (li;it Her Majesty's (Jovernment may seethe way to an UTMnuriMnenl with tlu' (Jovernment of the United States which would continue the fnM> admission of Newfoiuidlaiid lisli prot! .- the Fishery Clauses of the Washington 'liuaty shall have expired. ' (Signed) E. D. SHEA, fJlerk Executive Council. No. 1. No. 4. Mr. West to Earl Granville. — {Received July 25.) My Lord, Washington, July 12, 1884. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your LoiJship herewith copy of a note which I have received from the Secretary of State, informing me that, in view of Congress having adjourned without reaching any action on the President's proposal to appoint a Commission to consider the Fisheries Articles of the Treat- of Washington it is deemed hest to defer definite action on the British proposal un December next I have, &e. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST lAMSTON. Inclosure in No. 4. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. West, Sir, ,. Department of State, Washington, July 11, 1884. ADVERTING to the language of the President's last annual Message to Congress relative to appointing a Commission to consider the subject, I have the honour to inform you that Congress has adjourned without reaching any action on the President's recommendation. In such an important international question, in which Congress has intervened at every stage hitherto, it is deemed best to defer definite action on the British proposal until Deceml)er. I have, &c. (Signed) ERED. T. FRELINGHUYSEN. No. 5. Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr, Bramston. (Extract.) Foreign Office, November 20, 1884. LORD GRANVILLE would suggest that the views of the Canadian Government sliould at once l)e definitely obtained as to the course to be pursued in the negotiations with the United States, in vicAV of the fact that tlie Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington will expire on the 1st July next, and that it aj)pears to be very desirable that some satisfactory arrangement should be come to before that date, in order to avoid (he risks and complications which might arise fi'om the Fishery question being left in an undecided state. If negotiations with the United States' Government were once commenced, and it Aver(> found during the course of them that an agreement were not likely to be reached })y the 1st July, it is possible that a proposal for continuing the status ijiio — at all (>vents in regard to Newfoundland — for some stated period, such as a year, might permit the conclusion of a definite arrangement without the inconvenience arising from u displacement of trade, and (\ su'dden; change in the area open for fishing purposes to American and cdcnidl tishermcn.repp.Aclh'ely. 1 ;•; . . 1,1 . Li Sir R. Herbert to Sir J. Pauncefote. — (Received December 6.) Sir, Douming Street, December 4, 1884. WITH reference to your letter of the 20th ultimo, relating to the question of the course to be pursued in regard to the North American fisheries on the termina- tion of the Ji'isbery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, I am directed by the Earl of D(!rby to transmit to you, for the information of Earl Granville, a copy of a des])atch which his Lordship has addressed to the Governor-General of Canada on this subject. Jjord Derby does not propose to make any communication to the Governor of Newfoundland upon this matter until after the answer from the Governor-General of Canada lias been received. I am, &c. (Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT. [84] fi2 Inclosure in No. 6. The Earl of Derby to the Marquis of Lansdoume. My Lord, Downing Street, December 4, 1884. IN view of the fact that the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington will expire on the Ist July next, I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty's Government are desirous of obtaining at as early a date as may bo possible some definite expression of the views of the Government of the Dominion of Canada as to the course which they may wish to be pursued, in negotiation with the Government of the United States, with the object of arriving at some satisfactory arrangement with that Government in order to avoid the risks and complications which might arise from the Fishery question b 'ing left in an unsettled and undecided state. You will therefore be so good as to lay this despatch before your Ministers, and to request them to favour me, at their earliest convenience, with such an expression of their views upon this important subject as they may be in a position to supply. I have, &c. (Signed) DERBY. ■ No. 7. Mr. Bramston to Sir J. Pauncefote. — {Received January 19.) Sir, Downing Street, January 17, 1885. WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the '1th December last, inclosing copy of a despatch which the Earl of Derby liad addressed to the Governor- General of Canada, relating to the course to be taken on the termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, I am directed by his Lordship to transmit to you, to be laid before Earl Granville, a copy of a despatch which has been received from the Governor- General in reply. Lord Dei-by Avould be glad to be favoured with the views of Lord Granville in regard to the proposal contained in tliis despatch. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. My Lord, I HAVE Inclosure in No. 7. The Marquis of Lansdowne to the Earl of Derby. Oovemment House, Ottawa, December 26, 1884. the honour to acknowk^ge receipt of your Lordship's despatch of the 4tli December, and to inform you that, agreeably with the instructions con- tained therein, I liavo urged upon my Government the necessity of supplying your liordship with a definite expression of its views in regard to the steps to be taken in consequence of the approaching expiration of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington. 2. Some delay has been occasionqd by-th«. fjbsencn of Sir John Macdonald from Ottawa on public business. I l\^_vtji''hpVdvjjr,. ^v^ec his return had several conversa- tions with him, and am Jiow able'^.givc "yaur.-l/orcffrfiip/f^n indication of the manner in which the Government of the Doininion derfireito deal with this question, .'}. I have in the first plft<^:to;^oitlt,;;oot .-tliat ;tltepo. jirticlcs have been abrogated by the Government of tlie JUAitfed'. S'fcrtiia .in <:«mi^i;iji(j^>' \^ith a vote of Congress", without, !is far as wc are aware, any intimation of a desire on the part of that (iovern- inent to substitute for them any other arrangement, and without any specific disclosure of the reasons which have induced it to atlopt such a co so beyond genenxl and unofficial expressions of dissatisfaction with the result of the Award undiT which the United States were required to pay a sum of 5,500,000 dollars for the pi-ivilege of fishing in the waters to which their iishermcn were admitted under the Treaty of 1871. 4. A course siniihr to that which has been now atloptcd was followed !)y tlio Government of Washington in regard to the Treaty of 1864, which was abrogated in like manner to the detriment of the commercial -olations which had been cstahlished betwwn the two countries while it was in operation. 5. In the face of these circumstances my ■ Aernntcnt does not consider that it would be consistent with the respect which it owes to itself- to appear as a suitor for concessions at the hands of the Government of the United States. It is, moreover, certainly open to question whether, if negotiations on this subject ai-e to be approached 6 Granville in t)wc(l !)v tho at all, they will not be approached with a better prospect of success if they are com- menced and conducted with the Oovemment which will assume office next spring, rather than with that by which the Articles have been denounced, and which could not reasonably expect to terminate such negotiations before the end of its official existence. 6. The expiration of the Fishery Articles, although it will no doubt produce some dislocation of this branch of the commerce of the Dominion, will only replace it in the position which it occupied between the expiration of the Treaty of 1864 and the commencement of the Treaty of 1871. Each party will be restricted to its own waters, and steps will be taken to protect from trespassers those of the Dominion, which are Admitted to bo of far greater value than those of the United States. It is probable that a considerable portion of the catch of the Canadian fisherman would find its way, as it did during the period referred to, to the same markets as now, but carried in American vessels, tho owners of which Avould purchase the fish from the Canadian fishery vessels, whilst I float, and enter them at their own ports free of duty as their own catch, for re-sale in the West Indies and elsewhere. 7. In another respect, however, the action of the United States' Government is no doubt likely to have inconvenient, and, perhaps, embarrassing results, though not to Canadian fishermen. The Pisbery Clauses will cease to operate on the 1st July, 1885. At that time vessels belonging to the United States will be engaged in fishing in Canadian waters. These vessels will have been equipped and fitted out for the season's fishery, and will have made all their arrangements in the belief that they would be able to prosecute their business until its end. If these vessels were, upon the day following that upon which tho Articles ceased to operate, either captured for trespass or compelled on pain of seizure to desist from fishing in Canadian waters, considerable loss would be occasioned to the oAvners, and much ill-feeling created betwecp the two countries. The Government of the Dominion has no desire to be instrumental in producing such a state of things, and I am able to inform your Lordship that, should such a course be accep+^blo to the Government of the United States, we should be prepared to agree to an extension of the opei-ation of the clauses in regard both to " free fishing " and to '•free fish" until the 1st January, 1886. If this were to be done, their expiration would take place between the fishing season of 1885 and that of 1886, instead of in the middle of that of 1885, with the result of avoiding those complications of which I have already spoken. 8. The delay thus gained would, if the United States were to show any desire for the discussion of the commercial relations of the two countries, give time for such a discussion, and the Government of the Dominion would have no object in restricting the scope to the subject of the fisheries. It is indeed a matter of notoriety that the Dominion has consistently expressed its readiness tc become a party to an arrangement which might have; the effect of afFording increased facilities for inter- national commerce between itself and the United States. It has given the best proof of its sincerity by taking under its existing Customs Laws powei-s of which your Lordship is aware to admit upon favourable terms by Proclamation of the Governor- General those products of the United States which were included in the Treaty of 1854, whenever a similar (lourse in regard to the natural products of the Dominion may be adopt<}d by the Government of Washington. It regretted at the time the termination of the Treaty of 185 1, which it believed to be advantageous to the interests (l in paragraph 7 was likely to be agreeable to the Government to which he is accredited. , I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. No. 8. Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr, Bramston. (Extract.). Foreign Office, January 26, 1885. I AM directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, containing a despatch from his Excellency the Governoi- Oemeral of Canada upon the subject of the attitude which the Dominion GoTcrnment desiie to assume with regard to the approaching termination of the Fishei^ Articles of the Treaty of Washington ; and I am, in reply, to submit, for the Earl of Derby's consideration, the following observations thereon : — Lord Granville approves of the proposal to adopt an arranj.ement whereby the operation of Articles XVIII, XIX, XX, and XXI of the Treaty, which provide for reciprocal free fishing, and free importation of fish and fish oil, should be extended to ohe Ist January, 1886, in order to permit time for negotiation, and to avoid the risk of complications which might arise from the right of fishing in British waters enjoyed by United States' fishermen under the Treaty coming to an end in the mddst of the next summer fishing season. I am to state that Lord Granville would propose, with his Lordship's concurrence, to send a copy of your letter confidentially to Mr. West, with instructions to inquire officially, at once if possible, whether the United States' Government would consent to prolong the status quo till the 1st January, 1886 ; and, as soon as the new Government comes into office, to endeavour, unofficially, to elicit their views as to negotiations for a more permanent settlement of the question. No. 9. Mr. Bramston to Sir J. Pauticefote. — {Received February 14.) Sir, Downing Street, February 13, 1885. I AM directed by the Earl of Derby to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th January, relating to the question as to the cours(> to be pursued in reference to the termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of /Washington. In the concluding paragraph of your letter it was proposed that an inquiry should at once be officially addressed to the United States' Government by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington as to whether the United States' Government would consent to prolong the status t]uo until the 1st January, 18S6, and, as soon as the new Govern- ment comes into office, to endeavour, unofficially, to elicit their views as to negotiations for a more permanent settlement of the question. With regard to the inquiry first proposed, Lord Derby thought it advisable, before any official communication should be addressed to the United States' Government, to ascertain whether the Government of tlie Dominion wished the continuance of the status quo to apply to Article XXX of the Treaty of Washington as well as to the Fishery Articles. With this view his Lordship has placed himself in communication with the Governor-General of the Dominion ; and I am to inclose, for Lord Granville's information, copies of the telegrams which have passed uj)on tlie subject. Lord Derby would be glad to receive any observations in regard to the views of the Dominion Government expressed in these telegrams which may occur to Lord Granville. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BEAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. 9. The Earl of Derby to the Marquis of Lansdowne. (Telegraphic.) Downing Street, February 3, 1885. YOUR despatch 26th December. Her Majesty's Government desire to be informed by telegraph to what <'xtent do (Canadian Governmtmt wish jjrovisions of Treaty remain in statu (/no. Have they any ol)jection to proposing to United States' Government that the whole Treaty should continue in operation till 1st January next? Inclosure 2 in No. 9. The Marquis of Lansdowne to the Earl of Derby. (Telegraphic.) February 5, 1885. CANADIAN Government understand that notice of the termination of Fisheries Clauses only includes the clauses giving American access to our waters and the clauses admitting flsh free of duty. We are prepared to extend both till January next, but I am informed privately by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington that the United States' Secretary has intimated to him that, at this late date, such an arrangement is deemed impracticable. Inclosure 3 in No. 9. The Earl of Derby to the Marquis of Lnnsdownf. (Telegraphic.) Downing Street, February 6, 1885. WITH reference to your telotfram of the 6th instnnt, Notice relates to Articles XVIII to XXV and Article XXX. Would your Government desire that formal application should bo made to United States' Government for extension until 1st January of all those Articles ? Inclosure 1 in No. 0. The Marquis of Lansdowne to the Earl of Derby, (Telegraphic.) February 7, 1885. IN reply to your telesfram of the 6th, we are reudj to extend till January Article XXX, as well as Fishery Articles. Exttmsion Articles XXII to XXV would not be necessary, as question of further payment would not be raised. As Article XXX has no connection with Fishery question, wo slumld asjfree to its indefinite extension. Alter West's statement to me, wo are of opinion tliat, until after the change of Govern- ment, any formal proposal to the American Government should bo postponed. No. 10. Mr. Brnmston to Sir J. Pauncefote, — (Received February 25.) Sir, Downing Street, February 24, 1885. I AM directed by the Earl of Derby to transmit to you, for the consideration of Earl Granville, in connection with the telegraphic correspondence which Avas inclosed in the letter from this Department of the 13th instant, a copy of a despatch from the Governor of Canada, with its inolosures, relating to the proposal for the extension of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington to the 1st Januarjr, 1886. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTGN. Inclosure 1 in No. 10. The Marquis of Lansdowne to tat Earl of Derby. My Tiord, Government House, Ottawa, February 4, 1885. WITH reference to your Lordship's telegram ol" this day's date, and U^ paragraph 7 in my despatcl* of the 2f)th December, in whicii \ stated " that should such a course be acceptoi.lo to the Government of the United Stiites wo shall be prepared to agree to an extension of the operation of the clauses in regard both to ' free fishing ' and to 'free fish ' until the 1st January, 1HH6," I have the honour to inform your Lordship that I iiavo received a private letter from Mr. West, inclosing copy of a letter which he has received from the Secretary of State for the United States, in which Mr. Frelinghuysen advises him that after consultation with leading Senators he has com.', to Ihc conclusion that it would bo impossibUs under present circumstances, to carry out the suggestion that the operation of the Fishery Clau';es of the Treaty of Washington should be extended until the Ist January, 1886. 2. Mr. Frelinghuysen suggests that a Presidential Proclamation should be issued notifying the expimtion of the Treaty on the 1st July, and the withdrawal after that date c** the privilege of fishing in Canadian waters hitherto enjoyed by American fishermen, I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. 8 Inolosure 2 in No. 10. Mr. West to the Marquit of Lansdowne. Dear Lord Lansdowne. Washington, January 25, 1886. WITH reference to my letter of the 3rd instant, I now inclose copy of a communi- cation from the Secretary of State respcctinf!^ the postponement of the termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington. Very truly, &o. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Incloiure 3 in No. 10. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. West. Dear Mr. West, Department of State, Washington, January 20, 1886. WITH reference to your note of the 3rd ni.tant, proposing a postponement of the termination of the Fishery Articles of tlie Treaty of Washington of 1871 until tho Ist January, 1886, 1 have now to inform you that aftiT consultation upon the nuhject with leading Senators it is deemed impracticable at this late day to carry out your suggestions. It is believed, however, that by a Presidential Proclamation issued now to the effect that the Fishery Articles of tho Treaty will oxi)irc on the 1st July next, and that none of the privileges secured by that Treaty will any longer exist, and that American fishermen are warnod to govern themselves accordingly, and to keep outside of the jurisdictional line of Her Majesty's te;Titories, much o2 the trouble which you anticipate will be avoided. Yours, &c. (Signed) FREDK. T. FRELINGHUYSEN. No. 11. Mr. Lowell to Earl Granville. — (Received March 5.) My Lord, Legation of the United Slates, London, March 3, 1885. I HAVE the honour to acquaint you that I have ireceived to-day a number of copies of the President's Proclamation of the 31st January last, giving notice that certain Articles of the Treaty of Washington of the 8th May, 1871, will terminate on the 1st July next; and I beg leave, in compliance with my instructions, to commu- nicate three copies of ti-is Proclamation informally to Her Britannic Majesty's Government. I have, &c. (Signed) J. R. LOWELL. Inclosurc in No. 11. By the President of the United States of America. A Proclamation. WHEREAS the Treaty concluded between tho United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of Great lirilain and Ireland, concludv-d at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871, conta'ns among other Articles tho loMowing, viz. : — "ARTICLE XVIII. •• It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties tliat, in addition to the liberty secured to the United States' fishermen by tb'i Convention between the United States and Great Britain signed at London on the 20th day of October, 18ia4_olJaliiAg, curing^, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies t&rem defined, the inhahitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for tho term of years mentioned in LE WEST. Article XXXIII of this Treatv, to take flsh of every kind, except shell-flsh, on the l._ ooaste and shorcH, and in the bays, harbours, and creeks, of the Frovinoes of Quebec, No'v •> Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, withouc being restricted to any distance from the shore, witli permission to laud upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Migdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish ; provided that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their ocoupancy for tlio same purpose. " It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea fishery, nnd that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other flslieries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen. mUYSEN. LOWELL. •♦ARTICLE XIX. " I* is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that British subiects shall have, in common Avitli the citizens of the United States, the liberty, for the term of years mcntioiitxl in Article XXXIII of this Treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell- fish, oil the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 39th })arnllel of nortli latitude, and on the shores of tlie 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 jrarmission to land upon the said coasts of tlie United States and of the islands aforesaid, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish ; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rigiits of private property, or with the fisher- men of the United States in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their tKJcupancy for the same purpose. " It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea fishery, and that salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively ^jr fishermen of the United States. "ARTICLE XX. " It is agreed that the places designated by the Commissioners appointed under the Ist Article of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain concluded at Washington on the 5th June, 1854, upon the coasts of Her Britannic Majesty's dominions and the United States as places reserved from the common right of fishing under that 'I'reaty, shall be regarded as in like manner reserved from the common right of fishing under the preceding Articles. In case any question should arise lictween the (governments of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty as to the common right of fishing in places not thus designated as reserved, it is agreed that n Commission shall be appointed to designate such places, and shall be constituted in th(! same manner, and have tlie same powers, duties, and authority, as the Commission ajjpoiuted under said Ist Article of the Treaty of the 5th June, 1854(. "ARTICLE XXI. " It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty, fish-oil and fish of all kinds (except fish of the inland lakes and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of the fisheries of tlio United States, or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward's Island, shall bo admitted into each country respectively free of duty. "ARTICLE 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 arc of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this Treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall bo appointed to determine (having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this IVeaty) the amount of any compensation which, in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in return for the priviloges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this Treaty ; and that any sum of money which the said Commissioners may [84] C ^ 80 Kwttti shall be paid hy «he United States' Oorenunent, in a gron ram. within twdrs nMmthi after such Awoid shall have been giren. "ARTICLE XXITT. " The Commissioners referred in in the preceding Article shall be appointed in the following manner, that is to say : One Commissioner ihall lo named by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and a third by the President of the Unit»)(l States and Her Bntonnic Majos^v conjointly ; and in case the third Commissioner slmll not have been so named within a prriod of throe months from the date when tliis Article shall take olTect, then the third Commissioner shall be named by the Representative at Loudon of His Majesty the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. In case of the death, absence, or incapacity of any Commissioner, or in the event of any Commissioner omitting or ceasing to act, the vacancjy shall be flUed in the manner hereinbefore provided for making the original appoirtment, tlie period of three months in case of s'ach substitution being calculated from the date of the happening of the vacancy. " The Commissioners so named shall meet in the city of Halifax, in tho Province of Nova Scotia, at the earliest coi.vonieri period after they ha 'o been respectively named ; and slmll, before proceeding to any business, make and subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and carefully examine and decide thu matters referred to them to the best of their judgment, and according to justice and equity; and such declaration shall be entered om the records of their proceedings. " Each of the High Contracting Parties shaU also name one person to attend tho Commission as its Ag'cnt, to represent it genenJly in all mutters connected with the Commission. "ARTICLE XXIV. "The proceedings shall be conducted in such order as the Commissioners appointed under Articles XXII and XXIII 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-exanv lation, under such rides as tho Comraissionors shall proscribe. " If in the case submitted tc the Commissioners either party shall h.-wo specified or alluded to any Report or docume.it in its oAvn exclusive possession, without annexing a copy, such Party shall be bound, if the other Party thinks pro; er to apply for it, to famish that Party with a copy thereof ; and either Party may call upon the other, through the Commissioners, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance such reasonable notice as the Com- missioners may require. " The case on either side sli(ill be closed within a jjeriod of six months from tho date of the organization of the Commission, and the Commissioners shall lie requested to give their award as soon as possible thereafter. The aforesaid period of six months may be extended for threo months in cane of a vacancy occurring among the Commissioners under the circumstances contemplated in Article XX III of this Treaty. "ARTICLE XXV. " The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record and correct minutes or notes of all their proceedings, with the dates thereof, and may appoint and employ a .Secretary and any other necessary officer or officers to assist them in the transaction of the business which may come before them. "Each of the High ContractiDj? Parties shall ])ay its own Commissioner and Agent or counsel ; all other expenses shall be defrayed by the two (Joveruments in equal moieties." "ARTICLE XXX. "It is agreed that, for tlu; term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII o* this Treaty, subjects of Her Britannic Majesty may carry in British vessels, without payment of duty, goods, wares, or mercluindize from one port or place wit In the territory of the United States upon the St. I^awTcnce, tho Great Lakes, end the rivers connecting the same, to another port or plaet; within the territory ol' the United States as aforesaid : Provided, 'I'hat a portion of such transportation' is nt a portion of such transportation is made through t^>o territory of the Fr.'ted 8tat( s by land carriage and iu bond, imder such rules and regulations as may bo agreed upon between the Govommoni of *' ,e United States and the Govcniincnt of Her Britannic Majesty. *' The (iovernmont of the United h!tate8 further engage not to impose any export duties on goods, wares, or merchandize carried under this Article through the territory of the United States ; and Her Majesty's Government engage to urge the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada and the Legislatures of the other Colonies not to impose any export duties on goods, wares, or merchandize carried under this Article; and the Government of the TTnit(Hl States may, in 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 favout of the subjects of Her Britannic M.ijosty. "The (iovcrnracnt oj the United States may l spend the right of carrying granted in favour of the subj(>ct8 of Her Britannic Majesty 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 XXVII." "ARTICJ-E XXXII. " It is further agreed that the provisions and stipulations of Articles XVIII to XXV of this Treaty, inclusive, ahall extend to the Colony of Newfoundland, so far as they ai-o applicable. But if the Imperial I'arliament, the Legislature of Newfoundland, or the Congress of *^ho United Stat«;s 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 <>iV('(!t; but the omission to make provision by law to give it effect by oitlier of the legislative bodies aforesaid shall not in any way impair any other Articles of this Treaty." And whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Articb, XXXIII of said Treaty, due notif e has been given to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty of the intention of the Government of the United States of America to terminate the above-recited Artiobib of the Treaty in question on the 1st day of July, 1885 ; And wlicreas, pursuant to the terms of said Treaty, and of the notic(5 given thereunder by the (j.)vernment of the United States of America to that of Her Britannic IMajesty, tlip al)ove-rrcitod Articles of the Treaty of Washington, concluded 8th May, 1871, Avill expire and terminate on the 1st day of July, 1885; Now, therefoKj, I, Chester A. Arthur, President of the United States of America, do herebv give ].ublic notice that Articles XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXX, and XXXII of the Treaty of Washington, concluded 8th May, 1871, will expire and terminate on the 1st 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 vnll exist after the 1st day of July next ; all American lisherraen should govern themselves accordingly. Done at the city of Washington, this 31st day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousa»id eight hundred and eighty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninth. (Seal) CHESTER A. ARTHUR. By the President : (Signed) FnEWK. T. FuELiNGnuvsEN, Secretary of State. [84] 2 No. IJ. Mr. Bramiton to Sir J. Pametfote. — {Received March 9.) Sir, Downing Street, Afarch 7, 1888. WITII roferenoo to tho letter from this Department of < '3th ultimo, I nm diiectwl l)y the Earl of Derby to transmit to you, to bo laid bcl 'arl Granville, a copy of a'despatcii from the Oovornor-Genoral of Canada in o. ition with tho question of the temporary ( xtension of those clauses in the Treaty of Washington which are affected by tho notice j^iven by the Government of the United States. I am at tho same time to transmit copies of despatches from Lord Lansdowne, containing the substance of the two telt^^rams from himself, copies of which accompanied the letter above referred w. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosurc 1 in No. 12. The Marquis of Lansdowne to the Earl of Derby. My Lord, Government House, Ottatra, February 9, 1885. I HAD tho honour to aend to your Lordship, on Ibo Ith instant, a m(!ssago in which I stated, in reply to your Ix)rdship'8 telegram of tho same date, that it was understood by us that the notice terminati's the Fisheries Clauses only of tho Treaty, including those clauses by wliich access to our wati'rs is given to the ^Vmerican fishermen, and also tho clauses which admit fish into the United States free of duly. I added that we were willing to have both extended till tho Ist January, 188(5, but that I had been privately informed by Mr. West that the United States' Secretary of State bad intimated to him that this arrangement at this late date was thought to be impracticable. I have, «Sjc. . (Signed) LANSDOWNE. Inclosure 2 in No. 12. The Marquis of Lansdovme to the Earl of Derby. My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, February 10, 1885. X HAD the honour to send to your Lordship on the 7th instant a message acknowledging your Lordship's telegram of the 6th instant, and stating that wc are prepared to extend Article XXX as well as the Fkihery Clauses till Januarj-. I also stated that it will not be necessary to extend Articles XXII to XXV, as tlie question of further payment would not be brought forward ; that we should agree to the indefinite extension of Article XXX inasmuch as it has no bearing upon tho Fishery question ; and that after Mr. West's statement to me we are of opinion that until after the change of Government any formal proposition to tho United States' Government should be postponed. I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. Inclosure 3 in No. 12. The Marquis of Lansdowne to the Earl of Derby. My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, February 10, 1885. I HAVE tbe honour to make the following observations with reference to my telegram of the 7tu iastant, upon the subject of the temporary extension of those clauses in tlie Ti-eaty of Washington of the termination of which notice has been given ty the Government of tho United States. 2. The Articles affected by the notice in question are, as jour Lordship pointed It out, No*. XVIII to XXV inolaiire, and No. XXX. Of theM, XVIII to XXI inoluairo Imvo refnronoc to the conditiona under which the Oontraoting Fsrtiei are to br admitted to the territorial watcn and coastii of either country, and to the admiuion into oaoh country free of duty of the flsli and fiah products of the other. It in agninat these clnuacs that the ateps taken by the Qovernment of Washington liavc, it ia undoratood, been aperially directed. !l. Articl<>s XXII to XXV, incluaivc, rttlato to the arrangemcnta for the Arbitra- tion held at Ilalifax aubacquont to tiie concluaion of the Treaty. Aa in the event o2 n ti^mpornry uxtnnaion of Artidlca XVIII to XXI until the lat January, 188(5, my (lovcrnmont would not raiae tlio queatioii of nny payment in addition to that already mado un'U-r the Ilalifax Award, in oonaidoration of the prolongation of the time during which Anioricnn fishprraftn would have the privilege of acceas to Couadiau waters, the renewal of ArticU^a XXII to XXV would Iw without eflect. 't. Article XXX, which is nlao ofTccted by the notice, baa reference to an entirely diatinct aubjoct, vis., the relaxation under certain circumatances of the Couating J^awa of the two countrica. Under thia Article a Canadian veaael can, e.g., carry a cargo from Chicago to Oawogo on Lake Ontario, notwithstanding the Coasting Laws of the United Statea, a portion of such cargo being convoyed in 1)ond, over the Welland Kailway, which connects Lakes Erie and Ontario. Such a vessel would land part of her cargo at the Erie Terminus of the Welland Ilailway, ao aa to enable her to pasa through the Welland Canal, and would wishlp the landed cargo at the Ontario Terminus. 6. My (iovornment would bo glad to have the operation of this clause, which has no relation whatever to the Piahorv question, continued, and aa I stated in my tele- gram to your Lordship, such a contmuation might be for an indefinite time. 6. They are, however, of opinion that, considering Mr. West's intimation to me, of the nature of which your Lordship is already aware, it would probably not be desirable to make any formal [proposal in regard to these matters until after the accession of President Cleveland\s Administration. I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. No. 18. Earl Granville to Mr. West. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, April 20, 1885, 6-15 p.m. ASK. United States' Government whether they will agree to prolong the operation of Articles XVIII, XIX. XX, XXI, and XXX of the Treaty of Washington from Ist .July to 1st .January, 1880. This proposal is made to afford time to negotiate more permnnont settlement of Fishery question. If United States' Government agree. Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to commence negotiations at once. No. 14. Mr. IVest to the Marquis of Salisbury.* — (^Received July 10.) My Lord, Washington, June 29, 1885. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of the notice, and of the correspondence which has been published in relation to the temporary arrange- ment which has been entered into between ller Majesty's Government and the Govern- ment of the United States in consequence of the expiration of the Fishery Articles ol the Treaty of Washiugtou on the Ist July next. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Copy to Colonial Office, July II, 1885. 14 larloflure in No. 14. Agreement between the United Statei awl Great Rritain renpeeting the Fluheriet, eoncludtd June 22. Ift86. Ifotice BY dinvtinn of tho I'mnidont, tho Un(l«Tsi>n«Hl, Rocn»tary of Sfnt<', liorf'l>y nmkeii known to all whom it inny concern, tliiit a l('ni|»oniry Diplomatic AKni-incnt lias hcon ent^'it'd into Mw««n tlic (i(»vcminont of tim United Htati'M and tlic (iovcninicnt of Her Uritannio tla.,csty, in relation to the fishinK priviiei^'n which wor<> i^ranted by tho Fishery Clnuf-.'S of tlic Treaty U'tween the I'nitc'd Htntes and (Jreat Uritaiii of tho 8tli May, 1871, Mlierehy the j)riviieu;o of llshinf?, which would otherwise li:iv(; termi- nated with the 'IVeaty (Mmhscs on the 1st iluly proximo, may continue to he enjoy(>d by tho citizens and Huhjectsof the two countries en}d in terms the Vet of the Ist March, 1873, for the executioti of the fishing Articles, and that re|)eal lieins? express and absolute from the date of the lenniiiation of the said Fishini: Articles, under due notitication «;iven and ])roclaimed by the President of the United Stales, to wit, the Ist July, 1885, the jiresent temporary Agreement in mo way atfccts tiie question of st;itutory enactment or cxenipliDii from eudtoms duties, ns to which the abroLratioii of the J-'ishinaj Articles rentaiiis comj)lete. As part of this Ai,'reement, the I'resident will brintf the whole (lue'jtioii of tho fisheries before Cont;ress at its next Session in Dceend)er, and recommend the .iiiiMiint- ment of a Joint Commission by the Governments of the United Stal<'s niid (ireat Britain to consider the matter, in the interest of nlaintainin^' jjfxxl neiijhhourliKod ;ind friendly intercourse between the two countries, thus alVordinir a ])rospect of neirotiation for the development and extension of trade betwcn-n th<> I'niled States and British North America. Copies of the Memoranda and exchanged notes on which this temporary Atfree- ment rests are appended. Reference is also made to the President's Proclamation of the 31sl January, 1S85, terrainatiiii? the Fishiiii: Articles of the Treaty of Washington. By direction of th l''iHht>rio» Momomndiim whicli acootnpaiiiiHl your pcrNoiial letter of the 12tli Marcli. Ncvcral liiforiiml tnlks I Imvn liml with Sir AmbroHc Shea havo cnahlcd mo to foriniiliitr till- views of tliis (Jovcrnmont upon tlu* proposititm madu in luihair of the Dominion nnd tii»i I'rovintH' of Newfoundland, and I take pleasure in handing you herewitii a MenKinuidum embodying the rnsultH. If this HiiitH, I sliall bo happy to contirm tlic !irr.in{jf the effects of the Fishery Articles of tlu; Treaty of Wnshington al)solutely determine, so far as their (»xeeution within tho jiirisdiction of the United States is eoneerned, and without new legislation hy Congress modifying or postponing that repeal, the Fxeentivo is not constitutionally competent to oxtond the reeipiocal llslierics provisions of tho Treaty buyoml tho 1st July noxt, tho dato fixed hy the action of Congress. Mr. West's Memorandum of tlu; 12th March, 188.1, suggests tho mutual practical convei'i(>ni(> that would accrue fnmi allowing the tishing ventures commenced prior to the 1st July, iss.'t, to continu(> until tho I'lid of the season for tishing of that year, thus ])reventing their abrupt termination in tho midst of liHliing operations on the 1st July. It has been, moreover, suggested on the part of the Province of Newfoundland anil of the Dominion of Canada that, in view of tlu; mutual henelit and c()nv(>nienco of till- present local tniflic, (consisting of the purchase of ice, bait, Avodd. and general ship supplies hy the citizens of the United States engaged ii\ fishing from the inhaliittints of tlie British American lishini: <'oast, the usual oper.ations of the fiyhing season of ISS,") slioiihl be continued by flic llsliing-vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States until the end of the season of that year, and that tho local aulliorities ol" Newfoundland and of the Dominiim of Canada, in a spirit of amity and good neiglihoiirhood, should abstain from molesting sucli lishern\en or iinpedini,' their |)roLri'ess or tlieir loi-al trafhe with the inhaliitants incidental to lisliing during the remainder of lli" season of IHHo.andall this with the undei-standing that the J'rcsident of t In; United States would bring the whole (juestion of the lisheries b(>fore Congress at the ne\i Session in December, and recommend the appointment of a Commission in wliieli the (Invernnients of the United States and of (Jreat Britain should be respectively repres(»nted, which Conunission should be charged with the considemtion and s(>ttlenieiit, upon a just, equitiible, and honourable l)asis, oftlie entire question of the lisliiiig rights of the two (iovernmenls and their respective citizens on the coasts of the Inited Stat<'s and British North America. The I'resident of tlu; United States would be ])repared to recommend the adoption of such a<'tion by Congress, with the understanding that, in view and in consideration of such promised recoinmendation, ther(> wouhl b(> no enforeenu'nt of restrictive and penal laws iind rei^ulations by the authorities of the Dominion of Canada or of the I'rovinee iif iSewfoundinnd against the lishermcn of tho United States resorting to British American waters l)etwcen the 1st July next and the close of the pn^sent year's tishing season; the mutual object and intent being to avoid any annoyance to tho individuals en;;ai;ed in this business and tratllc, and the irritation or ill-feeling that might bt; engendered by a harsh or vexatious enforcement of stringent local regula- tions on the lishing coast pending an eti'ort to have a just and amicable arrangement of an important and somewhat delicate question between the two nations. I'uhlic knowledge of this undcr.standing and arrangement can bo given by an exchange; of notes between Mr. West and myself, which can be given to the press. April 21, 1885. 16 (8.) iMr. West's Memoranda of June 13, 1885. It is proposed to state in notes recording: temporuiy arrangement respecting lishtu-ios. tlint an A«i'<'oinent has lieen arrived at under circumstances affording prospect of ntorotiation fur dt'volopnieut and extension of trade between the United iStates and BiiUsh Nortli Aniorioa. The Government of Newfoundland do not make refunding of duties a condition of their acceptance of Iho proposed Agreement, but they rely on it having due considem- tion before the International Commission which may l)o appointed. (4.) Mr. Bayard to Mr. West, My dear Mr. "West, Department of State, Washinaton, June 19, 1885. I assume that the two confidential Memoranda you handed to me on the 13th instant embmce the aeoeptance by the Dominion and the British American coast provinces of tlie general features of my Memorandnm of the 2l8t April, (joncorning a temporary arrangement resjiecting the fisheries, with \c understanding (>xpresscd on their side that th(> *' 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." To such a eoutiugent understanding I can have no objection. Indeed, I regard it as covered by the statement in my Memorandum of the 21st April, that the arrange- ment therein contemplated would be reached " with the understanding that the President of the Ti^^nitiHl States would bring the whole question of the fisheries before Congress at its next Session in December, and recommend the appointment of a Com- mission in which the Governments 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 (rovernments and their respective citizens on the coasts of the lirlted States and British North America." 'riio ecjuities of the question, being before such a Mixed Commission, would doubtless have the fullest latitude of expression and treatment on both sides ; and the put pose 'i view being the maintenance ot good neighbourliood and intercourse between \,..e two countries, the recommendation of any measures which the Com- n '.ssion might de nn nee(>ssary to attain these ends would seera to fall within its province, and sucli nn'oiiunendations could not fail to receive attentive consideration. I am not, ther«'fon\ prepared to state limits to the proj)osals to be brouglit forward in the suggested Conimissiou on behalf of either party. I believe this statement will be s-atisfactory to you, and I shall be pleased to be informed at tlit» earliest day practie;i ble of your acceptance of the understanding on behalf of Ikitish North America ; and by this simple exchange of notes and Memoranda the AgiTemeut will be completed in season to enable the President to make the resiUt publicly known to the citizens engaged in the fishing on the British American Atlantic i-oast. (Signed) ' T.' F. BAYARD. (5.) Mr. West to Mr. Bayard. My dear Mr. Bayard, I bcff to acknowledge the WasMngton, June 20, 1885. confidential note of yesterday's --':. ; "-," — receipt of your v.„....„^..v.„. ^.,,^ y,, ^csicmjiy s date concerning tlie projKjsed temporary arrangement respecting the fisheries, which I am authorizeil by II or Majesty s Government to negotiate with you, on behalf of the Government of tlie Dominion of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland, to bo effected by an exchange of notes founded on your Memorandum of the 21st April last. 17 The two confidential Memoranda which I handed to you on the 18th instant contain, as you assume, the aooeptance by the Dominion and by the Bntish American coast provinces of the general features of your above-mentioned Memorandum, with the understanding expressed on their side that tlie agreement has been arrived at under circumstances affording pi-ospect of negotiation for tlie development and extension 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 Memorandum of the 21st April. In authorizing me to negotiate tliis agreement, Earl Granville states, as I have already had occasion to intimate to you, that it is on the distinct understanding that it is a temporary one, and that its conclusion must not bo held to prejudice any claim which may be advanced to more satisfactory equivalents by the Colonial Governments, in the course of the negotiation for a more permanent settlement. Earl Granville further wishes me to tell you that Her Majesty Government and the Colonial Govern- ments have consented to the arrangement solely as a mark of good-will to the 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 a Ashing season, and also that the acceptance oF such a modus vivcndi does not by any implication affect the value of the inshore fisheries by the Governments of Canada and New- foundland. I 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 this respect, would be mutual. As you accepted this view, it would, I think, be as well that mention should be made to this effect in tlie notes. Under the reservations as above indicated, in which I believe you acquiesce, I am prepared to accept the understanding on behalf of British North America, and to exchange notes in the above sense. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. BAYARD. (6.) Mr. Bayard to Mr. West. Sir, Department of State, Washington, June 20, 1883. I have just received your note of to-day's date in regard to the proposed temporary arrangement regarding the fisheries. Undoubtedly it is our clear and mutual understanding that the arrangement now made is only temporary, and that it proceeds from tlie mutual good-will of our respective Governments, and solely to avoid all difficulties which might otherwise arise from the termination of tiic fishing of 1885 in the midst of the season. I undei-stand also that the same inimunitv wliich is accorded by this agreement to the vessels belonging to the citizens of the United Stiites engaged in fishing in the British American waters will be cytended to British vessels and subjects engaged in fishing in the waters of the United States. Perceiving, therefore, no substantial difl'erenec Ijetween our respective propositions and tliese statements as contained in our correspondence oii the subject, I shall consider the agreement JUt embodied in our ^leinoranda and the correspondence between us, and as thus concluded, and public notification to that cll'ect will bo given in a few days by the President. I have, &c. (Signed) T. P. BAYARD. (7.) Mr. Bayard to Mr. West. Sir, Department of Stiile, Waslumjton, June 22, 1885. In compliance with your verbal request of "this morning that I should restate part of my note to you of the 19th, I repeat that the arrangement whereby a ''^'r.'~^Wyr^ 7'7^:rr^ ' ^'j< It rnothu vivtndi on the fishing quwtion has be«h reftehed reits oil fch« Memoranda and correspondence exchanged ; that your Memorandum of the 18th instant expressed the understanding on your side that the "agreement has heen atrired at under circumstances affording prospect of negotiation for development and extension of trade between the United and Jiritish North America;" that I not only had no objection to such an undenitanding, but, in fact, regarded it as amply embraced m our proposal to recommend a Commission to deal with the whole subject in the interest of good neiglibourhood and intercourse 5 and that the recommendation of any measures which the Commission might deem necessary to attain those ends would seem to fall within its province, and such rocommondntions could not fail to hare attentive consideration. Having thus not only admitted the proviso of your Memomudum m your own language, but gone still further, and pointed out that no limits would be act, so far as I was concerned, to the proposals to be Ijroiigbt forward in the suggested Commission, on behalf of eitlicr party, I do not see how it is ])os8iblo for me to give any stronger assurance that the understanding lias " been reached under circumstances att'ording a prospect of negotiation for tlie develoi)raent and extension of trade between the United States and British America." I have, &o. (Signed) T. F. BAYAED. (8.) Mr, Wei,t to Mr. Bayard. Sir, Waithington, June 22, 1885. I have the lionour to aclcnoA^ le^gc the receipt of your notes of the 20tli and 22nd instant in regard to the projiosed temporary arrans^ement toucliintf the fislieries, in Avhich you state that it is our clear and mutual uudcrstanding that such arrange- ment is only temporary, and that it. Droceeds from mutual good-will of our respective Governments, and solely to avoid all difficulties which mi^lit otherwise arise from the termination of the ttshing of 1885 in the midst of the season. Also that the same immunity which is accorded by this agreement to the vessels belonging to the citizens of the United Stiites engaged in flshing in the IhiLish American waters will be extended to British vessels and subjects engaged in ILsliing in the waters of the United States, and that the agreement has been reached imder (urcumstances afTording a prospect of negotiation for the development and extension of trade between the United States and British North ^Vmc'rica. As, therefore, there exists no substantial ditt'erence l)etween our respecti\t! propo- sitions and tlie statements as contained in our correspondence on tin; subject, I shall CMisider the agreement, as embodied in our ]\fispatches from the Governor- General of Canada and from the Officer admiuislering the Government of Newfound- land upon this subject. I am, &c. (Signed) R. H. MEADE. Inelosure 1 in No. 20. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Colonel Stanley. • gir Government Uoudc, Ottawa, September 4, 1885. WITH reference to yoiu* dospatoh of the 11th ultimo, exjn-ossing the desire of Her Majesty's Government that my Govornmont and that of Newfoundland should take steps towards defiuin!:: the exact nature of tlic proposals to be made to the Govern- ment of the United States in anticipation of the nc-gotiations which are contemplated 1 1 view of the termination of the temporary arrangement recently concluded respecting the fisheries, I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved B«port of a Committee of the Privy Council, from which it will ho seen that communications will at once he opened with the Government of Newfoundland in order to secure a discussion of the whole question between the two tiovernments. I have to-day communicated by cable with the Governor of Newfoundland in this matter. I have, &c. (SigncHl) LANSDOWNE. Inelosure 2 in No. 20. Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the >ir need from Canada must be obtained at the additional expense of the duties, which tliO eimsiimer must pay. The duties, being specific, bear very heavily on the eheuper grides of fish, amounting in many cases to from 50 per cent, to 100 per cent, on tii(» original cost, and resulting in a prohibition of imports or a very largely enhanced cost to the consumer. The people wiio will gain anything by the 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 the argument that the fisheries furnish a training school for our navy, were long since exploded by the fact that a very large proportion of the men who lish in American vessels are citizens of the Britisn ])rovinces. Hordes of them come here every spring, man our vessels for the fishing season, and return l>nm(\ when If is' over. It is estimated that from 50 per cent, to 75 per cenl. of the liieii iifTbe Gloucester 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 is acknowleilised that without them we would 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 wc should be taxed for their supjiort, or that a low owners of fishing-vessels should reap an advantage obtainiMi at the expense of the great body of consumers of fish in all parts of the country ? As dealers in lish, handling large quantities of the products of the sea, we feel that our intei-ests are identical with yours in demanding that there should be no duties on articles of food which um consumed so largely by people of moderate means. Questions of a lar"er nature, involving luatters of international importance, make it probable that the subject of reciprocity with Canada will come before Congress at its next Strssion. NVe ;isk of you that you will use your best efforts to impress upon your SiMiators and Representatives that they should vote upon this question in ac(H)rdanei< with your interests and with the interests of a large majority of the people of the country. Respectfully yours (Signed) WILLIAM E. JONES, C. W. WRIGHTINGTON, EDWARD T. RUSSELL, L. PICKERT, B. P. DE BUTTS, Committee of the Boston Fish Bureau, 94 No. 28. Sir L. West lo the Marquis of Saliabury.--{Received December 1 2.) (Teleprraphic.) Wanhington, December 11, 1885, 11-40 P.M. FISHERY Articles. Text of passnpo in Prcsidont's Messngo :— "In the interest of pood nciphboiirhood and of the commercial iutercourso of adjacent commuuitics, the ([iiostion of th- North American Fisheries is one of much importance. Pollowinj^ out the intimation j^ivcn by mo when the extensory arrange- ment above described was negotiated, [ recommend that tlio Congress provide for the appointment of a Commission, in which the (rovernmcnts of the United States and Great Britain sliaH bn respectively n-prcxcnted, charged with the consideration and settlement upon a just, ('(juitablo, and honouniblo 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 Nortli America. The fishing interest being intimately related to other general questions dependent upon contiguity and intercourse, con- sideration thereof in r." i,Iieir equities might also properly come within the purview of such a Commission, and the fullest latitude of expression of both sides should bo permitted." No. 24. Mr. Bramslon to Sir J. Pauncefote. — [Received December 12.) Sir, Downing Street, December 11, 1885. WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting the contemplated negotia- tions with the Government of the United States arising out of the termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of "Wasliiugton, I am directed by Colonel Stanley to transmit to you, for the inibrmaticm of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing a Report of the Privy Council, proposing that the Government of Newfoundland should send a Delegation to Ottawa at an earh day for the purpose of conferring with the Government of the Dominion on the subject in question. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosurc 1 in No. 24. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Col Stanley. Sir, Government House, Ottawa, November 23, 1885. WITH reference to previous correspondence relating to the auticiputed negotiations on the termination of the temporary arrangement with the United States as to the fisheries, I have the honour to forward herewith, lor your information, a copy of an approved Report of a Committe(> of the Privy Council, expressing the desire of my Ministei-s that the Government of Newfoundland should si-nd a Delegation to Ottawa at an early day for the purpose of conferring with the Government of the Dominion on the subject in question. I have sent a copy of this Minute of Council to the Ollicer administering the Government of Newfoundland. I hav, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. Inclosurc 2 in No. 24. Report. THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated the 2l8t 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 a new Fisheries arrangement between the Uniterl States, Canada, and Newfoundland, and setting forth that in view of the number of the Executive Council of Newfoundland boing reduced to four memben, and the early approach of a general election, that Government did not feel itself in a position to senu a Delegate to Canada, or to offer any definite expression of the views of the Colony on the important subject in question, and requesting that any further proceedings on the part of the Dominion Government be deferred until the result of the approachiug election be determined, and intimating its desire to be favoured with the views of the Dominion Government. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch was referred, recommends that, in view of the important question to be considered and the wide range any discussion with reference thereto may take, the Government of Newfound- land be informed that the Dominion Government is of tlie opinion that the views of the respective Governments can bo much more satisfactorily exchanged by the Government of Newfoundland sending a Delesration to Ottawa for that purpose than by correspondence, and to express the hope that it may bo 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. The 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 yoia- Excellency's approval. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council, Canada. No. 26. Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Bramston. Sir, Foreign Office, December 14, 1885. I AM directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit to you a copy of a telegram from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, giving the exact text of that portion of the President's \lessage which relates to the appointment of a Commission to settle the Fisheries question ;* and I am to request that you will move Colonel Stanley to inform his Lordship whether he is of opinion that any, and if so what, communication should bo made to Sir L. West in relation thereto. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 26. Mr. Meade to Sir J. Pauncefote. — {deceived January 1, 1886.) Sir, Downing Street, December 31, 1885. I AM directed by Colonel Stanh^y to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, inclosing copy of a telegram from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, giving the text of that jjortion of the Message of the President of the United St^vtes which relates to the appointment of a Commission to settle the Fisheries question. Colonel Stanley is of opinion that Sir Lionel West should be instructed to express to Mr. Bayard the satisfaction with whicli Her Majesty's Govcmment have read that portion of the President's Message whieli referred to the lislieries, and their readiness to join in the appointment of the proposed Commission. Sir L. West might also suggest to Mr. Bayard at the same time the expediency of pressing matters to a conclusion as soon as pos^'l)le, inasmuch as the fishing, season will commence early in the spring. I am, &c. (Signed) R. H. MEADE. [84] • No. 23. 152869 E No. 27. The Marquis of SalUbury to Sir L. Wett, ait, foreign Office, January 5, 1886. I HAVE to request that you will express to the Government of the United States the satisfaction witii which Her Majesty's Government have observed the reference which is made in the President's Message to the Fisheries question, and to the appoint- ment of a Mixed Comniissiou to deal with it. It would be desirable for you to sufjgest that this matter should now be pressed to a conclusion as soon as possible, as tht; next fishing season commences early in the spring. I have instructed you to this effect by telegraph to-day. I am, &c. (Signed) SALISBURY. No. 28. Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.* — {Received January 29.) (Extract.) Washington, January 1(5, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inform your Lordship that I have duly expressed to the Secretary of State the satisfaction of ller ^lajesty's Government at the j)ara<;rai)h in the President's Mcssas^e in wiiieh allusion is made to the Fisheries qtieation, and the appointment of a Commission, as eoiweyed in your Lordship's telegram of the 5th instant, and that to-day I had an opportunity of ])ressini? upon him the necessity, in view of the approaching lishiug season, of urging the decision of Congress in the matter. No. 29. Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury. f — {Received February \.) My Lord, Washington, January 16, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship lierewitli eof)ics of a .Toint Resolution introduced into the House of Kepreseutatives for a renewal of commercial relations with the British possessions in North America, which has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure in No. 21). 49th Congress, 1st Session. — H. Res. '10. In xnE House of Rkpbesentativus. January 5, 1886. — Read twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed. MR. MAYBURY introduced the following Joint Resolution :— Joint Resolution for Renewal of Commercial Relations with the British Possessions in North America. Whereas the Reciprocity Treaty with Great Britain, regulating eoramereo and navigation between tlie United States* and the British Colonies of North America, was terminated ou the 17th March, a.d. 18(30, in virtue of previous notice given by the United States ; and • Copy to Colonial Office, February 1. t Copy to ColoDial Office, February 8. WhercM the prATlsiona of Bftid Treaty proriding for mutual rights in oertain aoa fltheriea, and fur tlie frco navigation of tlu; Great Tjakus, tho llivor Saint Lawrence, and tlio connis connoctcd therewith, were restored in 1871 hy tho IVeaty of Wa«hington, so called ; and Whorcaa tho ciroumHtaneeii under which tho notice of tho ahrogation of said Treaty of Reciprocity was made have l)een clmni^ed and moditted oy tirae, and unfettered trade and commereo hot ween the MritiHh posHeHsious in North America ^ud tho United States would now he reciprocally henetleiul.udvuutagoous, audsutisfautu/'y : therefore, Resolved hp tho Senate and House of RepreMcntativcH of the United States of America in CongresH nsMemhled, that this Congress would look with favour and approval upon any action taken hy the executive department of the Government tending to a renewal of commercial relations with tho British possessions in North America hy compact or Treaty, having in view the reciprocal interestH of both nations. No. 30. Sir L, West to the Marquis of Salubunj* — {Received February ].) (Extract.) Washington, January 20, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship jierewith the official Report of a dehato in the Senate on the Fisliories question wliieh took place on a Resolution to the effect that the Senate onglit not to sanction the appointment of a Commission as recommended hy the President.f Their chief arguments were — 1. That the Secretary of State had no right to enter into the temporary agree- ment without the consent of the Scjiiatc. 2. That the tish had, for some unex])lain('(l reason, left Canadian waters, and now resorted to Amerii-an Avaters, and that, tlierefore, American fishermen did not require tho renewal of lishing privileges Mliich had cost the country 5,500,000 dollars. This last argument was ahly comhated hy Senator Morgan, who said :— " Wo have found out, according to the statement of the Senator from Massa- chusscts (Senator Hoar), that the lish themselves, hy some now instinct, had commenced floating to our Massachussets shores, and, therefore, we found that it was convenient and proper for us to change the fundamental law hetween the United States and Great Britain on the suhjeot of the iislieries," " If that," he continued, "is not hringing tlie Government of the United States down upon its knees in an attitude of humiliation before the other nations of the world, I do not understand the suhject It turns out that the whole trouble is tliat the mackerel have changed the course of their run, and that we are now making a had bargain out of what was formerly a good one." Tho Resolution has, without further debate, been I'cferred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. On tho other hand, tlie llonsc Committee on Foreign Affairs have informally discussed the Fisheries cpiestion. "he general sentiment is said to have been that the whole svd)jeet of the relations of the United States with Canada should receive the careful consideration of Congress. No. 31. » Mr. Bramston to Sir J. Pauncefote. — (Received February 19.) Sir, Downim/ Street, February 18, 1886. I AM dirociv^d hy Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 3rd and ith iiistant relative to the North American Fisheries question, and to state that copies have been coninmnieated to the High Commissioner for Canada. A copy of your letter of the Ith insfc\ut, with its llrst iuelosure, has also been transmitted to tho Governor-General in a despatch for the information of his Ministers. * Copy to Colonial Office, February 4. [84] t Not printed. E 2 Lord OmnTillp \\m rend witli cnrfl the wport of tbo dobnte in the 8«n*t«, and Sir Liotml WcsI'm (lc's|mtcli, and lie (lc»irt>s to olFer tlio following ol)»orvatioM for tho Earl of ll(mt'l)ory'H (•(HiHidcriitinn. Tho Htatrinont tiiat the United Stntos' fishermen no longor nooil pemii»i«ion to flub in Canadian waters in consequence ol' tlie altered liahits of tiie mackerel, which now prefer ti.e New England coast, is conlldently made; hut it may ho douhtcd whether it can he exjiected to alVord much prospect of peace in Canadian waters during the approaching tiMhini; senson. It ia to Ih) noted that tiie (thjections expressed in the Senate to tho proposed Commission appear to he based, principally if not entirely, on tlshory oonsidcrations. The llesolution, however, introduced into ludh Houses, on behalf of tho United States' Government, was studiously framed so as to propose, not now fishery arrangements, but general arrani;enu'i\ts for commercial recipnx'ity ; and tho con- cluding words of Sir L. West's despatcli of the 2()th ultimo seem to indicate a belief that Congress may not be unwilling, after the Fishery question has been put aside, to consider the relations between Canada and the United htntes on broad and general grounds. The question is now becoming urgent ; for if, as must be anticipated notwith- standing the stntements and opinions of some Senators, even a moderate number of United States' vessels lit out for, and proceed lo, the Canadian llshinL;-i,'ruunds in April next, it will be necessary that ller Majesty's Government shoidd be fully prepared to ileal with the dillicultics that w ill Ix; created. It is understood that the Canadian (lovcrnnient is incliiu'd lo a (Irm and vigorous exclusion of United States' llshermeu from Canadian waters, ou the ground that thev have no right to ho there, and that the niaritinjc j)rovinccs of the Dominivernment nw considering tlio expediency of iwuing a reoiprooal notit'o with ivgiird to Brilisli tisliormou in American waters. I uui, &c. (Signed) L. 8. SAOKV^LLE WEST. Iiicl')suro 2 in No. 35. Mr. liafjard (o Sir L. West. Sir, Washington, March 23, 1886. I HAVE (l!t> honour to aiknowlodse the receipt of your note of tlic 19tb instant, wlicivhy you inlurin iii(> thai yen have lieen requested by the Earl of Kosebery to ascertiiiu "' whetlier it is intended to giro notiee to the United States' flsbermcn that they are i\()w pnvluded fnin\ tishiiii,' in l?ritisli North American territorial waters," and to inform you. in re^dy, that as full and formal public notification in the premises lias already been irivon Ity'the President's rroelaniatiou of the 31st January, 1885, it is not deemed necessary n'>w to n'peat it. The temporary arr«n!;enient made between us on tlio 22nd June, 1886, whereby certain tlshinij opcnitiDus on the respective coasts were not to be interfered with during the Jlshinij setison of 1SS.">, notwithsiandini? the abroj»ntion of the Fishery Articles of the Tiimty of V'tishintfton. came tn an end under its own expressed limitations on the ;Ust IVcet.ilier last, and the FisluMies qnestinn is now understood to rest on existing Treaties, pn>ciyn .".ny notitication that "they are now precluded from fisbins; in British North Americiui t«'rritorial waters." I have, &o. (8ij»ned) T. P. BAYARD. No. 3(». Mr. Bramsion to Sir J. Pauncefote. — {Recfived April 21.) Sir, ^ Downing Street, April 21, 18S6. WITH rofon^nce to prtn-ious C(irre8pondenci' respecting the termination of the Pishcry Arlicles of the Treaty of Washington, I am directed by th.e Secretary of State f(.r the Colonies to transmit to you, to be laid before the Secretary of State for Torcigii AtVairs, a eojiy of a despatch from the (iovernor-Gcncral of Canada, inclosing copii»!^ ^ I ii\structions to tish cry oHicci-s and of a "Warning 'notice, which have been issued h\ (he Dojuinion tiovenuneni, T am, &c. (Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. 36. 'dht Marquif of Lantdoune to Earl Grantille. My Lord, ^ Governmmt House, Ottaira, March 25, 1886. 1 HA\ E tlie honour to forward, for your liovdsbip's information, a copy of the instructions which have Ihhmi iR>ued by 'my Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the guidance of lishery otUcors and >'X-otlicii. magi>t rates in command of the vessels which will bo cmplojed for the protection of the inshon- fisheries of the Dominion, Tht^c instructions ar»' substantiallv the same as those which wore issued under similar cinnnnsianccs in \>10. Your l.onlship will observe that while the ollicers in command of the fisheries I>oliiH^ vi>s»ols art« riMjuiriHl to ta' e the n.vessary stoj« for strictly upholding the Treaty rights of the lX>miuiun. tbey are specially enjoined to carry out their insti a conciliatory spirit, and with forbearance" and discrimination. instructions u 8i I also inolose copy of "a Warning" notice which was puhlished in reference to the same subject by the Department of Tisherics.* I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNfi. Indosurc 2 in No. 30* Special Instructions to Fishery Officers, ex-officio Magistrales in command of Government Steamers and Vessels, engaged as Fisheries Police Vessels, in protecting the Inshore Fisheries of Canada. Sir, Ottawa, March 10, 1886. IN tlio perfoMiiance of tho specidl and important service to whicli you have been appointed you will bo guided by tho foUoM'ing instructions. Tor convenience of reference, tlieso have boon divided under the difTevcut lieadiugs of Powers, Jurisdiction, Duties, and General Directions. The powers with wliicli you arc invested arc derived from, and to be exercised in accordance with, the following Statutes among otiiers : — " The Fisheries Act " (31 Vic, cap. 60, of Canada); "An Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels" (31 Vie,, cap. 61, of Canada), and tbe subsequent Statute entitled : "An Act to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," made and passed the 12th May, 1870 (33 Vic., cajy. 15, of Canada) ; also an "Act to fmlhtr amend the said Act" (34 Vic, cap. 23, of Canada). "Chapter 04 of the Revised Statutes (third series) of Nova Scotia" (of the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries), amended by the Act entitled "An Act to amend cap. 94 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia" (20 Vic, cap. 35). An Act passed by the Legislature of the Province of New Uruuswick entitled " An Act relating to the Coast Fisheries and for the prevention of Illicit Trade " (16 Vic, cap. 69). Also an Act passed by the Legislature of Prince ^Idward Island (0 Vic, cap. 14), entitled "An Act relating to the Fisheries and for tho prevention of Illicit Trade in Prince Edward Island, and the Coasts and Harbours thereof." Also from such Regulations as have been passed, or may be passed, by the Governor-General in Council, or from instructions from the Department of Fisheries, under "The Fisheries Act" hereinbefore cited. As Fishery Ofliecr you have fidl authority to compel the observance of the requirements of the Fisheries Acts and Regulations by foreign ilshing-vessels and fishermen in those parts of tho coasts of Canada to whieli, by the Convention of 1818, they are admitted to privileges of taking or drying and curing fish coueurrent with those enjoyed by British fishing-vessels and llshermen. You will receive instructions from the Customs Department authoriiiiug you to act as an officer of the Customs, and in that capacity you are to see that tho Uevenue Laws and Regidations arc duly observed. Your jurisdiction with respect to any action you may take against foreign lishing* vessels, and citizens engaged in fishing, is to be exei-ciscd only within the limits of " 3 marine miles " 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 cure fish there is not expressly given by the terms of the Convention to United States* fishermen, it is not at present intended to exclude them from these islands. It will be your duty to protect tho inshore fishevics of Canada in accordance With tho conditions laid down by the Convention of the 20th October, 1818, the 1st Article of which provides : " Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks of Uis Britannic Majesty's don\inions in America, it is agreed between the High Contracting Parties, that the in'rabitants of the said ijniteign fishing-vessels and boats which enter bays and harbours for the four Ici^al purposes above mentioned from taking advantage thereof to take, dry, or cure fish therein, to purchase bait, ice, or supplies, or to tranship cargoes, or from transacting any business in connection with their fishing operations. It is not desired that you should pui a narrow construction on the term "unsettled." Places containing a few isolated houses might not, in some instances, be susceptible of being considered as " settled " within the meaning and 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 element in the consideration of this point. The generally conciliatory spirit in which it is desirable that you should carry out these instructions, and the; wish of 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 con-sist with the just claims of all parties. Should interference with tho pursuits of Ih-itish fishermen or tho property of Canadians appear to be inseparable! from the exercise of such indulgence, you will withhold it and insist upon entire exclusion. United States' fisheraien shou'd be made aware that, in addition to being obliged, in common with those subjects of ller Majesty with whom they exercise concurrent privileges of fishing in colonial waters, to obey tht; laws of the country, and particukrly such Ads and Regulations as exist to insure the peaceable and profitable enjoyment of the fisheries by all persons entitled thereto, they are peculiarly bound to preserve peace and order in the quasi-settled places to which, by the liberal disposition of Canadian authorities, they may be admitted. Wheresoever foreigners may fish in Canadian waters, you Avill compel them to Iservc the Fishery Laws. Particular attention should be directed to the injury which esults from cleaning fish on board of their vessels while afloat, and the throwmg over- board of ofl"als, thus fouling the fishing, feeding, and breeding grounds. "The Fisheries Act" (-section 14) provides a heavy penalty for this offence. 88 Take occasion to inquire into and report upon any modes of fishing, or any practices adopted by foreign fishermen, which appear to be injurious to the fisheries. You will accost 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 imder the provisions of the Acts above recited, seize at once (resort to force in doing so being only justifiable after every other effort has failed), any vessel detected in violating the law, and send her or take her into port for condemnation. Copies 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 prohibited limits, and providing for carrying out the seizure and forfeiture, are furnished herewith for your information and distribution. Should you have occasion to compel any foreign fishing-vessels or fishermen to conform to the requirements of the " Fisheries Act and Eegulations," as regards the modes and incidents of fishing, at those places to which tb^^y are admitted under the Convention of 1818, particularly in relation to ballast, fish-offals, setting of nets, hauling of seines, and use of " trawls " or " bultows," more especially at and around the Magdalen Islands, your power and authority under such cases will be similar to that of any other fishery oflicer appointed to enforce the Pishcry 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 escape from the vicinity of her capture or elsewhere, she remains always liable to seizure and detention if met by yourself in Canadian waters, and in British waters everywhere, if brought to account by Her Majesty's cruizers. But great care must be taken to make certain of the identity of any offending vessel to be so dealt with. All vessels seized must be placed, as soon as possible, in the custody of the nearest Customs Collector, and information, with a statement 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 dispatched with all possible diligence to the Government. Be careful to describe the exact locality where the violation of the law took place and the ship, vessel, or boat was seized. Also corroborate the bearings taken by soundings, and by buoying the place (if possible) with a view to actual measurement, 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 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 misadventure, or some other cause independent of the will of the master and crew, you wDl consider these circumstances, and satisfy yourself with regard thereto before taking the extreme step of seizing or detaining any vessel. On capture, it will bo desirable to take part of the foreign crew aboard the vessel under your command, and place some of your own crew, 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 done, or, if because of several seizures, the number of your hands might be too much reduced, you will in such emergency endeavour to engage a few trustworthy men. The portion of foreign crew taken on board the Government 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 instructions, 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 on every opportunity, where instructions would most probably roach you at stated intervals. 184J F was or is being 84 Directiona as to the stations and limits on which you are to cruise, and any further instructions that may be deemed necessary, will from time to time be conreyed ' Considerable inconvenience is caused by Canadian fishing-vesscla neglecting to show their colours. You will draw the attention of masters to tliis fact, and request them to hoist their colours without requiring to bo hailed and boarded. It cannot be too strongly urged upon you, nor can you too earnestly impress upon the officers and crew under you command, that the servici' in which you and they are engaged should be performed with forbearance and discrimination. The Goverament relies on your prudence, discretion, and firmness in the performance of the special duties intrusted to you. ^ I am, &c. (Signed) Minister of Marine and Fisheries. No. 37. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery. — {Received April 24.) My Lord, Washington, April 11, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a despatch which I addressed to the Marquis of Lansdowne, calling attention to the reported argument of the United States' Consul-Geiieral at Halifax in relation to the pro- visions of the Ti-eaty of 1818, as well as copy of his Excellency's reply thereto, together with copy of the Report of a Committee of the Privy Council of Canada setting forth their views on this point. I hfliVG &c« (Signed) * L. S. 8ACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure 1 in No. 37. Sir L West to the Marquis of Lansdowne. My Lord, Washington, March 29, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inform your Excellency that the American Consul- General at Halifax is re]iorted to have argued that tliere is nothing in the Treaty of 1818 to prevent Americans, having caught fish in deep water and cured them, from landing tnem in marketable condition at any Canadian port and transhipping them in bond to the United States either by rail or vessel, and that, moreover, a refusal to permit the transportation would be a violation of the general bonding arrangement between the two countries. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure 2 in No. 37. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir L. West. Sir, Government House, Ottawa, April 7, 1886. I CAUSED to be referred to my (lovemment your deapat«h of the 29th March, in whicli you informed me that tlu> United States' Consul-General at Halifax was reported to have argued that there was nothing in tlie Convention of 1818 to prevent American fishermen from landing at any Canadian port, cured and in a marketable condition, fish whicli liad been caught by them outside the territorial waters of this country, and transbijjping the same in bond U) the United States by rail or otherwise, and that any refusal to penuit sueli trjinsportatiou would be a violation of the general bonding arrangement existing between the two countries. 2. I have now the honour to forward herewith, for your confidential information, copies of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council, setting forth the 86 viowB of my Government upon the point raised by the Consul-Gonerol, and of a deflpatcb which I have sent to Earl GranviUu upon tho same subjoot. I have, &o. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. Inclosure 3 in No. 37. Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Oovernor-Qeneral in Council on the 6th April, 1886. THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch, dated the 29th March, 1886, from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, informing your Excellency that the United States' Consul-Gonornl 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 thom from landing them in a marketable condition at any Canadian port and transliipping them in bond to the United States either by rail or vessel, and that any refusal to pcu'tnit such transhipment would be a violation of the general bonding arrangement lietweon ti»o two countries. The Sub-Committee to whom the dcspatcli in question was rpforrod repo''t 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 ol 1818. Tnat they are of opinion, from the language of that Convention— "Provided, however, that the American fishermen sliall bo permitted to Jtiter buch bays or harbours for the purposes of slielter and of repairing damages tlu:/cin, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whaiover" — that, under the terms of the Convention, United States' fishermen may properly be precluded from entering any harbour of the Dominion for th() j)nrpo8(« of transhipping cargoes, and that it is not material to the question that such fisliormen may have been engaged in fishing outside of the "3-mile limit " exclusively, or that tlio fish which they may desire to have transhipped have been taken outside of such limit. ITiat to deny the right of transhipment would not be a viola in of the general bonding arrangement between the two countries. That no bonding arrangement has been made whic^h, to any extent, limits the operation of the ^ onvention of 1818, and, inasmuch as tho .iglit to have access to the ports of what is now the Dominion of Canada for all other purposcis than those named, 18 explicitly renounced by the Convention, it cannot witli propri(ity be contended that t! enforcement of the stipulation above cited is contrary to the general provisions upon which intercourse is conducted between the two countries. Such exclusion could not, of course, be enforced against United States' vessels not engaged in fishing. Tho Sub-Committee in stating this opinion are not unmindful of the fact, that the responsibility of determining what is the true interr)rctation of a Treaty or Convention made by ller Majesty must remain with Her Majesty's Government, but in view of the necessity of protecting to the fullest extent U»; inshore fisheries of the Dominion according to tlu^ strict terras of the Convention of 1818, and in view of the failure of tlie United States' Government to accede to any arrangements for the mutual use of the inshore fislieries, the Sub-ConunittiH^ recommend that the laim which is reported to have been set up by tlie "Jtiited States' Consul-General at Halifax bo resisted. The Committee concur in the foregoing Report and recommendation, and they reBpectfuUy submit the same for yonr Excellency's approval. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council for Canada. No. 38. Sir L. West to the Earl of Hosebery. — {Received April 26.) My Lord, Washinifton, April 14 1886. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordshi]) herewith the report of the debate in tho Senate* on the Resolution against the appointment of a Commission [84] Indoiures not printed. F a 36 for tho sottlcment of tho Fisheries question as recommended by the President iu his Message to Congress. The Resolution was adopted by a vote of 35 to 10. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. No. 39. Mr, Bramston to Sir P. Currie.~-{Rec'ived April 30.) Sir, Downing Street, April 30, 1886. "WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting tho North American Fisheries (mestion, I am directed by Earl Granville to transmit to you, to bo laid before the Earl of llosebery, a copy of a further despatch, with its inclosures, from tho Governor-General of Canada on the subject. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosurc 1 in No. 39. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Earl Granville, My Lord, Government Horn •, Ottawa, April 6, 1886. I HAVE the honour arrests appear to have been based upon the act or intent of fishing within waters as to which, under the provision at the Treaty of 1818 between Great Britain and tho United States of America, tho liberty of the inhabitants of the United States to fish has been renounced. It would he supei-ttuous for me to dwell upon the desire which, I am sure, controls those respectively charged with the administration of the Governments of Great Britain and of the United States to prevent occurrences tending to create cxaspemtiou and unninghboiu-ly feeling or collision between the inhabitants of the two countries ; but, animated with this sentiment, the time seems opportune for me to sitbmit some views for your consideration, which I confidently hope will lead to 8\ich administration of the laws regulating the commercial interests and the meiTantile niarine of the two countries as may promote good feeling and mutual advantage, and prevent hostility to commerce under the guise of protection to inshore flshorios. Tho Treaty of 1818 is between two nations, the United States of America and Grtvvt Britain, who, as tho Contracting Parties, can alone apply authoritative interpreta- tion thereto, or enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. Tho discussion prior to the conclusion of tho Treaty of Washington in 1871 was productive of a substantial agreement between the two countries as to the oxistonco and limit of tho 3 marine miles within the line of which, upon the regions defined in the Treaty of 1818, it should not be lawful for American fisher- men to take, dry, or cure fish. There is no hesitancy upon the part of the Government states to proclaim such inhibition and warn their citizens against the .he Treaty m that roganl, s«> that such inshore fishing cannot lawfully enjoywl by an American vessel l)eing within 3 marine miles of the land. JJut since the date of the Treaty of 181H a series ol" Laws and Regulatic of the United infraction of the ^ . . . ' " ' tions importantly affwting tlie trade bctwoon tlie North American jjrovinees of Great Britain and the United States have been respectively adopted by tiie two countries, and have led to amicabh' and mutually beneficial relations between their respective inhabitants. This indepentlent and yet concurrent action by the two Goveniments has effected a gradual (!xtension, from time to time, of the provisions of Article I of the Convention of the .3rd July, 181S, providing for reciprocal liberty of commerce between the United States and the territories ol tJreat Britain in Europe, so as gradually to include the colonial jjossessions of (Jreat Jiritain in North Ainerica and the West Indies within the results of that Treaty. President Jackson's Proclamation of the 5th Octoi)er, 1830, created a reciprocal commercial intercourse, on terms of perfect ecjuality of flag, between this country and the British American dependencies, liy repealing the Navigation Acts of the 18th April, 1818, 16th May, 1820, and 1st March, 1823, and admitting British vosseb and their cargoes " to an entry in the ports of the United States, from the islands, provinces, and Colonies of Great Britam on or n(.'ar the American continent, and north or east of the United States." These commercial privileg(!S have since received a largo extension in the interests of ])ropiuquity, and in some coses favours have been granted by the United States without f";"-.:valent concession. Of the latter class is the exemption granted by the Shipping Act of the 26th June, 1884, amounting to one-half of the rcijular tonnage dues on all vessels from the British North Ameri(!an and West Indian possessions entering ports of the Unitc^d States; of the reciprocal class are the arrangements lor transit of gords, and the remission by Proclamation, as to certain British ports and places, of the r(>mainder of the tonnage tax, on evidence of ecjual 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 the 2l5tli June, 181'.), 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 Statos are coucenied, depend upon municipal statute and upon the discretionary powere of the lixecutive thereunder. The seizure of the vessels I have mentioned, and certain published "warnings" purporting to have been issued by the Cohmial authorities, would appear to liave been made under a supposed delegation of jurisdiction I)y the Imperial Government of Great Britain, and to be intended to include authority to interpret and enforce the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, to which, as I havi- remarked, the United States and and Great Britain arc; the Contracting Parties, who . eim alone deal responsibly with questions arising thereunder. The effect of this colonial legislation and executive interpretation, if executed according to the letter, would be not only to expand the restrictions and renunciations of the Treaty of 1818, which related solely to inshore fishing within the 3-mile limit, so as to affect the deep-sea fisheries, the right to which remained unquestioned and unimpaired for the enjoyment of the citizens of the United States, but further to diminish and practically destroy the privileges expressly secm-ed to American fisliing- vessels to visit those inshore waters for the obji^cts of shelter, repair of damages, and purchasing wjod and obtaining water. Since 1818 certain important changes have taken place in fishing in the 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, is now no longer followed, and modern invention of jjrocesses of artificial freezing, and the employment of vess(jls of a laiger size, iMirmit the catch and direct transportation of fish to the markets of the United States 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 kmger needed for such fishing, that purse-seines have been substituted for the oth(?r methods of taking mackerel, and that by their employment these fish are now readily caught in deeper waters entirely exterior to the 3-nule line. As it is admitted that the deep-sea fishing was not under consideration in the negotiation of the Treaty of 1818, nor was afFectod hy thereby, and as the uce of bait for inshore fishing has pr' ?d wholly into disuse, the reasons which may have formerly existed for refusing to permit American fishermen to catch or procure bait within the linn of a marine league from the shore, lest they should also use it in the same inhibited waters for the purpose of catching other fish, no longer exist. For it will, I l)elicve, bo conceded as a fact that bait is no longer needed to catch herring or mackerel, which are tho 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 oi executing the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, would be to expand that Convention to objects wholly beyond its purview, scope, and intent, and give to it an effect never contemplated by either Party, and accompanied by results unjust and injurious to the citizens of the United States. As, therefore, there is no longer any inducement for American fishermen *r " dry and cure " fish on the interdicted coasts of the Canadian provinces, and bait is no longer used or needed by them (for the prosecution of inshore fishing) in order to " take " fish in the inshore waters to which the Treaty of 1818 alone relates, I 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 customary and reasonable rights and privileges of trade in the ports of the British Colonies as are freely allowed to British vessels in a'l the ports of the United States under the Laws and Regulations to which I have adverted. Among these customary rights and privileges may bo enumerated the purchase of ship-supplies of every nature, making repairs, the shipment of crews in whole or part, and the purchase of ice and bait for use in deep-sea fisliing. 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 *^he ports of the United States. The question, therefore, arises whether 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 obstructing 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 'rrcaty whatever, has grown up, and now exists, under the concurrent and friendly Laws and mercantile Begulations of the respective countries. I may recall to your attention the fact that a proposition to exclude the vessels of the Umted States engaged in fishing from carrying also merchandize was made by the British negotiators of tho Treaty of 1818, but, being resisted by the American negotiators, was abandoned. This fact wovdd seem clearly to indicate that the business of fishing did not then and does not now disqualify a vessel from also trading in the regular ports of entry. I have been led to offer these considerations by the recent seizures of American vessels to which I have adverted, and by indications of a local spirit of interpreta- tion in the provinces, afiVicting friendly intercourse, which is, I firmly believe, not warranted by the terms of tho stipulations on which it professes to rest. It is not ray purpose to prejudge the facts of the cases, nor have I any desire to shield any American vessel from the consequences of violation of international obligation. The views I advanced may prove not to be applicable in every feature to these particular cases, and I should be glad if no case Avhatever were to arise calling in question the good understanding of the two countries in this regard, in order to be free from the grave a{)prehensions which otherwise I am unable to dismiss. It would be most unfortunate, and, I cannot refrain from saying, most unworthy, if the two nations who contracted the I'reaty of 1818 should permit any questions of mutual right and duty under that Convention to become obscured by partizan advocacy or distorted by the heat of local interests. It cannot but be the common aim to conduct all discussion in this regard with dignity and in a self-respecting spirit, that will show itself intent upon 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 and friendly untlerstanding with 40 you as tho Reprosnntative of Her Britannic Majesty's Qovcmmont, which will result in such a dellnition of the rights of American fishing- vessels under tho Treaty of 1818 as shall effectually prevent any encroachments l)y them upon tho territorial waters of tho British provinces for tho purpose of llshing within those waters, or trespassing in any way upon tho littoral or marine rights of tho inhabitants, and, at the same time, prevent that Convention from hcing improperly expanded into an instrument of discord by affecting interests and accomplishing results wholly outside of and contrary to its object and intent, by allowing it to become an agency to interfere with and perhaps destroy those reciprocal commercial privileges and facilities between neighbouring communities which contribute so importantly to their peace and happiness. It IS obviously essential that tho administration of the Laws regulating tho Canadian inshore fishing should not be conducted in a punitive and hostile spirit, which can only tend to induce acts oi' a rofciliatory nature. Everything will be done by tie United States to cause their citizens engaged in fishing to conform to the oljligadons of tho Treaty, and prevent an infraction of the Fishing Laws of tho British provinces; but it is equ"Uy necessary that ordinary commercial intercourse should not be interrupted by harsh measures and unfriendly administration. I have the honour, therefore, to invite a frank expression of your views upon tho subject, believing that should any difiercocps of opinion or disagreement as to facts exist, they will be found to l)o so minimized that an accord can be established for the fuU protection of the inshore fishing >i the British provinces, without obstructing tho open-sea fishing operations of the citizens of tho United States, or disturbing tho Trade Begulations now subsisting botwoeu tho countries. I have, &c. (Signed) T. r. BAYARD. No. 41. Sir L. West to the Earl of Bosebery, — (Received May 24.) My Lord, Washington, May 11, 1886. I HAVE the honour to report to your Lonlship that the seizure of an American fishing-vessel by tho Canadian authorities for purchasing bait in Canadian waters has called forth B/Csolutions in the House of Ilcprescntativcs, a Bill iu tho Senate, and a Bill in the House, copies of which are herewith inclosed. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure 1 in No. 41. Extracts from the " Congressional Record." The " David J. Adams." Mr. Dawes submitted the following Resolution, which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to : — " Resolved, — That the Pn'sident be requested to communicate to the Senate, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, any information in the posses- sion of tho Government concerning tho alleged seizure of the United States' fishing, vessel • David -T. Adams,' while engaged in lawful commerce in one of tho ports in the Dominion of Canada, and what measures, if any, have been taken to protect fishing- vessels of the United States while engaged in lawful commerce in the ports of the Dominion of Canada." Mr. 'Dawes submitted tho following Resolution, which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to : — " Resolved, — ^That the Committee on Foreign Relations be instructed to inquire whether the United States' fishing- vessel • David J. Adams ' lias been seized while engaged in lawful commerce in a port of the Dominion of Canada, and what measures. 41 if any, are necessary to protect the persons and property of American citizens while engaged in lawful oommerco in the ports of the Dominion of Canada ; and to report by Bill or otherwise/' Seizure of the Vesiel " David J. Adam$.'* Mr. Stone, of Massachussutts, offored the following Resolution, which was read, and rofcrrod to the Committoo on Foreign Aftairs :— " Whereas it is reimrted that an American ftshiug-vesscl, namely, the ' David J. Adams,' of Oloucostor, Massachusetts, has recently been seized in Digby, Nova Scolia, for the alleged purchase of halt, by the British flag-ship • Lansdowne,' in apparent violation of the commercial rights conceded to American vessels by the British Government : " Ordered, — That the Committee on Foreign Affaii-s be instructed to inquire into the facts of the case, with authority to recommend such legislation as may he due to a proper sense of national dignity and to a just regard for the rights and interests of the nation ul commerce." Seizure of the " David J. Adams." Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas, offered the following Resolution, which was reiul. and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs : — " Whereas it is reported in the public prints that on thvi 7th May. at Digby, in the Dominion of Canada, the schooner ' David J. Adams,' owned by AmL^rican citizens, was forcibly seized by tlie steamer * Lansdowne,' under order of the Government of said Dominion, and is now hold for further proceedings : Therefoie, " Be it resolved, — That the President of the United States be requestod to inform this House, if not deemed by him incompatible with the good of the public service, what steps have been taken by him to have said seizure investigated, and to communi* cate to this House at the earliest practicable day what were the circumstances and the pretence under which said seizure was made." Inclosure 2 in No. 11. 49th Congress, 1st Session. — H. Res. 168. In the House op Representatives. May 10, 1886, — Read twice, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, rnd ordered to be printed. Mr, Rice introduced the following Joint Resolution : — Joint Resolution for the Protection of American Fishermen. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the I nited States of America in Congress assembled, That the recent seizure of the United States' fishing- schooner "Adams" by the Canadian Government, on the charge of purchasing fishing-bait in a Ni»va Scotia port, was a violation of the reciprocal commercial rights of citizens of the United States and of Great Br'^ ,n, growing out of the principles of international comity recognized by the legislation of both countries, and demands of this Government prompt and efficient measures to obtain reparation to its citizens for this unlawful act, and to protect them against its repetition. [84] O 4S Inoloaiue 3 in No. 41. ' 40tli Congrc'is, Int. aossion.— 8. 2302. In Till Senate of tub Vnitko Statxs. May 10. 188G. Afr. Frye iritror the date named in such Proclamation for it to take etfect, if the master, oflieer, or ai^ent of ny visssel of such forei^'u couTitry excluded hy said Proclamation from the exercise of any commercial privilei^cs shall do any act |)roiiibited liy said Proclamation in the ports, harbours, or waters of the United Stjites, for or on account of such vessel, stu'ii vessel, and its rigging, tackle, furniture, and boats, and all the goods on board, shall lie liable to seizure and to forfeiture to the United States ; and any person opposing any -)flicer of the United States in the enforcement of this act, or aiding and abettini,' any other person in such o[)j)osition, shall forfeit 800 dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, upon conviction, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Inclosure A in No. 41. 49th Congress, 1st Session.— H. R. 8G30. In tue House op Hepuksentatives. yfay 10, 1886. — Read twice, referred to the Select Committee on American Ship- Building and Ship-Owning Interests, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Dingley introdnced the following Bill : — A Bill to limit the Commercial Privileges of Vessels of Foreign Countries in the Ports of the United iStates to such Purposes a.« are accorded to American Vessels in the Ports of such Foreign Countries, Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Conu:rcss assembled. That Avhencver any forfMgn country whose vessels have lieen placed on the sanx; footimr in the ports of the 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, it shall be the duty of the President, on receiving satisfactory information of the continuance of such discriminations against any vessels of the United States, to issue his Pro lamation excluding, on and after such time as he may indicate, all vessels of such foreign country of a similar character to the vessels of 4t the TTnitod fitfttos thuM diRrriminatod against from the oxorciso of such onmmcnual privilcf^oH in tlio portH of tlic lIiiiftMl Ntiitrs iin arc (Icnifid to Ainoridim vc'sncIs in tlio portH of HiH'li fon'i);n nnintry, iiml fliiHpciiiliuf; tlio concessions proviouHly ^'iiiiitcd to till! vessels '' such foreii,'M country to the extent herein provided; jiiid on and alter tho date named in such Pnxdaniatinn for it lo tai reported conduct of Caj)tain Scott, of the " Lansdowne," in declining to give anv reason for his seizure! of the " Adams," is much to he deprecated, ami it is due to the cause of law and order, which I am sure we hotii desire to serve, that no act of even douhtful authority should he (ixercised hy the Provincial Authorities, and that, in the exoeutio."! of undouhted powers, a calm and modemte vindication of the law should chanu'terize all procMiedings of an adversary character ai^ainst Americans and their property. A harsh, uncivil administration of law adds nothing to its just forc(>, hut only furnishes cause for retaliatory action, and creates new dilliculties in the settlement of international questions. Indiscreet action on the part of tiie Canadian authorities chould certainly bo prevented in the interest of aiuiealjle relations. Yours, &c. (Signed) T. S. BAYARD. States vessels laerican States |)orts, or Kceiving vessels lie as ho pssels of Inelosnrc 2 in No. 42. Mr. Phelan to Mr. Bayard. (Telegraphic.) ^¥>y> United States, May 11, 1886. " DAVID J. ADAMS" delivered to Collector yesterday. This morning Cai)tain Scott took possession of her agaui. I addressed him a note, asking why he detained the Vessel. He replied by referring me to Ottawa. I will take the deposition of tho captain and crew of the " Adams " as soon as they ai-rive. 1^4] G 2 44 Indosure 8 in No. 42. Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard. Dear Mr. Bayard, Washington, May 12, 1886. I IMMEDIATELY telegraphed the substance of the telegram, copy of which was inclostd in your private letter of yesterday, respecting the seizure of the "Adams," to Lord Lansdowne, and wroti? to him the same evening. You may n'st assured that „hatover it is in my power to do to bring about a satisfactoryunderstanding on the question at issue, as Avell as on all others that may arise in connection therewith, will be done, and that it is my earnest desire to carry out the instructions which I shall doubtless rectx/e from my Government in this sense. I have, (fee. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. No. 43. Sir L. Wf«t to the Earl of Rosebery. — {Received May 24.) My Lord, Washington, May 12, 1P96. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith a Memorandum embodying the views expressed in letters add.-«»i=.sed to the press by Representatives and others 'of the position of t'ue United States' Government with regard to the Treaty of 1818. I llftVG &C« (Signed) ' li. S. SACKVILLE WEST. IncloBure in No. 45. Mmorandum respecting the Contention of the American Fishing Interest, THE United States' Government has always claimed that the proper construction of the 'lYoatv of 1818 made the 3-mile limit follow th ? coast-line, and did not allow the line to bo drawn from headland to headland, and thuf, exclude American fishermen from M-ators of arms of the ocean more than 3 railets from land. But this is not the question at issue. It is commercial rights which are now in dispute, and it is contoiuled that imdcr existing commercial relations between the two countries (Great Britain and tlio United States), United States' fishing-vessels have the same right to enter Canadian ports and purchase l)ait to be used in the open sea-fishing as Canadian vessels to eiitcr United States' ports for the same purpose. It is important that the commercir'i rights of American fishing-vessels in Canadian ])()rts should be settled, that is to say, whether they are to be determined by the restrict iv(> principles of maritime intercourse which prevailed in 1818, or by the principles of maritime reciprocity inaugurated by the United States in 1824, and linally aocej)ted by Great Britain in 1850. No. 44. ^^V L. West to the Earl of Rosebery. — {Received May 24.) My I/ird, ^ Wdshington, May 13, 1880. "\\ rril ref(>rf>nee to my despatch of the llth instant, I have the honour to inclose to your Lurdsliii) hen^vith c()j;y of a private not(! whi(rli I have received from the Secretary of State in n'jply to mine of the 12tli, together with copy of a furtlier telegram froin the Unitecl States' Consul-General at llalifa.ii, the substance of whicli I also comnnuiieated to the Marquis of Lansdowne, wlio has replied in tlie following terms : - " ' Adams ' will bo i)roceedod against for violation of Customs Act of 1883, of Dominion Fishery Act of 1868, and of Convention of 1818. Captain Scott has been 45 instraoted to state reasons of seizure [in ?] all cases," and the substance of which I have communicated to Mr. Bayard. (Signed) ' L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure 1 in No. 44. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. Dear Sir Lionel, Washington, May 12, 1886. THE tenour of your note of to-day is quite in accord with my expectations, and I cannot doubt that you will secure more circumspect and amicable action upon the part of the Canadian officials in relation to interference with American vessels not infracting Treaty stipulations against inshore fishing. I inclose a copy of a telegram just received from the United States' Consul- General at Halifax, which I think you ought to see, because it indicates very loose methods in dealing with matters of grave importance. Yours, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. Inclosure 2 in tio. 44. Mr. Phelan to Mr. Bayard. (Telegraphic.) Digby, United States, May 11, 1886. THE charge against the " Adams " for violating the Customs was so trifling, that it seems they have abandoned it, and gone back to the charge of violating the fishery laws. The officers don't seem to know what to do. The "Adams" is here. The "Lansdowne" is here yet. Captain Scott refuses to state why the "Adams" was seized, or why she is Held. Tiiis information is necessary to an intelligent defence, and I cannot understand why it is refused. No. 45. \me right to as Canadian The Earl of Rosebery to Sir L. West.* Sir, Foreign Office, May 24, 1886. THE American Minister called on me to-day, and said that he had received a telegram from Mr. Bayard late on Saturday night instructing him to ask me if the 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 under- taking to surrender tliem if required. Mr. Phelps went on to argue the construction of the Treaty of 1818, and said that though, at a first glance, its provisions might seem to justify the Canadian autliorities in the course which th(»y had taken, a general view of its wliolc scope contradicted that assumption, which, in any case, was inconsistent with tlie cordial relations existing between tlie two countries. In reply, I reminded Mr. Plielps that that Treaty was concluded at a time when, after a war and a period of great bitterness, the relations between Great Britain and the United States were not so cordial as they are now. As regarded the construction of tlio Treaty, I could not presume to argue with so cmineut a lawyer as hims(>lf. 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 was it the fault of the Canadians that tliey had been compelled to resort to the enforcement of II10 Treaty. I admitted, indeed, that the responsibility did not lie on the American Government. But the Senate bad refused to sanction any negotiation on the matter, and had therefore thrown 1,'nck the Canadians on the provisions of the Treaty of 1818. As regarded the seizure of the vessels wliich Mr. Phelps had described as having transgressed unwittingly, I could only say but Copy to Coloniil Oflico, INfty 28. little, as I had received no intelligence beyond what was stated in the newspapers. If, howover, they had erred unwittingly, it was not our fault, for we had issued a formal warning to American fishermen tliat they would not bo permitted, under the Treaty of 1818, to do certain things, and we had requested Mr. Bayard to issue a similar notice. He, however, had declined to do so. I could not, therefore, think that the American vessels had erred imwittingly, more especially as, if I was rightly informed by the newspapers, there Avoro suspicious and furtive circumstances connected with the case of the " David Adams," at any rate, which tended to prove that the captain was aware that he was a«ting illegally. As to the substantial proposition of Mr. Bayard, T begged Mr. Phelps to return the following answer : No one, as he was aware, could be more anxious than I was to maintain the most cordial relations between tli two countries. He well knew tliat I would go more than half-way to meet Mr. iViyard in this matter, but it would be difficult to ask the Canadians to suspend their gal action if we hatl nothing to offer them in the wt y of a quid pro quo. Wliat I ould suggest would bo this, that he should telegraph at once to Washington to teli Mr. Bayard that I would do my best to induce the Colonial authorities to suspend their action if some assurance could be given me of an immediate readiness to negotiate on tlie question. Mr. Phelps promised to do tlus. I am, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 46. Sir J. Pauncefote to Sir B. Herbert. Sir, Foreign Office,May 26, 1886. I AM directed by the Earl of Rosebery to transmit to vou a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Wiishiugton, inclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard, whicli contains representations respecting the seizure of United States' fishing-vessels by Canadian authorities.* His Tiordsliip would propose, with Lord Granville's concurrence, to defer making a reply to this communication until tin; views of the Canadian Government thereon have been received ; and as it appears from Sir L. West's despatch that a copy has already been forwarded from Wa^shington to the Governor-General, I am to suggest that his Excellency should bo requested, by telegram, to send home, Mith the least possible delay, any observations wliich the Dominion Government wisli to make on the subject. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 47. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. — {Communicated to the Earl of Rosebery by Mr. Phelps, May 29.) (Telegraphic.) May 27, 1886. YOU will s..y to Lord Rosebery tliat every disposition exists on our part to arrive at an amicable and just solution of Canadian lishery .nnd tnule question as the President has already manifested. Main pouit now is to have Treaty of 1S18 so interpreted as not to destroy commercial intercourse. in(;luding purchase of bait for use in deep-sea fishing. This was done by Great Britain in 1871, and its abandon- ment now would 1)0 inadniissiblef and mlhored to now would relieve liardsliip nnd exasperation caused by summary arrest of vessels. Present action of Canadian authorities is calculated to obstruct settlement. • No. 40. t Thii word is doubtful as to correct reading of cypher. No. 48. The Earl of Rosebery to Sir L, West. Sir, Foreign Office, May 29, 1886. me to-day and read me a telegram from THE American Minister called on Mr. Btiyard, of which I incloae a copy.* He again discussed at some length the provisions of the Treaty of 1818, and said that the newspapers which had reached him from America treated the matter as of little moment, because the British Government were sure not to support the action of the Canadian Administration. He also alluded to a correspondence with Lord Kiml)erley in 1871, in which Lord Kimberley stated that the Imperial Govern- ment was the solo interpreter of the British view of Imperial Treaties, and that they were not able to support the Canadian view of the Bait Clause. Mr. Phelps finally urged that the action of the Canadian Government should be suspended, which would then conduce to a friendly state of matters, which might enable negotiations to be resumed. I replied to ]Mr. Phelps that, as regards the strict interpretation of the Treaty of 1818, I was in the unfortunate position that there were not two opinions in this country on the matter, and that the Canadian view was held by all authorities to 1)0 legally con-ect. If we are now under the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 it was by the action, not of Her Majesty's Government, or of the Canadian Government, but by the wish of the United States. I had offered to endeavour to procure the prolongation of the; temporaiy arrangement of last year, in order to allow an opportunity for negotiating, and that had been refused. A Joint Commission had been refused, and, in fact, any arrangement, either temporary or permanent, had been rejected by the United States ; it was not a matter of option but a matter of cours(! that we returned to the existing Treaty. As to Lord Kimberloy's view, I had had no explanation from him on that point, and, of course, I entirely concurred with his opinion that the British Government were the interpreters of the British vioAV of Imperial Treaties. As regarded the wish expressed by Mr. Phelps that the present action should be suspended, when possibly an opportimity might arrive for negotiation, I said tlint that amounted to an absolute concession of the Canadian position with no return \\ hatever, and I feared that the refusal of the United States to negotiate, for so I could not help interpreting Mr. Bayavd's silence in answer to my proposition, would produce a bad etfect, and certainly would not assist the Imperial Government in their etforts to deal with this question. In the meantime, however, I begged him simply to assure Mr. Bayard that I had received his 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 o])jected that it woolJ be a Dominion 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 pro- visions of the Treaty of 1818. I am, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 49. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery. — (Received May 31.) My Ijord, JVushington, May 21, 188G. 1 HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lonlship herewith copy of a further note which 1 liave received from the Secretary of State, which, after commenting upon the actidii of t\u' Canadian autlioritios in the seizure of the American schooner " David J. Adams," concludes by requesting that orders maybe issued under the authority of Her Miijcsty's Uovciriunent that no vessel be seized unless the offence of fishing within the 3-inile* limit is proved in conformity with the instructions issued by the British Government in 1870. • No. 47 r-53^: 48 Your Lordship will understand that I am unahle, in the absence of instructions, to reply to either of the notes of the Secretary of State. I have communicated copy of the above-mentioned note to the Marquis of Lansdowne. (Signed) ' L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure in No. 49. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. Sir, Department of State, Washington, May 20, 1886. ALTHOUGH without reply to the note I had the honour to address to you on the 10th 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 citizens engaged in maritime trade and inter- course with the provinces of British North America, in view of the unrestrained and, as it appears to me, unwarranted, irregular, and severe action of Canadian officials towards American vessels in those waters, yot I feci it to be my duty to bring impressively to your attention information more recently received by me from the United States' Consul-General at Halifax, Nova Scotia, in relation to the seizure a'-d continued detention of the American schooner " David J. Adams," already referr a to in my previous note, and the apparent disposition of the local officials to use thv most extreme and technical reasons for interference with vessels not engaged in, or intended for, inshore fishing on that coast. The Bepor^ received by me yesterday evening alleges such action in relation to the vessel mLjitioned as rendci*s it diilicult to imagine it to be that orderly pro- ceeding and " due process of law " so well known and customarily exercised in Great Britain and the United States, and Avhich dignifies the two Governments, and gives to private rights of property and the liberty of the individual their essential safe- guards. 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, the "liavid 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 Eundy and into the port of St. John, New Brunswick, and without explanation or hearing, on the following Monday, t!ie lOtli May, taken back again by an armed crew to Digby. 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 learn from the Commander of the " LansdoAvne " the nature of the complaint against the vessel, and his respectful application to that effect was fruitless. In so extraordinarily confused and irresponsiljlo condition of affairs, it is not possible to ascertain with that accuracy which is needful in matters of such grave importance the precise grounds for this hai-sh and perem))tory arrest and detention of a vessel the property of citizens of a nation with whom relations of peace and amity were supposed to exist. From the best information, however, which the United States' Consul-General was enabled to obtain after application to the prosecuting officials, lie reports that the *' David J. Adams " was seized and is now held — 1. Por alleged violation of the Treaty of 1818 ; 2. Por alleged violation of tlu' Act 59 fieo. Ill ; 3. For alleged violation of the Colonial Act of Nova Scotia of 18G8 ; and 4. For alleged violation of the Act of 1870 and also of 1883, both Canadian Statutes. Of these allegations, there is but one which at present I press upon your immediate consideration, and that is the. alleged infraction of the Treaty of 1818. I beg to recall to your attention the correspondence and action of those nspec- tively charged with the administration and government of Great Britain and the United States in the year 1870, when the same international questions were under 40 aur immediate consideration and the status of law was not essentially different from what it is at present. Tbo corrospondencii discloses the intention of the Canadian authorities of that day to preveut encroachment upon their inshore fishinjj^-i^ounds, and their preparations in the way of a marine politjo force, very much as wo now witness. The Statutes of Great Britain and of hor Cnnartian provinces, wliich am now supposed to be invoked as authority for the action agai 'he schooner *' David J. Adams," were tlion reported as the basis of their proceedings. In his note of the 26th May, 1870, Mr., afterwards Sir Edward, Thornton, the British Minister at this capital, conveyed to Mr. Fish, the Secretary of State, copies of the orders of the Eoyal Admiralty to Vicp-.'v.dmiral Wcllesloy, in command of the naval forces " employed in maintaining order at the fisheries in the neighbourhood of the coasts of Canada." All of these orders directed the protection of Canadian fishermen and cordial (!0-operation 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 charged with violation of the Canadian Fishing Laws was scrupulously enjoined by the British authorities, and extreme importance of the commanding officers of ships selected to protect the fisheries exorcising the utmost discretion in paying especial attention to Lord Granville's obscu'vation that no vessel should bo seized unless it were evident, and could be clearly proved, that the offence of fishing li^.d been committed, ^ d tiie vessel captured, within 3 miles of land. This caution was still more explicitly announced when Mr. Thornton, on the 11th Jun'-, 1870, wote to Mr. Fish :— " You are, however, quite right in not doubting that Admiral Wellesley, on receipt of the later instructions addressed to him on the 5th ultimo, will have modified the directions to the officers imder his command so tb'^t they may be in conformity with the views of the Admiralty. " In confirmation of this I have since received a letter from Vice- Admiral Wellesley, dated the 30th ultimo, informing me that he had received instructions to the efffect that officers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the protection of the fisheries should not t^eize any vessel unless it Averc evident, and could be dearly proved, that the offence of fishing had been committed, and the vessel itself captured, within 3 miles of .and." This understandipg between the two Governments wisely and efficiently guarded against the manifest danger of intrusting the execution of powers so important, and involving so high and delicate a discretion, to any but wise and responsible officials, whose prudence and care should ho commensurate with the magnitude and national importance of the interest involved, and I should fail, in my duty if I do not endeavour to impress you with my sense of the absolute and instant necessity that now exists for a restriction of the seizure of American vessels charged Avith violations of the Treaty of 1818 to the conditions announced by Sir Edward Thornton to his Government in June 1870. The charges of violating the local Laws and Commercial Regulations of the ports of the British provinces (to which I am desirous that due and full observance should be paid by citizens of the United States) I do not consider in this note ; and I will only take this occasion to ask you to give me full information of the official action of the Canadian authorities in this regard, and what I^aws and llegulations, having the force of law, in relation to the protection of their inshore fisheries and preventing encroachments thereon, are now held by them to bo in force. But I trust that you will join with me in realizing the urgent and essential importance of restricting all arrests of American fishing-vessels for su))posed or alleged violations of the Convention of 1818 within the limitations and conditions laid down by the authorities of Great Britain in 1870, to wit : that no vessel shall be seized unless it is evident, and can bo dearly proved, that the offence of fishing bus been committed, and the vessel itself captured, within 3 miles of land. In regard to the necessity for the instant imposition of such restrictions upon the arrtist of vessels, you will, I believe, agree with me, and I will therefore ask you to procure such steps to be taken as shall cause such orders to bo forthwith put in force under the authority of Her Majesty's Government. I have, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. [84] H 80 ; No. 50. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery.— (Received May 31.) My Lord, Washington, May 21, 1886. "WITH reference to my preceding despntcli, I liavo the honour to inclose to your Lordship heiTwitli copy ol" a private note which I have received frona Mi* Bayard, which I liavo referred to the Marcjuis of Lausdovvne. I have, &c. (Si-ncd) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. IncloBure in No. 50. Air. Bayard to Sir L. West. My dear Mr. "West, Washington, May 20, 1886. SINCE \vTitinur you my last note of to-day's date my attention lias heen called to a stntoment that the American schooner ".Icnnic and Julia," of Eastport, Maine, having cleai-cd from that port for Dighy, Nova Scotia, made due entry at the latter port, and upon attempting to purchase a lot of herring for smoking, was warned that the vessel Avould be scizc^d if herrinir wore purchased for any purpose whatever, where- upon the vessel left without taking in cargo. If, as it is to l;e inferred from tlic i'act of tlie regular clearance and entry, the " J(»nnie and Julia " was documented for a trading voyage, the reported action of the Digby Collector should he looked into verj' sharply. It would certainly not help an amicable adjustment of the present difhcuKies if the Provincial autliorities wore to initiate a policy of commercial non-intercourse, by refusing to permit exportation of fish in American i)ottonis. The report is attracting much attention, and I have telegraphed to our Consular Agent at Digby for a statement of the fads. T siiould he glad to receive from you any information you may have in relation to the Collector's action. Very, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. No. 51. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery. — (Received May 31.) My Lord, Washington, May 21, 1886. I HA^Tl the honour to inclose to your Lordship here^^'itll copy of a despatch which I have received from che Marquis of Lansdow ne in connection with the note of the Secretary of State of the 10th instant. 1 have taken occasion to communicate this despatch to Mr. Bayard, who expressed great satisfaction at its cont(;nts. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Fnclosure in No. 51. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir L. West, Sir, Government House, Ottann, May 17, 1886. T HAD the honour of receiving yoiu- letter of tli(> 12tli instant, inclosing a copy of Mr. Bayard's iiot(.' of the lOtli u|iou the (juestions raised by tlu- recent detention of the United States' schooner" David J. Adams "at Digby, Nova Scotia, for alleged violation of the Customs and Fishing Laws. You have, I understand, been good enough to supply me with a copy of that letter in order thai the Dominion Cov(lo!;ram which I have just received from tho Secretary of State of the United States, and rcspoctfully to ask your early attention to tho subject it refers to. I shall have tho honour to submit to your Lordship in writing, in behalf of my Government, within two or three days, some observations on the questions involved. I have, &c. (Signed) £. J. PHELPS. Inclosure in No. 52. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. (Telegraphic.) May 30, 1886. CALL attention of Lord Rosebery immediately to Bill No. 136 now pending in tho Parliament of Canada, assumini^ to execute Treaty of 1818; also Circular No. 371, by .Tolmson, Commissioner of Customs, ordering seizure of vessels for violation of Treaty.* Both are arbitrary and unwan-anted assumptions of power against whlc-h you are instructed ea,i*nestly to protest, and state that the United States will hold Government of Great Britain responsible for all losses wliich may be sustained by American citizens in tho dispossession of their property growing out of tho scaiTh, seizure, detention, or sale of their vessels lawfully within territorial waters of British North America. No. 53. The Earl of Rosebery to Sir L. Wcst.i Sir, Foreign Office, June \,\S86. i HAVE received your despatch of the 11th ultimo on the subject of tlie North American fislievii's, and . I. liii/.o. ,t"o. "^P^i'iViwt, you, in reply, that Her Majesty's Govermncut have no oh;;(>pti6ti Ire a fwencllyiidcrchange of personal views between yoiirsoir r.nd iMr. Bayard' 'upon tliiii, Question, on tlie understanding that any com- mnnieatious whicli ;m{ij: :5v); tajti^ platC;. ai.e .yitjioyt prejudice And ad referendum, ILt Majesty's (xov(u>)'u»\(.'itC' d/){ '■Ijnviaif iyot 'received the full statement of the views of the Canadian Goveriuueut in tho matter, c not at present in a position to iurnish you with dctinite instructions. I have t(» add that on the 2 tth ultimo I made a proposal of negotiations to the United States' Minist(rr at this Court, to which, however, I have not yet received any reply. I am, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. m • For toxt of Bill, see p. 157. For text of Circular as eventually amendeJ, see p. 88 t Copy to Colonial Office, June 2. H 2 62 No. 64. The Earl of Rosebery to Sir L. iVest. Sir, Foreign Office, June 2, 1886. THE j\.merican Minister informed rae to-day, in tho course of couversation, that lio was at this moment proparini? a Statoincnt of tlio American contention with re£»nrd to tlie recent seizures under tlio tonus of tho Couvontion of IBIH. l£o entered into n Ions: tirijunicnt to show that seizure was not ju'ovided for hy law as a penalty for the intraetion of tliis clause ; that wliat was provided for was a ]>unishment for American vessels tishinj? within the forbidden limits, lie said that his Government could not admit the interpretation which apparently was accepted hy the Canadian Qovornmeiit, and ho mentioned the fact that in any case tho American lishermen had no notice of the action that was goin:,' to he taken. As to the latter point, I replied that that was not the fault of ilcr .Majesty's Government. On the 18th March I had telegraphed to you to ask you to request the Secretary of State to issue a Xotice such as we were about to issue to Canadian lishermen, and ho had declined to do so. Mr. Phelps yvas not aware of this. I went on to say that the ) view of the American Government appeared to be tiiis : " You arc to accept 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 proposition. Mr. Phelps said that it was quite true that his Government, owing to circumstances of Avhich 1 was aware, had not been able to negotiate, but, as regarded the Treaty, he felt sure that ho would bo able to convince me that the American inter|)retation was con-ect. I sjiid 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 Mould remember that at almost our first interview on my accession to ollice I had [)roj)osecl to him to endeavour to procure the continuation of the recent arrangement for a year, although that arrangement was disadvantageous to Canada in that it gave the United States all it wanted, and gave Canada nothing in return. We had also pressed on the United States' Government the issue of a Joint Commission to investigate the matter, and that had also been refused. Further, on the :i4th May, I made a proposal, personally indeed, but with all tho weight which my oificial character could give, that Canadian action should be suspended, and negotiations should commence, and to this I had received no reply. In these circumstan(!es, I could not feel that Her Majesty's Government had been wanting in methods of conciliation, and I begged him to send me his Statement of his case as quickly as possible, for in the meantime there Avas such unanimity among our Legal Advisers as to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818 that I had nothing to submit to them. As rei^artls tlie cases themselves, I had as yet no details, nor was I in possession of tho liill or of the Circular to which Mr. Bayard's recent telegram referred. I am, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 55. • . Mr. Bramston to Sir' J. pauncefyte.-:-(]iiejemrd June 2.) (Extract.) . ••' Dovnimj Street, June 2, ISSG. "WITH roforonce to previ0{\s cAl'respoJidence rpspGiJting tlie North American Fisheries question, T am directed liy Enrl Granville to 'ttfa'nsmit to you, to be laid before the; E: '•! of Rosebery, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, fovwailing a copy of a liill recently introduced into tho Dominion House of Commons for tlio purpose of amending the Act 'M Vict., cap. (jl, respecting fishing bv foreiirn vessels in the territorial waters of the Dominion. Inolosure in No, 55. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Earl Granville. My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, Maxi 19, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inclose herewith a copy of a Bill* recctitly introduced in the Dominion House of Commons by my Minister of Marino and Fisheries, for the For text of Bill, see p. 157. 63 purpose of amending the Act 81 Vict., cap 01, respecting fishing by foreign vessels in the territorial M'atcrs of the Dominion. That Act was, as your Lonlship is aware, framed with the object of giving oU'ect to the Convention of 181H, by rendering liable to certain penalties all fovoign fishing-vessels t-ntering the territorial waters of the Uomlniou for any purpose not authorized by that Convention. It is provided under the 3rd section of the Act referred to that the ])enolty of forfeiture shall atta'li to any foreign vessel which •' has l)een found fishing or prepaiing to fish, or to hav(; been fishing " without a. licence witliin the 3-mile limit. These words, whi.-K follow closely those of section 2 of the Imperial Act of 1815) (59 Geo. Ill, cap. 38), appear to my Govcn-umcnt to he insufllcient for the purpose of giving effect to the intentions of tlio franicrs of the Convention of ]818, inasmuch a^, while the penalty of forfeituvt! is attached to foreign vessels found fishing or prejjaring to fish, or having been fishini; within the 3-milo limit, it is not clear that under them the same penalty would attach to vessels entering the territorial waters in contmvention of the stipulntions of the Convention, for a purpose other than those of sheltering, repairing damages, purchasing wood, and obtaining Mater, for which purposes alone, unrlcr the terms of Article I of th(> Convention, and of section 3 of the Imperial Act of 1810 above referred to, foreign tishing-vessels are permitted to enter the bays aiid harbours of the Dominion. Your Lordship is no doubt aware that the decisions of th.e Canadian Courts leave it open to (juestlon whether the purchase of bait in Canadian waters docs or does not constitute a preparation to fish within the meaning of the Imperial Act of 181'.) and the Canadian Statute which it is now sought to amend. The decision of Chief . Justice Sir William Young in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Nova Scotia, given in November 1871 in the case of the fishing-schooner " Nickerson," was to the effect that the purchasing of bait constituted such a preparation to fish within Canadian waters. The same point had, however, previously arisen in February 1871 in the Vice-Admiralty Court at St John, New Brunswick, in the case of the American fishing-vessel " White Fawn," when jVIr. Justice Ilazen decided that the purchase of bait within the 3.mile limit was not of itself a proof that the vessel was prej)aring to fish illegally within that limit. There being, therefore, some doubt whether the intention of the Convention ot 1818 is efit'ctually carried oxit either by the Imperial or the Canadian Acts referred recourse to legislation foreign fishing-vessels resorting to Canadian waters for purjx'ses 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, then; would be no remedy against foreign fishing-vessels frequenting the waters of the Dominion for purposes not permitted by the Convention of 1818, except — 1. That provided by section '1 of the Act of 181i), namely, a penalty of 200/., recoverable in the Superior Courts from the persons violating the provisions of the Act. This ])enalty, 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 tor which the vess(>l has entered will in most cases have been accomplished before an order can have been given for her departure, it will l)e obvious that this penalty has very little practical utility. 5^. The common law penalties attaching to a violation of the Imperial Statute above referred to in respect of illegally entering the bays and harbours of the Dominion. If, however, it were sought to enforce these penalties, their enforcement 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 ( Jovern- ment, be regarded as more oppressive than the detention of the otfending vessel subject to the investigation of her case by the Vice-Admiralty Courts. I have, &c. (Signed) LiV.NSDOWNE. to, it has been thought desirable by my (Government to have removing all doubt as to the liability to forfeiture of all No. 66. TTif" Earl of Roiehery in Mr. Phelps, Sir, Foreign Office, June 8, 1886. I HAVE tho honour to aoknowlodtfo fho receipt of your note of tlip 1st instant, in which you incloso a copy of n tcloiymni From Mr. Unyard protesting' n^iunst t.u' Bill now before the Canatlifiri Tarliament relative to tlio Fishery question ; and I bop leave to acquaint you. in n'ply, t!iat the subject shall receive the early and careful consideration of Her Majesty's (jovernment. I hare, &o. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 57. Sir J. Pauncefote to Sir R. Herbert. Sir, Foreign Office, June 3, 1880. I AM directed by the Earl of IloselKsry to transmit to you a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's ^finister at Washintrton, inclosing a copy of a second note from Mr. Bayard on tho subject of the North American fisheries ;• and 1 am to suggest that, if Enrl Granville sees no objection, the Government of Canada may bo requested, by telegraph, to furnish any observations on this note (which has boon communicated to the IVlarquis of Lansdowne) in addition to those which they may offer on Mr. Bayard's note referred to in my letter of the 2Gth iiltimo. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 58. TTte Earl of Rosebefy to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Officf, June l, 1880. 1 HAVE received your despatch of the 11th ultimo, inclosing a copy of Mr. Bayard's note relative to the Fisliei-y question and to the seizure of United States' vessels in Canadian ports; and I have to acpiaint you, in reply, that this comnmni- eation fihall receive the immediate and friendly consideration of ller ^lajesty's Government. I am, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 59. Mr. lirumston to Sir J. Pnitucrfote. — (Received June 5.) Si' , Downing Hitreet, June 4, 1880. WITH reference to previous correspondence n^lativf^ to the is'orth American Fisheries question, T am directed by Earl (iranvillc to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of llosebery, eopit-s of despatchi^s and telegrams which have passed betwcou the Socrctaiy of State and the (iovei-nor-tieneral of Canada on the subject. 1 am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. • No. 49. TneloBuro I in No. 69. The Ma -quia of Lanadowne to Earl Oranville. My Lord, Government Home, Ottawa, May 1, 1886. AH I ob8erv(5 that some coinraontH havt) hftui madn in tiio London pn'ss upon the allo<;nd detention of an Auu^rifaii schooner at Badcht-k, Cape Jk(>ton, for violation of the FiHliery Laws ol'tiio Dominion, it may be as well tiiat 1 should sui)mit to you the foUowint; statement of the facts of the case, with whicli I have been supplied by my Minister of Marine and Fislieries. '1. On the evenins? of the 22nd April the American schooner "Joseph Story," Captain J. L. iVnderson, of (lloucester, Massacduisetts, anehonul oil' the harbour of Haddeek. On the followini; morninK tin; captain came asli.oro, bout^ht some supplies, cnf^af^ed a man, took him on board, and sailed wit bout reportinf; to the Customs authorities. The Collector at Haddock, Mr. L. G. Campbell, upon this telej»«iphed to the Sub-Collector at IM-as d'Or, instructincj him to iletain the vessel, and at the same time reported his own action in the matter, by telegram, to the Minister of Customs. 3. In compliance with these instructions, the Sub-Collector at Bras d'Or detained the vessel, which proved to have cleaiunces from St. Peter's to Aspy Bay, on a trading voyage. \, On the 2ltli April the Minister of Customs teleirraphed to i[r. Campbell that the vessel should be allowed to proceed on condition that the man illegally ship[)ed be put on shore, the captain being formally warned by the; Collector uot to repeat the offence. 5. Your Lordship will observe that this vessel, being an American schooner, rendered herself liable to seizures for violation of the Customs Law by not reporting when she tcmehed at Bad(h'ck, as well as of the Coasting Laws by plying for trade between Canadian ports. 'I'he Collector's first tolegnmi to the Minister of Customs stat(;d that she was a lisbing schooner, and on that information the telegram above referred to was sent, ordering her not to b(> lf)nger detained provided the conditions attaelunl Avcre complied with. If it had been known that the case was one of trading illcally, tlic! vessel would, without doubt, have been held for violation of the Customs Liuv. By the time, however, when the Minister of Customs had been made -aware of the actual facts of the cas(> she had already been released and permitted to proceed on her vovage. I liave, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNPl Inelosure 2 in No. 59. Earl Granville to the Marquis of Lansdowne. (Telegraphic.) Douninij Street, May 10, 1886. TLEASE telegraph early full particulars of the seizure of the " David J. Adams " by Caiuulian authorities. luclosiu-e 3 in Xo. 59. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Earl Granville. (Telcmphic.) Ottawa, May 10, 188fi. SCIIOOXER "David .I.Adams" was buying bait at Digby, did not report, as re(iuired by law, to Collector, and concealed her iiamo and port of registry; is now ort of ro<xbauste(l, to renew it in Canadian wat4'rs. Such vessels, if compelled as s(Min as they ran short of bait to return I'roiu the Canadian iJanks to an American port, would lose a j,'reat part of their fishiui; sejison, and be put to considerable exjiensc and inconv<'iiience. homo idea of the importance of this point may be formed fmni the fact that .Mr. Joucas, Commissioner to the London Fisheries Exhibition, and a hitjli authority on all mattei-s connected with the tisheries of the Dominion, in a j)aper read before the British Association at .Montreal in 1884, estimates the cost of the bait used by each vessel engaged in the cod fishery at one-fourth of the value of " r catch of cod. b. 'I'liere can, however, be no doubt that, under the terms of tht^ Convention of IBlK, I'oieiijn fisliiii'^-vessels are absolutely precluded from resortin;^' to Canadian waters for tlit> purpose of obtaining supplies of bait, and in view of the injury which •would result to the fishing interests of the Dominion, which the Conventilm of 1818 was m;i]ufcstly iutendi-d to protect, if any facilities not expressly authorized by that C 57 Inolosuro 6 in No. B9. The Marquin of Lanndownt to Earl Oranvillt, My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, May 10, 1886. I HAVE tho honour in inform you timt tlio Anu'rioan flHhing-Hohooner "EUft M. Doughty" wftH seized lit Ht. Ann's, Nova Scotia, by Suh-Colloctor MeAulnv, who is reported l»y the Collector of Oustoins at Baddock, Mr. L. O, Camphell, to have proof that tho captain bought bait at Ht. Ann's without reporting to th<' Customs auttiorities. 2. Mr. CanipboU further telegrapliH that tho captain neknowlodgcs the facta and showed the bait bouj^bt, but claims that he held a i)ermit or licence, signed by the Collector of Customs at Portland, Maine, to touch and trade at any foreign port. 3. The " Ella M. Dotighty " has been held for not reporting, and an inquiry ii now proceeding in order to ascertain whether there has or has not been an infraction of the Fishery Law of the Dominion. I have, Slq. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. No. 00. Mr. Win^eUl to Sir J. Puunccfotv. — (Rere'n^ed June 5.) Sir, Douniny Street, June 5, 1886. I AM directed by Earl Cirranvllle to acknowledge the ro(HMpt of your letter of the 3rd instant, foiwarding a copy of a despntcii from Jler Majesty's Minister at Washington, with a note from Mr. Bayard relative to the North American Fisheries question. Lord Granville desires mo to transmit to you, for the information of the Earl of Roscbery, a copy of a telegram which he has addressed to the GoviTnor-Goneral of Canmla, rcqucstin„ tho observations of the Dominion Government upon the subject of this note. I am, &c. (Signed) EDWARD WING FIELD. Inclosuro in No. 00. Enrl Granville to the Mmquiii of Lansdowne. (Telegraphic.) Downliuj Strfet, June 4, 1886. IIER Majesty's Government desire to be furnished with oljscrvations of Dominion Government on Bayard's note 20th May as soon as possible. No. 61. Mr. Phelps to the Earl of Rosebery. — {Received June 7.) My Lord, Legation of the United States, London, June 2, 1886. '" SINCE the conversation I had the honour to hold Avith your Lordship on the morning of the 29tli ultimo I have received from my Government a copy of the Report of the Consul-Geueral of the United States at Halifax, giving full details and depositions relative to the seizure of the " David .7. Adams," and the correspondence between the Consul-Genera 1 and the Colonial authorities in reference thereto. Tlie Report of the Consul-Goneral, and the evidence annexed to it, appear fully to sustain the points I submitted to your Lordship in the interview above referred to, touching tho seizure of this vessel by the Ciuiadian ollicials. I do not understand it to be claimed by the Canadian authoi'ities that the vessel seized had been engaged, or was intending to engage, in lishing within any limit prohibited by the 'freaty of 1818. Tlie occupation of tlio vessel was exclusively [84] I 53 l/s :■ _ i J,* H. ' deep-son llshing, a business In which it had a perfect right to ho employed.. The grouiul upon which (lie capture was made was tliat the master of the vessel had purcliased of nn inhMl)itnnt of Novn Scotia, near the port of Dighy in tliat province a day or two l)ofor»>, a small (luantity of bai^. to be used in lishing in the deep sea outside the 3*nulo limit. The question pn>s(>n(od is whether under the terms of the Ircaty, and the oonstruciion placinl u|i.)n thorn in practice for many years by the British Government, and in view t)f the exist iuj; relations between the United States and Great BritaiA» that transj\ction alTords a sufTicient reason for making such a seizure, and for prooeeding under it to the contiscation of the vessel and its contents. I am not unaware that the Canadian authorities, conscious, apparently, that the affirmative of this proposition could not easily be maintained, deemed it advisable to siipplonicnt it wiMi a cha-j-o against the vessel of a violation of the Canadian Customs Act of ISSU, in not rcportini' her arrival at Digby to the Customs officer. But this charge is rot the one on which the vessel was seized, or which must now be principally reli- d on for its condemnation, and standing alone couhl hardly, eveu if well I'omidod. l)e the source of any serious controversy. It would be at most, under the cu-cumstances, only an accidental and purely technical breach of a Custom-house Rc^nilation, by which no harm was intended, and from which no hann came. ,u\d would, in ordinary cases, be easily condoned by au apology, and perhaps the payment of costs. Eut trivial as' it is, this charge docs not appear to be well founded in point of fact. Diirby is a small fishing si'ttlenient, and its harbour not detined. The vessel had moved about and anchored in the outer part of the harbour, having no business at or con munieation with Digby, and no reason for reporting to the officer of Customs. It apiM'ars by the Report of the Consul-Gcncral to be conceded by the Customs authorities then' that tishing-vrcourse, 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 considereil 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 interests 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 unneees'?arily to restrict the free and friendly intercourse customary between all civilized maritime nations, and especially between tlie United States and Great Britain. Such, I cannot but believe, is the construction that would be placed upon this Treaty by any enlightened Court of Justice. But oven were it conceded that if the Treaty Avas a private contract instead of an 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. Tlie interpretation of Treaties between nations in their interconrse with each other proceeds upon broader and higher considerations. The question is not what is the teclinicaJ effect of the words, liut what is the construction most consonant to the dignity, the just interests, and the friendly relations of the sovereign Powers. I submit to your Lordship that a construction so harsh, so unfriendly, so unnecessary, and so irritating as that set up by the Canadian authorities is not such as Her Majesty's Government has been accustomed either to accord or to submit to. It would find no precedent in the history of Britisii diplomacy, and no provocation in any aotiou or assertion of the Government of the United States. These views derive great if not conclusive force from the action of the British Parliament on the subject, adopted very soon after the Treaty of 1818 took effect, and continued without cliangfc to the present time. An Act of Parliament (59 Geo. Ill, cap. 38) was passed on the 14th June, 1819, to provide for carrying iato effect the provisions of tlie Treaty. After reciting the terms of the Treaty, it enacts (in sulwtance) that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Orders in Council, to make such llegulationB and to give sueli directions, orders, and instmctions to tlie Governor of IS'eMi'oundlaiul, or to any ofliecr or olTicers in that station, or to any other persons, " as shall or may be from time to time det-nicd proper and necessary for tlie carrying into elleet the purposes cf said Convention ivifli relation to the taking, drying, and curing nf fish by inhabitants of the United States o/ Jmer/rn, in common Avitii British subjects, within the limits set fortli in tb(> afort>said Convention." It further enacts that any foreign vessel engaged in iisliing, or preparing to fish, within 3 marine miles of the* coast (nut autliorized tu do so by Treaty) shall be seized or forfeited upon prfjccution in thi; proper Court. It further provides as follows: — "That it shall and may b( laAvful for any fisherman of tlic said United Statesto enter into any sucii liays or harbours of lli^i liritannie Majesty's dominions in America as are last mentionod, lor tlic purpose of slielter and repiiiring damages therein, and of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and I'or no other jjurpose whatevcu- ; subject, n»>ver(li(>less, to sucli restrictions as may be necessary to pr(>vent such fishermen ol the said United States from taking, drying, or curing lisb in the said bays or iiarbours, or in any other manner whatever abusing the said privileges by the said Treaty and this Act reserved to them, and as shall for tliat purpose be inaposed by any Order or Orders to bo from time to time made by Uis Majesty in Coimcil under the authority of this [84] .12 11 ■ ' ' L'l 60 Act ; and by any Kegulations wliicli shall be issued hj the Governor, or person exercising the office of Governor, in any such parts of His Majesty's dominions in America, under or in pursuance of any such Order in Council as aforesaid." It further enacts as follows : — "That if any person or persons, upon requisition made by the Governor of Newfoundland, or the person exorcising the office of Governor, or by any Governor or person exercising the office of Governor in any other parts of His Majesty's dominions m America as aforesaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such Governor or person exercising the office of Governor, in the execution of any orders or instructions from His Majesty in Council, shall refuse to depart from such bays or harboius; or if any person or persons shall refuse or neglect to conform to any Regulations or directions which shall be mjule or given for the execution of any oi the purposes of this Act ; every sucli pen-son so refusing, or otherwise offending against this Act, shall forfeit the sum oi" 200/., i > be recovered," &c. It will be perceived from these extracts, and still more clearly from a perusal of the entire Act, that while reciting the lan;.?uagc of the Treaty in respect to the purposes for which American fishernion may enter 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 restric- tions that may be imposed by Orders in Council to prevent such fishing, or the drying or curing of fish, or the abu-ie of privilei^es reserved by the Treaty ; or (3) by a refusal to depart from the bays or harbours upon proper requisition. It thus plainly appears that it was not the intention of Parliament, nor its understanding 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 is unnecessary to point out that it is not in the power of the Canadian Parliament to enlarge or alter the provisicms of the Act of the Imperial Parliament, or to give to the Treaty either a construction or a legal eflfcct not warranted by that Act. But imtil the eff'ort which I am informed is now in progress in the Canadian Parliament for the passage of a new Act on this subject, introduced since the seizures under consideration, I do not understand that any Statute has ever been enacted in that Parliament which attempts to give any diflerent construction or effect to the Treaty from that given by the Act of 59 Geo. III. 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 thorel'ort' fair to presume that there are no other Colonial Acts applicable tc the case, and I know of none. The Act of 1668, among other [)rovisi(jns not material to thia discussion, provides for a forfeiture of foreign vessels " found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing in British waters within 3 marine miles of the coast ;" and also provides a penalty of 40<) dollars against a masti>r of a foreign vessel within the harbour who shall fail to answer questions put 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 embarrassing defence against or appeal from tliem not material to the present case woidd, on a proper occasion, deserve very serious attention. The Act of 1870 is an amendment of the Act just referred to, and adds nothing to it affecting the present ease. The Act of 1883 has no application to the case, except upon the point of the omission of the vessel to report to the Ciistonis ofTicer, already considered. It results, therefore, that, at the time of the seizun; of the " David J. Adams " and other vessels, there was no Act whatever, either of the British or Colonial Parliaments, which made the j)urcliasc of bait l)y tiiose v('ss(a. It hud lepurt, and y questions any known It seems t« me impossible to empo the emelosion that this and other similar seizures wore made by the Canadian authorities for the deliberate purpose of harassing and embarrassing the Amcmoan flahing«vflweli in tlio pursuit of their lawful employment, and the injury, which would havo been a serious one if Qommitted under a mistake, is very much aggravated by tho motives which appear to bare prompted it. I am instniotod by my Government cnmeatly to protest against these {Hveeedings as wholly unwarranted by the Treaty o!" 1818, and altogether inconsistent with the friendly relations hitherto existing botween tlw Unitwl States and Her Majesty's Government; to request that tho " Davicl .T. Adams" and the other American fishing-vessels im>w under scisure inCaiuulian ports be immediately released ; and that proper orders may be issued to pn^vcnt similar proccediiicfs in the future ; and I am also instructed to inform you that the IJiiUcd States will liold Her Majesty's Government responsible for all looses which may bo sustainod by AiiK^rican citizens in the dispossession of their property growing out of tho soaroli, 8ei/,urc, detention, or sale of their vessels lawfully within the territorial watera ol Britisii Nortli America. The real source of the difficulty tliat has arisen is well understood. It is to be found in the inritatiaa that has taken pl&cu among a portion of the Canadian people OB account of the termination, by the Uuitad States' GovcrnmcMit, of the Treaty of Washington on the Ist July last, whereby fish imported from Canada into the United States, and which, so long as that Treaty remainud in force, wris admiti,j-i free, is now Hable to the import duty provided by tho General Ilcvcnuo Laws. And the opinion appears to have gained ground in Canada that tho United States may be driven, by harassing and annoving their fishermen, into tho adoption of a new Treaty by which Canadian fish shall be admitted free. It is not necessary to say that this scheme is likiily to prove as mistaken in policy as it is indefensible in principle. In terminating tho 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 whi{Oi by (WNE. 1886. e which I )f the BiU y existing c that the ]ed to the ritain and Igs in the (u of the that he the note aoTHxe for WEST. , 188G. No. 136, Ld the Act passed the hign vessel the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours in Canada, where Riich vessel has entered such waters for any Enrpose not permitted by the laws of nations, or by Treaty or Convention, or by any iw of the United Kingdom or of Canada now in force, I hasten to call your attention to the wholly unwarranted proposition of the Canadian authorities, through their local asfents, arbitrarily to enforce according to tlieir own construction the provisions of any Convention between the United States and Great Britain, and, by the interpolation of lanc;uai»o not found in any such Treaty, and by interuretation not claimed or conceded l)y either party to such Treaty, to invadu and destroy the commercial rights and privileges of citizens of the United States under and by virtue of Treaty stipulations 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 the 7th May, 188(5, and to be signed by J. Johnson, Commissioner of Customs, assuming to execute the provisions of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain concluded the 20th October, 1818; and printed copies of a ""Warning" purporting to bo issued by George E. Foster, Minister of Marine and Fi si i cries, dated Ottawa, the 5th March, 1880, of a similar tcnour, although capable of uncMjual results in its execution. Such proceedings I conceive to bo flagrantly violative of the reciprocal commercial privileges to which citizens of the United States are lawfully entitled under Statutes of Great Britain and the well-defined and publicly proclaimed authority of both countries, besides being in resjiect of the existing Conventions between the two countries an as8umi)tion of jurisdiction entirely unwarranted, and which is wholly denied by the United States. In the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and friendly relations I give you my earliest information on the subject, adding that I have telegraphed Mr. Phelps, our Minister at London, to make earnest protest to Her Majesty's Government against such arbitrary, unlawful, unwarranted, and unfriendly action on the part of the Canadian Government and '^s ofiicials, and have instructed Mr. Phelps to give notice that the Government of Great Britain Avill be held liable for all losses and injuries to oiti/.ons of the United States and their pro))crty caused by the unauthorized and unMendly action of the Canadian officials to which I have referred. I have, &c. (Signed) T. P. BAYARD. No. 64. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery.* — (Received June 1 1 .) My Lord, Washington, May 30, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inform your liordsliip that the lino imposed on the Nova Scotia llshing-sehooner " Sisters," seized at Portland (Maine) for a violation of the Customs Regulations, has been remitled by the Acting Secretary of the Treasury. I inclose herewith an article Irom the "New York Herald" in connection therowitu.t I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. No. 65. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery. — {Received June 11.) My Lord, Woshi,igton, June 3, 1886. I HAVE the honour to incl(isc to your Lordship hcrewitli copies of two letters which I have received from Mr. Bayard respecting the proceeding of the Canadian authorities against American fishing-vessels. I have explained to Mr. Bayard that 1 um powerless to deal with these matters. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. tBi] * Copy to Colouial Office, June 15. t Not priuted. ^^' IneloBure 1 in Ifo. 6». Afr. BnyanI to Sir L, Weit. My dear Sir Lionel, Department nf State, WatMngtnn, Juv 1, iRHO. I SEND you a copy of a tolei^rain 1 liavo rwoiv'od from our Consul.(ieru!ral at Halifax, reportiof? additional cases of intorforcnco with American vessels by the Oanadian authorities. . ., • There is no powiblc justifieatiou apparent in the repetition and continuance ol such har«h and harassing action on the part of tlie provincial authorities against peaceful commerce. It can only ho produc^tive of injury to the efforts to establish a juit mutual understanding, and olwtruot the amicable intematicmal arrangement of a vexed queitiou. Very si'iriTelv vours, {Simeil, ' T. F. BAYAIID. Inclosure 2 in No. 65. Mr. Phelan to Mr. Bayard. (Telegraphic.) Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 30, 1886. CUTTER "Iloulett" boarded American vessel at Canso and searched her. I have not particulars. SohoOTier " Matthew Keriiy " detained one day at Souris, Priuc. Edward's Island, for purchasing ten bushels potatoes. The jtotatoes were landed and vessel allowed to go. Inclosure 3 in No. 05. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. My dear Sir Liouel, Department of State, Washington, June 2, 1880. A TELEGRAM from Eastport, in Mninc, to the Mcminn- of Congress from that district, announces a threat by Dominion CnllcTtors of Customs to seize American boats if they buy herring for canning in tho Jlominion weirs. This additional threatened iiiliibition of trade relates to the sardine industry, which consists in canning in the United states very small and young iKUTing, which I am informed are caught very closely inshore in weirs in Canadian waters by the inhabitants and sold to citizens of the Ignited States. *nie occupation is carried on sulely by Canadian tishermeu along the coasts of their own countrj'. bo that the interference suggested is with their freedom of contract to dispose of property lawfully, the result of their own labours, because the sale is to citizens of the United States. It is important that the facts should be made known plainly. Yours, &c. (Signed) T. P. BAYARD. No. 66. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery. — (Rifieived June 14.) My Loard, Washington, June 4, 1886. WITH reference to my despatch of the lltli May, I have the houonr to inclose to your Lordship herewith the text of the Bill relating to American sh" ping which has passed Congress. Section 12 refers to reciprocity of tonnage dues, and section 17 Is the retaliatory clause directed against Canada. Official copies of the Act, wjhien approved by the President, will be forwarded.* I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. • The Act VIM approved June 19, 1886. IfloIwuM in No. 00. Extract fro^ tht Bill relating to American Shipping, SECTION 12. That the President be, and hereby is, directed to cause the Govern- raonts of foreign countries which, at any of their ports, impose on American vessels a tonnage tax or lighthouse dues, or othor equivalent tax or taxes, or any other fees, cliargos, or dues, to bo informed of the provisions of the preceding section, and invited to co-oporato with the GoTornmont of the United States in abolishing all lighthouse dues, tonnage taxes, or other equivalent tax or taxes on, and also all other fees for ofQoial acrvieos to tlio votwels of tlio respective nations employed in the trade between tlie purtii of sueh foreign uouutry and the ports of tho IJiuted States. Sect. 17. That whenever any foreign pountiT whose vessels have been placed on the same footing in the ports of the United States as American vessels (the uoastwiso trade excepted) shall deny to any voss(>l8 in tho United States any of the commor(!ial privileges accorded to national vosscils in the hai'bours, ports, or waters of such foreign country, tho President, on receiving sntisfactoi^ infoimation of the continuance of such discriminations again&t any vessels of the United States, is hereby authorized to issue his Proclamation excluding, on and after such time as he may mdicate, from the exertnso of such commei'cial privileges in the port* of the United States as are denied to Americau vessels in the ports of such foreign country, all vessels of such foreign country of .i similar character to the vessels of the United States thus discriminated against, and suspending such concessions previously fronted to tho vessels of such country ; and on and after the date named in such 'reclamation for it to take effect, if the master, officer, or agent of any vessel of such foreign country excluded by said Proclamailon 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 iU rigging, tackle, furniture, and boats, and all the goods on board, shall be liable to seizure and forfeiture to the Unitid States ; and any person opposing any officer of the United States in the enforcement of this act, or aiding and abetting any other person in such opposition, shall forfeit 800 dollars, and shall bo guilty of a mis- demeanour, and, upon conviction, shall bo liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. No. 67. The Earl of Rosehery to Mr. Phelps. Sir, Foreitjn Office, June 14, 1886. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 2nd instant, containing representations which you have been instructed by your Government to make resi)ecting certain seizures of American fishing-vessels which have recently taken place in Canadian ports ; and I bog leave to acquaint you, in reply, that tho subject will receive the early and careful consideration of Her Majesty's Govern- ment. I have, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 68. Sir L. West to the Earl of Rosebery.— {Received June 18.) My Lord Washington, June 8, 1886. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a further note which I have received from the Secretary of State protesting against the action of the Canadian Customs authorities at the port of St. Andrew's, New Brunswick, in the case of the American fishing-vessel •' Annie M. Jordan." Your Lordship will observe that it is again intimated (see note of the 29th May, .... [84] ^2 1886) thftt ITer Majesty's Oorcrnment will bo hpld liable for tho loos and damage oousequont ou tho seizures and detention of Amerienn vessels. I have, &o. (Sifimed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosuro in No. 68. Mr. Bnyard to Sir L. West. Sir, Department of State, Washington, June 7, 1886. I REGRET exoeo(iin£»ly to eommunicnte tliiit report is to-day made to me, accompanied l)y aflldavit, of tlio refusal of tlu> Collector of Customs of the port of St. Andrew's, Now HrunsAvic-iv, to allow (lie master of tho American schooner "Annie M. .Ionian," of Gloucester, Massachusetts, to enter the said vessel at that port, although properly documented as a flsliins:-ve8scl, with permission to touch and trade at any foreign port or place durini^ her voyacje. The object of such cTitry was exj)lained by tho master to be the purchase and exportation of certain mondiandize " (jrossibly fresh flsh for food, or bait for deop-sea flshini;). The vessel was threatened with seizure by the Canadian authorities, and her owners allef»e that they have sustained damage from this refusal of commercial rights. I earnestly protest acrainst this unwarranted withholding of lawful commercial privileges from an American vessel and her owners, ond for tho loss and damage consequent thereon the Government of Great Britain will be held liable. I have, &o. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. No. 69. The Earl of Roiehery to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Office, June 21, 1886. I HAVE received your despatch of the IJOth ultimo, inclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard protestiiifj against tlu; provisions of the Bill No, 136 now pending in the Canadian I'arliament, and also against the terms of the Customs Circular 'No. 371 ; and I have to request that you Avill inform Mr. Bayard, in reply, that the matter will receive careful attention after the necessary communication with tho Dominion Government. I am, &o. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 70. Sir J. Pauncefote to Sir R. Herbert. Sir. * Foreign Office, June 21, 1886. I AM directed by the Earl of Rosebcry to transmit to you, to bo laid before Earl Granville, a copy of a despatch from Her Alajct+y's Minister at Washington, inclosing copy of a note from the United States' Secrctiiry of State protesting against the action of the Canadian Customs authorities at the port of St. Andrew's, New Brunswick, in the case of the United States,' lisliing-vessel "Annie M. Jordan;"* and I am to state that Lord Rosehery would 1)(; glad to be furnished with a Report from tho Dominion Government in regard to this case^ I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 68. 1886. Tore Earl Inclosing lie action twick, in to state lominion POTE. No. 71. Sir L. Went to the Earl of Rosebery.— {Received June 28.) My Lord, Wnshingtott, June 15, 1886. T JIAVE tlio honour to incloHo to your Lord Mp liorowitli v.o\)y of u note which I have received from |he Hecretary of Stai<' rcciucstiiii,' tho attention of Her Majesty's Govenimont to certain warnings alleijjcd to have h(>cn i,'iven to American fishing- vessels h\ the Canadian aiithoritii's to keep o\itsi(ln imacfinary lines drawn from head- lands to headlands, which Iw; I'liaractcrizcs as wliolly unwarranted pretensions of extra- territorial authority, and U8)irpations of jurisdiction. I have, &c, (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Inclosure in No. 71. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. Weit. Sir, Department of State, Washington, June 14, 1886. TITE Consul-Oeneral of the United Stnti's at llalifaY coiunninicates to me the information derived hy him from the Cnllrctor of Custoius at that Iport, to the effect that Amerifjan flshing-vessels will not ho permitted to land fish at that port of entry for transportation in hond acrosH the province. I have also to inform you that the masters of the ff)ur American fishing-vessels of Gloucester, Mas-sachusetts— " ^lartlia A. Bradly," " llattler," " Eliza Boynton," and " Pioneer " — have severally rop. a-tod U, the ('(msiil-lJeiieral at Ilalifax that the Suh-CoUeotor of Customs at Canso had warned them to kooji outside an imaginary line drawn from a point 3 mile.s outside Canso Head to a point 3 miles o'ltside St. Esprit, on the Cape Breton coast, a distance of 40 miles. This line, for nearly its entire continuance, is distant 12 to 2o miles from the coast. The same masters also report that they were warned against going inside an imaginary line drawn from a point 3 miles outside North Cape, on Prince Edward Island, to a point 3 miles outside of East Point, on the same island, a distance of over 100 miles, and that this last-named line was for nearly that entire distance ahout 30 miles from the shore. The same authority informed the masters of the vessels referred to that they would not be permitted to enter Bay Chaleur. Such warnings are, as you mtist he avcH aware, wholly unwarranted pretensions of extra-territorial authority, and usurpations of jurisdiction hy the Provincial officials. It becomes my duty, in bringing this information to your notice, to request that if any such orders for interl'erence with the unquestionable rights of the American fishermen to pursue their business without molestation at any point not within 3 marine miles of the shores, and within the delined limits as to which renunciation of the liberty to fish was expressed in the Treaty of 1818, may have been issued, the same may at once be revoked as violative 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 Britannic Majesty's Government to the end that proper remedial orders may be 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 bo sought to be revived. I have, &c. (Signetl) T. F. BAYARD. No. 72. Sir R. Herbert to Sir J, Pauncefote. — {Received July 3.) Sir, Downing Street, July 3, 1886. I AM directed by the Secretary of State for the Coionies to transmit to you, for the information of the Earl of Ro.sebery, a copy of a despatch, with its inclosures, from the Governor-General of Canada relative to the case of the Canadian schooner "Sisters," I am, &c. (Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT. Tncloaura 1 in No. 72. The Marquis of Latudowne to Enrl Granville. Mj Lord, Citadel, Quvher, June U, I8A0. I HAVE the honour to forwartl herewith, for .your Lordttliip'fi intoriniition, copieit of two despatohen wliich I 1 vo rt-ceivcd from llor Mt^jedtyn Miiiistur at WnHhintftoii in regard to tlie detention n Hiil>s<'(|iii>nt relcaNO of tho Cann ' dollar?* for the failiiro of Iht captain to jjrodiicc a mauifot of her carfi^o upon his arrival witiiin tlie limits of the Customs jurisdiction of the port. As, however, the United States' authorities \u'ri! satisfied tiiut there win; no intention on the part of the captain of the " Sisters " to defraud the revenue, the tine was remitted and the vessel released. I have communicated copies of Sir Lionel West's despatches to my Government. I have, Sic. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. Inclosure 2 in No. 72. Sir L. Wett to the Murnu'u of Lunsdowue. Uj Lord, ^ Washinylon, May 20, 188(5. T Have the honour to inclose hcrewitii to your Excellency copy of tlie Iteport ot the Collector of Customs, at Portland (Maine), in reuard to the detention of the schooner I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVJLLE WEST, Incloauic 3 in No. 72. Extract from the " IVaxhington Republic" of May 29, 1886. The Seizvub of tub " Sisteus." — Acting Secretary Fairchild yesterday received a Report from Collector Anderson at Portland 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, Nova Scotia, relating to a jienalty incurred by him in conscciuonce of violation of provinions of Section 2814 Uevised Statutes of the United States. On this case I have respectfully to report that this vessel arrived and entered at tills port under "ircumstances substantially as stated by Cai)tain Ellis. The ' clearance ' lu; alludes to has on its face the sin^cle word h ' as a description of cargo. Nowhere on ' clearance' is any reference made to kin xdition, quantity, by whom shipped, or to whom consigned. Very likely the discrep , between his st:itement and the fact arises through an inadvertence on the part of the person he employed to draw up the state- ment. The Acting Boarding Officer at this i)ort reported to mo, through the Surveyor, under date of the 24th instant, that this vessel arrived at this porr to-day, and the captain failed to producee & manifest of the cargo on Ijoard such schooner, "In consconence of this the Master was informed on entry that he was liable to a penalty of 600 dollars for failure to produce a manifest upon his arrival within the limits of this collection district, as provided by Section 2814 Kcvised Statutes of the United States; that under an Article of Treasury Regulations, 18H4, relating to Customs and Naviiation Laws, the case would be subniittcd to the Secretary of the Treasury before enforcing the penalty. I believe the icasons he assigns for his failure to comply with the requirements of the Navigation Laws and Customs Regulations of the United States to be true. I have not discovered any atfem|it on bis part to defraud the revenue. He presented a manife«it in proper form o'n entry of his vessel, in which cargo was set up n> taken on board at Farnsworli., Ixova Scotia; co.itenis, 20,000 fresh mackerel, shipped i)y W. A. Killian, and consl-ncd to W. L. Clements and Co. ; consignee's residence, iAfy Lord, I H which I American Scotia. ■0|H«SH of njjton in tern," »t tirth, And umuit'e>tl S(;'.ti?s' Coiisiil-Qeiu'ial at Halifax, that the schooner "City Point," of Portlaitcl. Maino. nirivtMl at (he po.t of Shclhurne, Nova Scotia, landed two men, obtained water, and is detained by the authorities until further instructions are received from Ottawa. The ea>e. as thus reported, is an infringement of the ordinary rights of international hospitality, and eonstittites a violation of Trcaiy stipulations and commer- cial privileges, evincing such unfiiendliness to the citizens of the United States as is groatly to be dejjlorod. ami wliieh 1 hold it to be the responsible duty of the Government of Great Britain promptly to ci-rrect. I have, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. No. 71. Mr. P/idps to the jUarl of Rosehery, — {Received July 17.) My Lord, Legation of the United States, London, July 16, 1886. I HAVI'i the honour to inclose herewith the copy of a telegram which I have just received froni the Secretary of State, and to which I beg that your Lordship will give the earliest possible attention. I have, &c. (Sigiied) E. J. PHELPS. Inclosure in No. 74. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. (Tplegrai)bic.) {Received at the Legation, July 16, 1S86). YOU will stnto to Lord Rosebery that, realizing lully any embarrassment or delays attendant upon pending changes of British Administration, it "is our duty to call upon Imperial Government to put a stop to the unjust, arbitrary, and vexatious action of Canadian autiiorities towards our eitiiiens engaged in open sea tishing and trading, but not violating or contemplating; violation of any Law or Treaty. Our readiness, long since expressed, to endenvour to eoino to a jui^t and fair joint interpretation of Treaty rights and commercial privileges, is ill met by persistent and unfriendly action of Canadian'authoritics, vhich is rapidly producing a most injurious and exasperating etfcct. 1 am without reply from British Minister, who is now absent. No. 75. Sir ./. Pauncefote to Sir R. Herbert. Sir, Foreign Office, .July 17, 1886. I AM directed by the I'^arl of Rosebery to transmit to you a copy of a despatch frim "tier Majesty's Minister al AVasbingtoii,* inclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard, in whieh he i>rotests against the detention of the American schooner " City Point" at Shclburne, Nova Scotia; and I am to request that Earl Granville will instruct the IManpiis of Lansdowne, by telegraph, to send home a Report on the subject, if possible, by cable. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCE^-'OTE. rights. No. 73. 7» No. 76. Mr. Hardinge to the Earl of Roaehery.— {Received July 23.) My Lord, Washington, July 12, 1886. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship copy of a note received to-day, from the Secretary of Stale, protesting against the action of the Canadian Customs authorities at Pictou, Nova Scotia, 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 United States. I have, &c. (Signed) 3HARLES HARDINGE. Inclosure in No. 76. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. Sir, Department of State, Washington, July 10, 1886. 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 " 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, 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 telegran; reciting, with certain inaccurate and extended application, the language of Article I of the Treaty of 1818, the limitations upon the significance of which are impending discussion between the Government of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty; that on entering and clearing 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 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, as an unwarranted interpretation and application of the Treaty by the officers of the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of commercial and maritime intercourse existing between the two countries, and as a violation of hospitality, and for any loss or injury resulting therefrom the Go emmcnt of Her Britannic Majesty will he held liable. I have, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYAIID. No. 77. Mr. Hardinge to the Earl of Rosebery. — {Received July 23.) My Lord, Washington, July 12, 1886. WITH reference to my preceding despatch of to-day, I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a further note addressed by the Secretary of State ♦" Sir L. West, protesting against the interference of the Dominion cruizer " Middleton" in preventing American boats from visiting St. Andrew's, JIcw Brunswick, for the purpose of there purchasing herring for canning. In reply, I have merely acknowledged the receipt of his note, and stated that I would acquamt your Lordship with his views on this subject. 1 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, together with a statement made by the Captain of one of the American boats in question, whose masters complain of the violation of ilicir commercial rights. 1 hare, &c. (Signed) CHARLES HARDiNGE, [81] 74 InclosuriS 1 in No. 77. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. 8ir. Department of atatti Washington, July 10, 1880. ON the 2nd June last I had the honour to inform you that despatches from Ilastport in Maine had l)een received, reportina; threats by the Customs officials of the Dominion to seize American boats coming into those waters to purchase herring ftom the Canadian weirs for tiic ))urposc of canning the same as sardines, which would be a manifest infraction of the right of purchase and sale of herrinj; caught and sold 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 me that American boats visiting St. Andrew's. Xow Brunswick, for the purpose of there purchasing herring from the Canadian weirs for canning, had been driven away by the Dominion crui/er '• Middleton." Such inhibition o( usnal and legitimate commcrcini eontriicfs and intercourse is assuredly without warrant of law, and I draw your attention to it in order that the commercial rights of citizen.s of the United States may not be thus invaded and subjected to unfriendly discrimination, and I am, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. Inciosure 2 in No. 77. Extract from the "National Republican" of .July 12, 1886. REPRESENTATIVE BOUTi:LLE, 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 Bt. Andrew's, New Brunswick, on Friday by a Dominion cruzier : — " Dear Sir, "Deportment of State, July 10. 1886. " I have just received your telegram of this date, stating that yon had a despatch from Eastport, Maine, Ihnt American boats after herring for sardines at St. Andrew's, New Brunswick, were driven away by the Dominion cruizer "Middleton," with the announcement that no American boats will be allowed to take herring for any purpose ; and to this you invoke the immediate attentiim of this Department. "On the 2nd .June last you called at this Department, in company with Senator Hale, of Maine, and then drew my attention to a similar threat »if interference with the purchase of small herring for canning as sardines from the < "aniidian vicm. On the same day I made representation of the alleged threats to the B'itish Minister at this capital, and drew his atteiiti(v of a note addressed to you hy Mr. Bayard, in which, wliilst oxiiressly referring to tiie seizure by the Canadian authorities of the American fisiiing-vesscls " Joseph Story '' and " David J. Adams," he discusses at length the present position of the Nortli American Fisheries (question. I have also reccnved a cnn^mnnication upon the same subject from the United States' Minister at this Court, dated the :.'nd June last, wliicii, altliougli advancing arguments of a somewhat dilfereiit character, is sni)stai!tially addressed to the consideration of tin; same cpiestion. I think it tliereftire desirable to reply to these two communications together in the present des))atch, of which I shall hand a copy to Mr. Hlielps. The matter is one involving the gravest interests of Canada ; and upon receipt of tlie communications above mentioned, I lost no time in reipiesling tlie Secretary of State for the Colonies to obtain from the Goverimient of tlie Dominion an expression of their views thereon. I now inclose a copy of an approved Report of the Caiuidian Privy Council, in which the casi? of Canada is so hilly set forth ihat I think it would be ilesirable, as a j)reliminary step to the further discussion of the (piestions involved in this controversy, to communicate a copy of it to A'l-. Bayard, as representing tiie views of the Dominion Govi'rnment ; and I have to request that, in so doing, you will state that Her Majesty's (Jovernincnt will hi' glad to he favoured witli any observations which .Mr. Bayard may desire to make there m. Li regard to those portions of Mr. Phelps' note of the 2nd June, in which he calls in (juestion the coniiietence of the Canatlian authorities under existing Statutes, uiietlier Imperial or Colonial, to e(le"t seizun;s of United States' fisliing-vessels under circumstances siicli as tiiose which appeiir to liave led to the capture of the •'David J. Adams," 1 have to observe that ller Majesty's (Jovernmenl do not feel themselves at present in a iiosition to discuss that '|ueslion, vvliich is now oc ■iiig the attention of the Courts of Lau in the Dominion, and which may possi ^ .rm the subject of an appeal to the Judicial Coiiiinittee of Her Majesty's Privy Council in England. It is believed that the C^nirts in Canada will «leli\cr Judgment in the above cases very shortly; ami until the legal proceedings now pmuling have been brought to a conclusion, Her Majesty's Governineiil do not feel justified in expressing an opinion upon tliem, tsitlier as to the facts or the legality of tin action taken i)y the Colonial authorities. 1 do not, tlieref()re, conceive it to be at pnseiu necessary to make a>:y sjiecific reply to Mr. Bayard's further notes of the I lib and iJlii May and 1st, 2nd, and 7th June last. But with irenard to his note of ilie '2()tli Mav relative to the s( izuiv; of the United States' lishing-vessel "Jennie and Julia," I iiiehise, tor eoirimunic;\tion to Mr. Bavard, a coiiy of a Report from tiie Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dealing with this casti. 184] L 2 76 I cannot, however, close this despatc)! without adding that Her Majesty's Government entirely mncur in that passa two countri<.s miglii tie such as to promote good feeling and mutual advantage. Canada lias given many indi-sputabh' proofs of an earnest desire to cultivate and extend her commereial relations with the United States, and it may not be without advantage to recapitulate some of those proofs. For many years tief' -e 1854 the Maritime Provinces of British North America had complained to Her M- v'.s Gi)veriunent uf the euntinuous invasioii of their inshore fisheries (sometimes accoaipanied, it was alleged, with violence) by .\nierican fisliermen and fishing-vessels. Much irritation naturally ensued, and it was felt to be expedient by both Governments to put ar end Ui thi-- unseemly stat<' of thing- by Tn-iUy, and at the same time to arrange i'or enlarged trade relations between thi United States and the British North American Colonies. The Reciprocity Treatv of 18")4 was tlie lesult, by wliich were not only our inshore fislieries opei.ed to the Aii.ericans, lint pro;ision was mtide for the free interchange uf the piiiici|ial natural products of both countries, including those of the sea. Peaci was pi..erved on our waters, and the volume of international trade steadily increa.sed during the existence of this Treaty, and until it was terminated in 1866, not by Great Britain, but by :\m I'nHed States. lu the following year Canada (then become a Dominion and united to Nova Scotia 77 (ova Scotia uiv^ ITc V Brunswit k) v. „-; tlirown back on the Convention of 1818, and obliged to fit o"t I Mar' ne J'olicc to enforce the laws and dofond li^r ri^'hts, still de«irlnjj, however, to cu'tivf* ; friendly relations with her great noij^hbonr, and not toe suddenly to deprive tiie Arnerian fishermen of their accuslonied iisiiing; grounds and means of livelihood. S]ic readily irquiesced in tlie proiiosal of ller Majesty's (Jove -nment for the temporary issue of annual licences to fisii, on pa) nioiit of a moderate fee. Your Fixcellency is aware of tlu; failure of tliat scheme. A lew licenci-s were issued ai first, but the applica- tions for tliem soon ceased, and tlie Amerieari fishermen persisted in forcing themselves into our waters, " without leave or licence." Then came tlie recurrence, in an atigravated form, of all the troubles which had occurred anterior to the Reciprocity Treaty. There were invasions of our waters, personal eonflicts between our fish(!rmen and AnuTiean crews, the destruction of nets, the seizure and condemnation of vessels, and intense conseiiuent irritation on both sides. This was liappily put an end to by the W'asliingtou Treaty of 187'.. In the interval between the termination of tlie first "Veaty and tlie ratification oi" that by which it was eventually replaced, Canada on several occasions prcsset tiie j)eace, and there was tiafiijuillity along our shores until .luiy 1885, wlien it. was terminated again by the United States' Government and not by Great Uritain. With a desire to sliow that slie wisiied to lie a good neighbour, and in order to prevent loss and disappointment on tlie part of tiie United Stales' fishermen by their sndden exclusion from lier waters in tlie middle of tlie fishing season, Canada continued to allow them lor six months all the advantages which the rescinded Fishery Clauses had previously given them, aliliough her people received from the United States none of the corresponding advantages which the Trinity of 1871 had dtjelared 'o be an equivalent for the benefits secured thereby to the American lishermen. The President, in return for this courtesy, promised to iveoniiiiend to Congress the appointment of a Joint Commissit)!! by the two Govenimeiitsor the United Kingdom and the United States to consider the Fishery tiuestioii, with permission also to consider the whole slate of the trade relations between the United Statfs and Canada. This promise was fulfilled by the l*ri!sideiil, hut the Senate rejected his recommen- dation and refused to sanction ihe Conunis.sioii. Under these eircuiiistances Canada, having cxluuisted ev(>ry eilbrt to procure an amicable arrang<>meiil, has been driven again to fall back upon the Convention of 1818, the provisions of w^liieii she is now enlbrcini; and will enforce, in no punitive or hostile sjiirit as Mr. Havard siqipo-ses, but solely in protection of her fisheries, and in vindication of vhe right secured to her by Treaty. Mr. Bayard suggests that "the Treaty of 18lH was between two nations, the United States of America and Great Britain, who, as the Contracting Parties, can alone apply authoritative interpretation thereto, and eiifbree its jirovisions by appropriate legislaticHi." As it may be inferred from this statement tiiat the rigiil of the Parliament of Canada to make enactments for the protection of the fisheries of the Dominion, and the power of the Canadian otfieiTs to protect lliosc; lisheries, are (lueslioned, it may be well to staff at the outset tlie grounds upon which it is eoneeived by tlie Undersigned that the jurisdiction in tpiestion is clear beyond a doubt. 1. In the first place tiie Undersigned would ask it to he remembered that the extent of the jurisdiction of the Puii.uuent of Canada is not limited (nor was that or the provinces betiirc the Unioi;. (o 'iu? sea coast, but extends for 3 marine miles from the shore as to all iiiatlers over ^vi.Jvli any le^'islative autlu-"ity can in any country be exercised within that space. Tl": i-.;',islalioii which has been adopted on this subject by the Pariiami iit of Canada (aud previously to confederation by the provinces) does not reacii ixjyond tiiat liiuil, Ii nifi> !ie assumed that, in tiie absence of any Treutv stijmlalion to the contrary, this vighl is so well reeof;nized and esr.iblished by both British and American law that the grounssel, or boat, nor for any pi-'rson in any ship, vessel, or boat, other tlian sucli as shall be navigated according to the laws of tlie United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to fish for, or to take, dry, or cure any fish at any kind whatever within .3 marine miles of any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours whatever, in any part of His Majesty's dominions in Anu;rica, not included within the limits specified and described in the 1st Article of the said Convention, and that if such foreign ship, vessel, or boat, or any person or persons on board thereof shall be found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to (ish within sucli distance of sucli coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours witliin such parts of His Majeslv's dominiciUb in America, out of the said limits as aforesaid, all such ships, ve&sels, and boats, together with rheir cargoes, and all guns, anununition, tackle, apparel, furniture, and stores, shall be forfeited, and shall and may be sdzed, taken, sued for, |)roseciUed, recovered, and condemned by such and the like ways, means, and methods, and in the same Courts as ships, vessels, or boats may l)e forfeited, seized, prosecuted, and coiidemned for any offence against any laws relating to the Revenue of Custoniji, or tlie las^s of trade and navigation, undtT any .Act or Acts of the PariianieiM of (Ireat Uritain or the United Kingdom of Cireat iiritaiu and Ireland, provi'lcd that nothing contained in this Act sliail apply or be construed to apjdy to ih" ships or subjects of any Prince, Power, or 8tat<' in amity vith His JSlajesty wild are ealiilv 1 l)y Tnaty \\ith liis Majesty to any privileges of taking, drying, or curing fish on ilie coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours, or within the limits in this Act described. Provided always, that it shall and may b'- law tn! tor anv lishernien of the .'aid United States to enter into anv ouch bavs or liarlioiir.s of Ills IJritannic Majesty's dominions in .America as are la.sl mentioned, tor th ' jmrpose ot' siulter and repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, i.nd of obtaining water, and fi)r no other piirjM)>e whatever, subj<-ct neve rlheless to sucli restricti(»iis as mav be iieoessary to prevent such fisliermen of the said United States troni taking, dryiiii;, or curing' fish in the said bays or harboi ni, or in an\ other nuinner whatever, abusing the .said privileges by the said Treaty, .mo this Act reserved lo them, nid as sliall, for tiiat purpose, be imposed by any order o- orders to be from time to time made by Ills Majesty in Council under the autiiority of this A'jt, and Ir. any ".e^rulations wliich shall bo issued by the Governor er ju'i-son exercising ii': ofhee . t' (oxeinor in any such parts of His Majesty's dominiims in America, under or in '(Ursuaiire ot my sucli order in Ctmncil as aforesaid. "And that if any person or persons iipoi: ceiiei-ition made by the Governor of Newfoundland, or the person exercising the office of iiovernor, or by anv (ioveriior in person i;xercising tiie office of (iio\ernor in any other parts of His Majesty's dominions in America, as aforesaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such Governor or person exercising the oflice of Gcncrjior, in tin i xecutiou of any orders or instructions from His .Majesty in Council, shall refuse to depart from siieli i)avs or harbours, or if any person or i)ersons shall refuse, .r neglect to conform to any Regulations or directions which shall tie nuult! or gisen for ihe u\eculion of any of tli(> purposes of this Act, every such person so refusing or otherwise ofieudmg .igainsl this Act shall forfeit the sum of two tuinclred pi imds, lo be r.fovered in the Suprrior Court of .Jndicatnn! of the Island of Newfoundland, or in the Suiierior Court of .Judicature ot the Cddny or Settlement within or near to whicli such ofi'ence siiall be cuiiimitted, or by Hill, plaint, or information in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Weslininsier, one nioiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs, and successor, and the other moiety to such persoii or fiersous as shall sue or prosecute for the same." Regulali( Stales hii and mull indepeiiil rxtensioi July, IH the fiTril sious of Treaty" the Rayard, flie' Uriili aiul yt>t the term it.** provis contrary, w irinc mik'8 Tile Acts passed by the provinces now forming Canada, and also by the Pdrlitimetit of Canada (now noted in the margin)* are to the same effect, and may be said t.b be merely dcclarntory of the law as establishod by the Imperial Statnte. 3. The authority of the Legislatures of the provinces, and after confederation the authority of the Parliament of Canada, to mairl\ described in Ihi.' language used by Mr. P»ayr Majesty governs in Canada as well as in Great Britain ; ihe officers of Canada arc her officers ; the Statutes of Canada are her Statutes, pps'-c'd on the advice of her Pnrlininont sitting in Canada. It is, therefore, an error to conceive that because the United States and Great Britain were, in the first instance, the Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 1818, fto question arising under that Treaty can be " responsibly dealt with," either by the Parliament, or by the authorities of the Dominion. Tlu! raising of this objection now is the more remarkable, as the Government of (he United States has long beeti aware of the necessity of reference to the Colonial Legislatures in matters aifecting their interests. The Treaties of ISr)* and 1871 expressly provide that, so far as they concerned the fic,heri(>s or trade relations with the provincijs, they slionld be subject to ratification by their several Legislatures; and seizures of American vessels and goods, followed by eondenuiation for breach of the Provincial Customs Laws, have been made for forty years without protest or objection on the part of the Uniti'd States' Government. Th«^ Ui\dersigned, with regard to this contention of Mr liayard, has further to obs(>rve that in llie proceedings which liave recently been taken for "tlu; protection of the fisheries, no al'empt has been made to put any special or novel interpretation on the Convention of ISIS. The seizures of the iislilnsi-vessels have been made in order to enforce the explicit provisions of that 'Ireaty, the clear and lon^-established provisions of the Imiierial Statute and r.i' the Statutes" of Canada expressed in almost the same Innguagi'. The proceedings which have Ixh'U taken to carry out the law of the Empire in the present east" arc the same as those which liavc been taken from time to tin>e during the period in which the Convention has htm in three, and tlie seizures of vessels have been made under process of the Imperial Court of Vice- Admiralty estaiilished in the provinces of Canada. Mr. Bayard further observes that since the Treaty of 181S, "a series of Laws and Regulations allecting the trade between the North American provinces and the United Slates have been nciproc:il libertv of commerce between the United States and the li'rritorics of Great Britain in Europe," so as svadually to include the colonial posses* sions of (Jreat Britain in Norlli America and the West Indies within the limits of that Treaty." The Undersigned haa not been able to discover, in the nistances given by Mr. Bavnrd, aiiv (widence that the Laws and Regulations allecting the trade between the' British "North American provintvs and the United States, or that, "the independent and yet ooncurreut action of the two (iovernments" have either extended or restricted the Uirms of the Convention of 1818, or airected in any way the right to enforce it,s provisions according to the plain meaning of the Articles of the Treaty; on the contrary, a reference to the XVIIIth Artich'of tlu; Wasliington Treaty will show that the C( m m • Dominion Aof«. 31 Vict., cap, 6 ; 33 Vict., .np. 10 : now incorporated in Revni'd Statutes ot 188(), cap. 90. N»v« Scotia Ant». Uoviseil St,.tutOH. 3nl .series, cap. 94, ia Vk>.. (ISG6), cap. 35. New Brunswick Acts, 16 Vl«. (1883), cap. ('.». Prince Edward Island Act, 6 Vict. (1843), tap M. 80 M m Contracting Parties made the Convention tlie basis of the further privileges granted by the Treaty, and it does not allege that its provisions are in any way extended or anected by suDseque)it legislation or Acts of Administration. Mr. Bayard has referred to the Proclamationof President Jackson in 1830, creating ciprocal commercial intercourse on terms of perfect etpiality of flag " between the 'recir United States and t'le Bnh'ah American dependencies, and has suggested that these "commercial privileges have since received a Iarj,'e extension, and that in some cases 'favours' have been granted by tlie United States witliout eipiivalent 'concession,' such as the exemption granted by tlui Shipping Act of the 26th June, 1884, amounting to one-half of the regular tonnage dues on all vessels from British North America and West Indies entering jwrts of the United States." He hai also mentioned under this head " the arrangement for the transit of goods, and 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 Jacid hud not resorted (o Canadian waters for any one of the jinrposes specilied in the Convention of 1818 as lawful. They were United States' fishin;;-ve3sels, and, ttp,'ain.st the plain terms of the Convention, liad entered Canadian harbours. In doinp; so iIil' " David J. Adams " was not <'ven possessed of a permit "to touch and trade," even if such a document could be supposed to divest her of ti>e character of a lisliinf;'-vessel. The Undcrsipfued is of opinion tliat while, for the reasons which he lias advanced, there is no evidence to show that tlu; CJoverinnent of Canada has soufjht to expand tlio scope of tiie Convention of 1818 or to inenjasc the extent of its restrictions, it would not be diiriciiit to prove tiiat the construetif)n whicli the United States si^eks lo [ilaee on that Convention would have tiie elFect of extendin>|; very largely the priviU'ges wiiicli their citizens enjoy under its terms. The contention tiiat the changes vvlneli may from time to time occur in the habits of tlie tisli tai;en olF our coasts, or in tlie metliods of taking them, should be regarded as just dying a periodical revision of the terms of tlie Treaty, or a new interiirelation of its provisions, cannot be aceediid to. Such changes may from tinu! to lime render the conditions of the contract inconvenient to one party or the otiier, bat the validity of the agreement can hardly lie said to depend on tlie ennveniunci or incoiivenieiiee which it imiioses from time to time on one or other of the Coiitracling Parties. When the operation of its provisions can be shown to Ikim" become manifestly iiu'Cjuilable, t!.e utmost that good-will and fair-dealing can suggest is that the terms should l)e recoiisidired and a new arrangement entered into; but this the (iovernment of the United Slates does not ay)[)car to have considered desiral)le. 'l is not, liowever, the case tliiit the C'onvention of 1818 atl'eeted only the inshore hs'ierh's of the British provinces; it was framed with the object of alfording a complete and exclusive definition of the rights and liberties which tiie fishermen of the United States were thenceforward lo enjoy in following their vocation, so far as those rights could be ad'eeled by facilities for access to tiie sliores or waters of the Hi'ilisii provinces, or lor iiUereonrse with their peoph-. It is therefore no undue ixiiansion of tlie scope of (liat Convention to interpret strictly tliose of its provisi(ms by which sueli access is denied, except to vessels rccpuring it for tlie purposes speeilically dcseribi'd. Such an undue ex\ianfiiou wo ilc!, upon tlie oilier iiand, lerlainly lake jdaee, if, under cover of its provisions, or of inv agreements relating to general cjiumereial inter- course which may have since Ikmmi made, iiermission were accorded to United Slates' lislieniien to resort habitually to th(> harbours of the noininion, not for tlie sake of .seeliing safety for their vessels" or ot avoiding risk to human life, but in order to use those harbours as a general base of operaiions from which to prosecute and organize with greaier advanta;;e to themselves the industry hi which they are engaged. It was in order to guard against such an abuse of the provisions of the Treaty that amongst them was included tlie stipulation thai ne" only slionld the inshon^ fisheries be leserved to British llshermen, but I hat the United States shoidd renounce the right of iheir fisiiermen '.o enter the bajsor harbours excepting \\)\- the four specified purposes, which do not include tlie purchase of bait or other appliances, whether intended for ihu deep-sea fisheries or not. The Undersigned, therefore, cannot concur in Mr. Bayard's coaleniion liiat"to prevent the purchase of bait, or any other supply needed for deep-sea tishing, would be to expand tiie Convention to objects wholly beyond the purvii w, scope, and intent of the 'f i-ealv, and lo give to it an elfeet never couUMnplated." Mr. Bavard suggests that the possession by a fishing-vessel of a pernul to " toiien and trade "'shoidd giv(> her a right to enter Ca'iiadian ports for other than the purposes named in the Treat v, or, in oilier words, should give her perfect immunity from its [., -(.visions. Thisw.iiild amount lo a practical repeal of the Treaty, because it would iialih- a United States' Collector of Customs, by issuing a licence, originally only .i.Uiided tor purposes of domestic Customs regulation, to give exemption trom the Treaty to everv United States' fishing-vessid. The obs(>rvation that similar vessels under il.(> liritish flag have the ri^ht to enter the ports of t!ie United Stales for the purchase ul supplies loses its force when it is remembered that the CouNeiition of 181S I'ontained :io restrictions on British vesseLs, and no renunciati proceedings prior to the Treaty of 1818 the British < 'ommissioners proposed that United States' fishing-vessels should be excluded '■ from [841 ^^ 8» carrvinj^ also morrliantlize," but Hiat tliiH i)r()iK)sition, "brinp: resistod by tlio Amcrionn iiefrotiators, wns almmlonrd," and gors nn to say, "tliisf'uct would srciii clearly to indicaic tliat the buMnoss of fisliiiiif did not then, and doea not now, distinalify vosscIm from also tradiiijr in llic regular porta of entry." A rcforoncc to tlio prococdinj^i alltiil('(i to will slum thai ihc proposition mentioned related only to I'nited Siatus' vessels visitinjj tliose i ortions of the coast of Labrador and Newfoinidland on which the United Slates' (laliernien had been i^^ran'eil the riirhf In fish, and to land for ilrvinj;- and rurinsj li^li, and the njcclion of the proposal can, at the utmost, be supposed' only to indicate that the lib rtv tr. earrv nierchandi/i- lui'^ht exist without .'bjeclion in relation to those i Msts, and is no ^Tomui for ^iipposiii"; that the ri;;iit cxteads to the regular ports of cntrv, aL;ainsf the express words of the Treaty. The pro'position of the liritish ne^oliators was to append to Article I the following: wo-(is. " It ix. theri'Core, W(<11 nnder-dood Ihnt the li'x-rlv of takiiv;, drying;-, and curing;; fish, sranled in the precedini;- part ot this Article, shall not be cciwtnu'd to cxiend to an\ privilege of carrviu'^ on trade with any ot' His IJrilannic Majc>ty':; .si;!)jects residing witl'.in the limits hereinbefhre assip;ned tor tlic use of the lisliennen of the United States," It was also propos-d to limit them to liaviie,'on board such f;oods as niii;ht " be riocpssarv for the prosecution of the fishery or the support of the (ishernu-n whilo cnga«:ed' therein, or in ihe jnvi .■ention of tiicir voya^oa toaml from the fishiu};- iirounds." To this the American negotiators olijecled on the i;n)und thai the '■" trcli for contraband ^oods, luid t!M> liabilit\ to si-i/nri' for ha\inir them in p issessioii. would expose the fwherinen to endless vcMilion, and, in ciinsec|neiice. llie proposal \\a.-' abaisdoiicd. it is apparent, tlierefim'. that this proviso in no wu\ ret'erred to the hays or harbours outside ot' the limits assi;^ncd to tlu' Americ;ni fisiiermen, from whicli ba_\s- and harbours it wa> ajrrci'd, both before and atb'r this proposilioii uas disciissi d, that I'r.it d Slates' tishiir^-vcssels were to be excluiliuii, that artjumont mav certainly be used to prove that American fishin^-vcasela wore not intended to have the' right to "enter Canadian waters for bait to be used even in tiio jirosecution of the deep-sea fi-sheries. Tiie I'liit-d Stales' iie;;oiia1ors in \>*18 made the pro]i(isilioii that the words "and bait"' be added to the enumeration of the objecls tor wiiicli tliese fishermen might be allowed to enter, and the proviso as firar submitied had read " provided, however, that American tisliermeii shall be permitted to enter such bays and harbours for the imrjiose only of obtaining shelter, wDod, water, and liail."' 'i'lie addiiion of the two last words was, iiow ever, ivsisted liy the Hrilis'u Flcnijiolentiari-js, and their omission aeciuiesced in by their American colliagues. It is, moreover, to be observed tliat this projiosiiion could only have had reference to the deep-sea tisiiina;, because the inshore tislieries had ah'cady been specitically rencnuiced by the Hejiresen- tatives of the United States. In addition to tiiis evidence, it must lie remembered that the United States' Government admitted, in the case submitted bv tlieiii before th»! Halifax Commission in 1877, that neither the Convention of 181K nor 'lie Treaty of Wasliington conferred any riglit or {)ri\ileu:c of trading on .Ameriean fishermen. Tiie Hriiisli case claimed com- ])ensatioii for the privili_,; whicli had been given since the ratification of the latter Treatv to United States' fishing-vessels "to transfer cargoes, lo oiillit vessels, buv sujiplies, obtain ice, engage sailors, procure bait, and traliic generally in Hri'dsli parts and harbours." This claim was. however, successfully resistelfntiiirii-'S, orcover, to ca tisliinc;, UeprcsL'ii- ted States' lunisaion in it'i'i-red any limed eom- tli(.' latter •sscls, Iniy li [lorls and s' case it i^ lis, sucli us -uhject ot lis on the md who can •-enactment my |)os:sil)lc ntes passed 8iS, uhiili, veil diirin;: il chosen lu Mr. Hayard on more than ono occasion intimates that tho interpr<;trttion ot iho Treaty and its enforeenient arc dictated In local md h(islil(! feeliiij^s, and that the main question is beini,' "ol.scnnd by parti/.an "advocacy and di.slorted l)> the heat of local interests," and, in ((iiieluaion. exprcRsos a hope that "ordiiiary connnerciul interconrgc shall not be interrnplcd l)y harsh measures and nut'rii'ndly ndministration." Tlie Undersifjiud desires emphnlically to state lliat it is iioi the wisli of the Govern, meiit or the peoiile ot' Canada to inteniipt for a monr Ml the most friendly and tree commercial intercourse with tin- nei;;hlionrinj; Republic. The in: rcanliie vessels and tlie commerce of the United Slates havo at present exactly the saiiK" frei(lon\ that they have lor years passed enjoyed iu Canada, and the disposition of the ('iuia<1ian ^ ;overiii\ient is to eMeiid reciprocal trade with the United Stales iieyoiid its present, limits, nor can il be admitted llial the cliar},M; of local {ircjudice or iiosliln feelin;;- is jiisl-^ied ly tiie calm eiilorcement, throuf;li llie Iv^al Trihniiais of the coun'try, of the plain terms of a Treaty betwein (Ireat Mrilain and tiie United States, and of tho Statutes uiiich have Iiein in operation for nearly sevenlv years, exceptin;; in inlirvals durin;; which (until put an end to l)_\ [\w United" Slates' ( ioveriunent) special and more liberal iirovisinns exislinl in relation to the conmu'rco and lislieries of tlie two countries. Till- Unthrsi^Mieil luis furllicr to call attention to the Ictler of Mr. Bayard of the 20th May, relalintr also to the seizure of the " David J. Adams" in the Fori of l)ii,d)y, Nova Scotia. 'I'h;it vissrl was scix.ed, as has i)eeu explained on a previous occasion, l)y tho Commnnder "f the Canadian steamer " Lansdowne," under tiie followinj^ circnmstaneea : She WHS a United States' lisiiiiiii-vessci. and entered tlii" li.u-bour of l>i;;by for purposes oilier than llioso for which entry is permilled |)y tlie Treaty and by the Imperial and C'anadian Statutes. As .soon us practicalile, h'<.jal process wns obtained from I lie Vice-Admirally Court at Halitax, and the vessel was delivered to tiie Ollieer ot tl.at Court. The paper retierrcd to in Mr. Uayird's letter as having been nailed to her mast, was doubtless a copy of the warrnnt wiiicli commamh d the .Marshal or Ids deputy to make tin; arrest. The Undersijjfned is informed that there was no intention whatever of so adjusting the paper that its cont those conceri'.ed and was piiiilislied. and liad 1 ■ come noi(,rious to the peoi)le of both couiilries. di'clined to ^ive the United Slates' Coiisul-Cieneral a specific and precise slateineiil of the cliur!i,es ujioii which the vessel would he proceedeil against, but referred liim to his superior. Such coiKluct on tlie part of the officer of the •' Lai'sdowne " can iuirdly be said to have been extraordinary under the present circumstances. The lefnal ]H-oceedini;s hiiil at that lime been commenced in the Court of Vice- A(bniralty at ! lalifax, where the United Slates' Consul-tieiural resides, and the oiHcer at l)i;il)\ could lu^t have staled with iirecisictn. as he was called U|>ou lo do, liie •grounds on \\hic:i the intervention of the Court liad been claimed in the proceedings therein. There w;is not, Coiisiii-tieii'ral aiul anil no inftirinalioii wii'ch withheld. Apart from tli(> jjeneral knowledge of the olVences whicli it was claimed tlu; master ha,Mven to tlu; master of the seized vessel of the oifences for which the vessel niav be (hnaineil, and that a copy tliereof siiall he sent to the United Stales' Consul-tieneral at Uulil'ax, and to the nearest United Slates' Consular A^eiit, and there can bo no ohjection to the Solicitor for the Crown being [84] ^1- 2 iu this instance, tlie .sli-htest diflicuUy in the I aited Stales' liise interested in the vessel obliinin;;- the fullest information, could have t'een oiven by tlio-e to whom they ajuilied was m ^>. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^O ^ 5.^;^^ 1.0 I.I 1^ 1^ ill 2.2 2.0 Hf ■;£ - 6" 1.8 1.25 i 1.4 III 1.6 V] ^ ^ ^ J^ **> (9 "-^^ /A 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 84 instrncted likewisr^ to furnish the Consul-General with a copy of the l:gal process in each case, if it cat; be supposed that any fuller information will thereby li« given. Mr. Bayard is corre t in his statement or' the reasons for which (he "David J. Adams" was seized ana is now held. It is claimed that that ve el violated the Treaty of 1818. and, consequently, the Statutes which exist for th > enforcement of that Treaty, and it is also claimed that she violated the Customs Lawa of Canada of 1883. ' o . The Undersig-ncd recommends that copies of those Statutes be furnislicd for the inforniadon of Mr. Bayard. Mr. ]}ayarl lias, in tlie same despatch, recalled the attention of Her Majesty's Minister to the correspondence and action wliich took place in the year 1870, wlien the Fislierv (piestion was under consideration, and especially to the instructions from the Lords of tlie Admiralty to Vice-Admiral Wellesley, in which that officer was directed to observe great caution in the arrest of American fisliermen, and to confine his action to one class of offences against the Treaty. Mr. Bayard, however, appears to have attached unwarranted importance to the correspondence and instructions of 1870, wlien he refers to tliem as implying "an understtinding between tlie two Governments," an understanding wlucli shonld, in his opinion, at other times, and under other circum- stances, govern the conduct of tlie authorities, whether Imperial 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 cliarged with violations of tlie Treaty of 1818" to the conditions specified under tliose instructions, it is necessary to recall the fact that in the year 1870 the principal cause of complaint on the part of Canadian fishermen was that the American vessels were trespassing on the inshore fisliing grounds and interfering with the catch of mackerel in Canadian waters, tlie purchase of bait being then a matter of secondary importance. It is probable, too, th.it the action of tlie Imperial Government was influenced very largely by tlie prospect wliicli then existed of an arrangement such as was accomplished in tile following year by the Treaty of Washington, and that it may be inferred, in view of this disposition made apparent on both sides to arrive at such an understanding, that the Imperial authorities, without any surrender of Imperial or Colonial rights, and withont accpiiescing in any limited construction of the Treaty, instructed the Vice- Admiral to confine his seizures to the more open and injurious class of oflenccs wliich were especially likely to be brought within the cognizance of the naval officers of tlic Imperial Service. The Canadian Government, as has been already stated, for six montlis left its fisliing grounds open to American fishermen, withont any corresponding advantage in return, in order to prevent loss to those fishermen, and to aflt/d time for tiie action of Congress, on the President's recommendation that a Joint Commission sliould be appointed to consider the whole question relating to tlic fisheries. That recommendation has been rejected by Congress. Canadian fish is by proliibi- tory duties excluded from the United States' market. The American fishermen clamour against tlie removal of tliose duties, and, in order to maintain a monopoly of the trade, continue against all law to force themselves into our waters and harbours, and make our sliores their base for supplies, especially for bait, whicli is necessary to the successful prosecution of their business. They liope by tins course to supply the demand for their home market, and thns to make Canada indirectly tlie means of injuring her own trade. It is surely, tlierefore, not unreasonable that Canada should insist on tlie riglits secured to her by Treaty. Slie is simply acting on tlie defensive, and no trouble can arise iMlween the two countries if American fisliermen will only recognize the provisions of tlie Coiivontion of 1818 as obligatory upon (hem, and until a new arrangement is made, alisl.iiii both from fishing in her waters and from visiting her bays and harbours for any purposes save those specified in the Treaty. In conclusion, (ho Undersigned would express the hopt that the discussion which lias aiiscn or this (piestion may le.id to renewed negotiations between Great Bri(ain and th(; United Slates, and may have the result of establishing extended liadntly resorted to by the Parliament of the Dominion, fur the purpose of entbrcing Treaties or Conventions entered into by the Imperial Government. In the present case the legislation proposed was introduced, not with the object of making a change in the terms of the Convention of 1318, nor with the intention of representing as breaches of the Convention any acts which are not now punisliable as breaches of it. Wliat the framers of tlie Bill sought was merely to amend the procedure by which the Convention is enforced, and to do this by attaching a particular penalty to a particular breach of the Convention after that breach had been proved betbre a competent Tribunal. It nuist be remembered that the Convention itself is silent as to the procedure to be taken in enforcing it, and that effc-ct has accordingly been given to its provisions at different times both thnnigli the means of Acts passed, on the one side, by Congress, and, on the other, by tlio Imperial Parliament, as well as by the Legislatures of the British North Anu'rican provinces previous to confetieration, and since confederation by the Parlia- ment of llu' Dominion. The riglu of the Dominion Parliament to legislate for these purposes, and the validity of stici\ legislation as against the citizens of a foreign country has, as tar as 1 am aware, not been seriously called in question. Such legislation, unless it is disallowed by the Imjierial Goverment, becomes part of the law of the Empire. The Government of the United .States lias long been aware of the necessity of reference to the Dominion Parliament in matters affecting Canadian interests, and has, I believe, never raised any objection to such reference. The Treaties of 1854 and 1871, 80 far as I iiey related to the fisheries or to tlie commercial relations of the Dominion, were made subject to ratification by her Legislature, In the same way the Treaty tuider which fugitive criminals from the United States into Canada are surrendered, is carried into effect by means of a Canadian Statute. If a foreigner commits a murder in Canada he is tried, convicted, and executed by virtue of a Canadian, and not of an Imperial Act of Parliament. Seizures of goods and vessels for br(>acln>s oi the local Customs law have in like manner been made for many years past witiiout any protest, on the ground that such laws involved an usurpation ofpower by tlie Colony' Mr. Hayard's statement that the Dominion Government is seeking by its action in this matter to •' invad(> and destroy tlie eonmiereial rights and privileges secured to citizens of tlu; United Stales under and by virtue of Treaty stipulations with Great Britain," is not warranted liy the facts of the case. No attempt has been made either by the authorities intrusted with the enforcement of the existing law, or by the Parlia- ment of the Dominion to interfere with vessels engaged in bnnd fide commercial transac- tions upon tile coast of the Dominion. The two vessels which have been seized are both of thiMii, beyond all (luestion, fishino-vessiOs and not traders, and therefore liable, subject to the finding of the Courts, to any penalties imposed by law for the enforcement of' the Conventitm of 1818 on parties violating the terms of that Convention. When, therefore, i\!r. Bayard protests against all such proceedings as being •• flagrantly violative of reciprocal commercial privileges to whicli citizens of the United States are lawfully entitled under Statutes of Great Britain, and the well defined and publicly proclaimed authority of both countries," and when he denies the competence of the Fishery Department to issue, under the Contention of 1818, such a paper as the •' W arnujg," dated the 6th March, 188G, of which a copy has been supplied to your Lord- the nmstei Ka:',;r:,«'';r;^'U.3-riW-»:'i-'--';:!r!Sfj m ship, be i« in effect denying^ to the Dominion the right of taking any steps for the protection of its own rights secured under the Convention referred to. luclosurc 2 in No. 79. • Warning. To all to whom it may concorn. THE Governniont of tho United States having by notice terminated Articles XVIII to XXV, both inclusive, and Article XXX, known as tlie Fishery Articles of the Washington Treaty, attention is called to tlie following provision of the Convention between the United Stot«.>s and Great Britain, signerl at London on the 20th October, 18 lo : — "Article I. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States, for tlic; inhabitants (liercnf, to take, dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays, iiarbours, and creeks of His IJrilannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed between the High Contractlntr Parties, that the inliabitants of the said United States sliall have for ever, in coinmoii with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind (m that part of tlic southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Capo Ray to tlie Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from th(> said Cajie Kay to the Quirpon Islands, on the sliorcs of the Magdalen Islands, and also on tlie coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks from Mount Joly, on tho southern coast of Labrador, to and througli the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the" Hudson's Bay Company ; and' that the American fishermen shall also have liberty for ever to dry and cure tish in any of tlie unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion tliereof, shfill be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fisliermen 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 hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on or witliin 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within tlie above-mentioned limits; provided, however, that tho American fisliermen shall be adi; itt(.'d to enter sucli bays or harbours for the purpose? of shelter, and of repairing daniatjes therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and lor no other purpose wliafever. But they shall be. under such resirictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in c*ny manner whatever abusing the privileges lierebv reserved to them." Attention is ca.led to the following provisions of the Act of Parliament of Canada, cap. 61, of tht Acts of 1868, intituled "An Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels." "2, Any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's navy, serving on board of any vessels of Her Majesty's navy cruizing and being in the waters of Canada for purpose of affording protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fislieries, or any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's navy; Fishery Otticer, or Stipendiary Magistrate on board of any vessel belonging to or in the service of tlie Government of Canada, and employed in the service of protecting tlio fisheries, or any officer of tlie 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 liovering (in British waters) within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours in Canada, and stay on board so long as slio may remain within such ph\ce or distance. " 3. If such ship, vessel, or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such harbour, or so hovering for Iwenty-four hours after tlie master shall have been required to depart, any one of such othcers or persons ;is are above mentioned may l>ring such shi]>. vessel, or Ixiiit into jiort 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 answer the questions put to him in sucli examination, he shall forfeit 400 dollars ; and if such sliip, vessel, 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) ■^■^W'V *; ■' '- ■S'n— "VnTTTH 88 within 3 marine miles of nny of llic coasts, Iwys, creeks, or harbours of Canada, not included within the ahovo-inontiotiod Hunts, nithout a licence, or after the expiration of the period iinnii'd in ihc luHt liconco j^rniUcd to sucli sliip, vessel, or boat under the Ist section of tliis Act, suoli sitip, vessel, or boat, and tin? taclile, ringing, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo tliereof slmll bo forfeited. " 4. All goods, sliipp, veHsi'Is. and boats, and tlic tacisle, rigginp:, apparel, furniture, stores and carj^o iial)l(> to l()rf(;iture under this Act, may be seized and secured by any officers or jx-'-stms mcniioned ii\ tlio 2nd seedon of this Act; and every person opposing' any odicer or person in the excculion of his duty under this Act, or aiding or abetting any otlier person in any opposititin, shall forfeit i-iOO dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdeiueanonr, and, upon conviction, b(! liable to imprisonment for a term not ezceedinjDT two years." Of all of whieli vou will lake notice and sjovein vonrself accordingly. (Signed) GEOllGE E. FOSTER, Department of i'lshrrifs, Mininter of Marine and Fisheries, Ott ami,' March T), 1SM(5. Inclosuro 3 in No. 79. Circular No. 371. Sir, Cnslnms Deparfmevl, Ottawa, May 7, 1886. TH12 Government of the United Slates having by notice terminated Articles XVIII to XXV, both inclnsivc. and Article XXX, known as the Fishery Articles of the Washington Treaty, attention is ealleil to the following provision of the Oon/cntion between the United Htutos ami Great Britain, signed at London on the 20tli October, 1818:— "Article 1st. Whereas dillrrences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States i'or llu» inhabitants thereof lo mice, dry, and cure fish on certain !•>.;,&. coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's dominions ia America, it ■^* is agreed between the High ('ontracting 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 iUh of every kind on that part of tbe southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from' Cnjie liny to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast (d' NiMNJomulland. from the said C-ape Hay to the Quirpou Islands, on the shores of the .Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks from Mount .loly, on the southern const of LaI)nulor, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence nortliwanily indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the I'xcliisive rights of the lludst.n's Bay Company; and that the American fishennen shall also have liberty, for ever, to dry antl cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, liatl'ours, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, hereabove described, and ol the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same or any portion thereof shall be settled, it slmll not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled witlKait previous agreement for such purpose, with the inhabitants, i)ropriclors. (>r possessors of llie ground. " And the United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereui' to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 6 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or barbour.4 of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included within liie above-mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American fishermen siiall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the jmrpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall bo under such restrictions as may be necessary to jirevi^nt their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any manner wlujtevcr ahimin^' tlic privileges hereby reserved to them. "Attention is also called to liie followini;- jjrovisions of the Act of the Parliament of Canada, cap. til, of the Acts of 1808, intituled, ' An Act respecting fishing by foreign Tcssels.' " Ilnd. Any eomniissioned ollicer of Her Majesty's navy, serving on board of any vessel of Her Majesty's navy, cruising and being in the w.atcrs of Canada for purpose of affording protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries, or any commissioned ollicer of Hor Majesty'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 aorvico of protecting the fisheries, or any officer of the Cuatomb 80 of Canada, Sheriff, Magistrate, or other person duly commissioned for that purpose, majr go on board of any ship, vessel, ot boat, within any harbour in Canada, or hovering (in Biltish waters) within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bayu, creeks, or harbours in Canada, and stay on board so long as "he may remain within such place or distance. " Illrd. If such ship, vessel, or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such harbour, or so hovering for twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to depart, any one of such officers or persons as are above mentioned may bring such ship, 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 answer the questions put to him in such examination, he shall forfeit 400 dollars ; and if such ship, vessel, or boat be foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or Canada, and have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing (in British waters) within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of Canada, not included within the above-mentioned limits, without a licence, or after tlie expiration of the period named in the last licence granted to such ship, vessol, or boat under the 1st section of this Act, such ship, vessel, or boat, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof shall be forfeited. " I Vth. All goods, ships, 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 officers or persons mentioned in the iind 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 800 dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, 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 foun . within 3 marine miles of the shore, within your district, with a printed copy of the warning inclosed herewith. If any fishing vesssl or boat of the United States is found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish, or if hovering within the 3-mile limit, does not depart within twenty-four hours after receiving such warning, you will please place an officer on board of such vessel, and at once telegraph the facts to the Fisheries Department at Ottawa, and await instructions. (Signed) J. JOHNSON, Commissioner of Customs. To the Collector of Customs at . No. 80. The Earl of Rosebery to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Office, July 23, 1886. I HAVE received your despatch of the 15th ultimo, in which you inclose a copy of a note from Mr. Bayard, protesting against a warning alleged to nave been given to United States' fishing- vessels by a Canadian Customs official, with the view to prevent them from fishing within lines drawn from headland to headland from Cape Canso to St. Esprit, and from Nortii Cape to East Point of Prince Edward Island. In reply, I have to request you to acquaint Mr. Bayard that Her Majesty's Government have ascertained that no instructions to this effect have been issued by the Canadian Government, but that a further Report is expected upon the subject. It appears that the Collector at Canso, in conversation with the master of a fishing- vessel, expressed the opinion that the headland line ran from Cranberry Island to St. Esprit, but this was wholly unauthcirized. I am, &c. (Signed) ROSEBERY. No. 81. The Earl of Rosebery to Mr. Phelps. Sir, Foreign Office, July 23, 1886. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1 6th instant, indoung a copy of a telegram from Mr. Bayard, in which he calls upon Her Majesty's [841 N TsmfffT^ QoTernmeot to put a stop to the adJon of Oenadian cothoritiea towards United State fishermen, which he characterizes as unjust, arbitrary, and rexatioos. Mr. Bayard further states that the readiness of the United States' Government to endeavour to come to a just and fair joint interpretation of Treaty rights and commercial privileges is ill met by persistent and unfriendly action of the Canadian authorities, which is rapidly produdng a most injurious and exasperating effect. I cannot help regretting that the tone of this communication should not have more corresponded with the conciliatory disposition of Her Majesty's Government, for the expressions which I have cited can hardly tend to facilitate a settlement of the difficnlt questions involved. I beg, however, to state that the views of the Canadian Government upon the whole matter will very shortly be communicated to the United States' Government in a despatch which I have addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, in reply to the various communications which he has received I'-om Mr. Bayard. I shaFl have the honour to place a copy of the despatch in question in your hands. As regards the disposition expresseii by Mr. Bayard to come to a just and fair joint interpretation of Treaty rights, Her Majesty's Government have already displayed their full readiness to negotiate on more than one occasion, and their view of Treaty rights has beer, explained both in ray conversations with yourseit' and in despatches. I trust, therefore, that this expression of the wishes of your Government, corrc- sjronding as it does so entirely with our own desire, indicates the willingness of the United States to enter as speedily as possible into definite arrangements which may lead to negotiations on a practical basis fc. the settlement of this question. I have, &c. (Signed) ROSE3ERY. No. 82. The Earl of Roaebery to Mr. Phelps. Sir, Foreign Office, July 23, 1886. IN reply to your note of the 2nd ultimo relative to the 5rorth American Fisheries question, I have the honour to transmit to you a eopy of a despatch, Avith inclosures, which I have addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, and which contains a full statement of the views entertained by the Canadian Government on this matter.* The points dealt vfith in the several communications recently received by Sir L. West from Mr. Bayard are practically the same or those discussed in your note, and I have therefore thought that the most convenient mode of replying to it would be to communicate to you a copy of the despatch which I have addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington. I need not reiterate the regret that Her Majesty's Government feel at being forced back by circumbtanc^ on the provisions oi the Treaty of 1818, for I have earnestly and frequemly expressed it in conversation with you. Nor need I repeat how anxious Her Majesty's Government are that by formal and friendly negotiation the questions between the two Governments with regard to Canadian fisheries should be put on a mutually satkfactory footing. I have, &c. (Signed) f.OSEBERY. No. 83. Mr. Bramston to Sir J. Pauncefote. — {Received July 27.) Sir, Downing Street, July 26, 1886. WITH reference to your letter of the 17th instnt, I am directed by Earl Granville to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Rosebery, a copy of a tele- graphic correspondence witli the Governor-General of Canada relative to the detention by the Dominion authorities of the American schooner " City Point." I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. • No. 78. ■■■'■■ -^.T^r t^to:.' 91 Indosore 1 in No. 89. Earl Granville to tht Marquis of Lantdowmt (Telmphic.) DownifUf Street, July i\,lSB6. SECRETARY of United States has made protest in ve/y strong terms to British Minister against proceedings in case of schooner " City Point," alleged to have been detained at Shelbume for having landed men and obtained water Send explanation, by telegraph, us soon as possible. Inclosure 2 in No. 83. The Marquis of Lanadowne to Earl Oranville. (Telegraphic.) July 24, 1886. •' CITY POINT " committed a breach of Customs Laws by not reporting to Customs and landing part of her crew and luggage. She was detained, but on payment of a deposit of 400 dollars was subsequently released. No. 84. Sir J. Pauncefote to Sir B. Herbert. Sir, Foreign Office, July 28, 1886. I AM directed by tiio Earl of Rosebery lo transmit to you two despatches from Her Majesty's Charg6 d'AflPaires at Washington,* containing protests by Mr. Bayard against the action ot the Canadian authorities in regard to United States' fishing vessels, and I am to suggest that, if Earl Granville sees no objection, a Report on the cases mentioned shoiUd be obtained from the Dominion Government with as little delay as possible. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. » ?,. .1 No. 85. Mr. Hardinge to the Earl of Rosebery. — (Received July 30.) My Lord, Washinaton, July 17, 1886. WITH reference to my despatch of the 12th instant, I have the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship copy of a note which I have received from Secretary Bayard, protesting against the action of Captain Kent, of the Dominion cruizer " General Middleton," in expelling Stephen R. Balkam from the harbour of St. Andrew's, New Branswick, and in refusing to permit him to purchase fish, caught and sold by Canadians, for the purpose of canning as sardines. (Signed) ' CHARLES HARDINGE Inclosare in No. 85. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Hardinge. Sii-j Department of State, Washington, July 16, 1886. I HAVE just received through the Honourable C. A. Eoutelle, M.C., the affidavit of Stephen R. Balkam, alleging his expulsion from the harbour of St. Andrew's, New Brunswi'^k, by Captain Kent, of the Dominion cruizer " Middleton," and tho refusal to permit him to purchase fish, caught and sold by Canadians, for the purpose of canning as sardinef. The action of Captain Kent seems to be a gross violation of ordinary commercial [84] • Not. ;S and 77. N 2 98 priviloges againit *n Americftn citiMn proposing to traniiaet his customarr and lawful trade, and not prepared or intending in anj way to fish or violate any local law or regulation or Treaty stipulation. I trust instant instructions to prevent the recurrence of such unfriendly and unlawful treatment of American citizcnH may be given to the offending officials at St. Andrew 'h, and reparation be made to Mr. Kalkam. 1 have, &c (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. No. 86. Sir J. Pauneefote to Sir R. Herbert. Sir, Foreign Office, August 2, 1886. I AM directed by the Eiarl of Rosebery to transmit tu you copy of a despatch from Her Miyesty's Charg^ d'Affairea at Washington, inclosing n copy of a note from Mr. Bayard, protesting against the action of Captain Kent, of the Dominion cruizer "Oeneral Middleton," in refusing Stephen A. Balkam permission to buy fish from Canadians ;* and I am to suggest that Earl Granville should obtain a Report on the subject from the Dominion Government. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 87. The Earl of Iddesleigh to mile limit in bays, but tbia could no doubt bo aettled without much trouble. As regards other matters, there was a manifest incongruity between the old proviaionR of 1818 and the state of things at the present day; wood, for instance, might be obtained in our ports, but coal might not. Again, there was no proper legislation to support the provisions of the Treaty. All these were matters for aiscussion, and there seemed no reason why we should not arrive at their settlement. But what alarmed Mr. Bayard and himself was the temper with which the dispute was being, or was likely to be, conducted. He never took up a newspaper without anxiety lest thero should be a report of aomc collision. In conclusion, he threw out a suggestion that we should endeavour to establish an "ormistice" while the question was under discussion; that while, on the one hand, the American Government would support any action on our part against vessels actually fishing within our waters (which he was sure they would not do), we should, on the other hand, abstain from putting the Customs laws in force to prevent, by n side wind, infractions of the Treaty which our law was inadequate to restrain. He would then be glad to see a Commission appointed to c(msidcr tho whole case, and to report on the steps which could be taken. In conclusion, he pressed on me that the Congress was to meet on tho first Monday in December, and that it was most important to settle the matter before that time. No. 90. Mr. Hardinge to the Earl of Rosebery.— (Received August 12.) My Lord, Washington, July 31, 188fi. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship coi)y of a note which 1 have received from Mr. Bayard, drawing my attention to an alleged infraction of the stipulations of the Treaty of the 20th October, 1818, by the Newfoundland authorities at Bonne Bay, in the case of the fishing-vessel "Thomas F. Bayard," and by the Dominion authorities at Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, in the case of tho schooner " Mascot." I have, &c, (Signed) CHARLES HARDINGE. r^fMiuMA^ 94 loolMtire in No. 00. Mr. Btyard to Mr. Uardmgt. gir, Department of Statt, Washinalon, July SO, 1886. IT is my duty to draw vour ntt«i ova Scotia, on the 17th May last. 3. 'i'he "City Point," seized at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, on the 2nd July last. 4. The "George W. Gushing" and the " C. B. Harrington," ' oth of which vessels were seized at Shelburne on the ;5rd .fuly. Copies of the seizure heports which contain all the information of which my Government i.« possessed relative to these seizures are inclo'-ed herewith. Tlie nrcunistanees under wliich the "D. J. Adams" was seized have been already explained nt some lengtii in my previous despatches. This vessel is still detained, and awaits trial before the Vice-Admiralty Court. Particulars with regard to the '"Ella M. Doughty"' were given in my despatch of the 20th Mav. This vessel has been released, her owners having deposited the sum of 3.000 dollars'. The " City Point," " George \V Cu.;ning," and " C. B. Harrington " were released upon deposit of 100 dollars each, that being tiie amount of the penalty to which tliey were liable under section 29 of " The Customs Act of 1883," which they had contravened. I also inclose, for your Lordship's information, copies of the Boarding Books of the Government Fisheries protection vessels " Lansdowne," " Critic," " F. E. Conrad," " Terror," " General Middleton," a:id " L. Howlctt." In the large majority of cases where vessels have been warned or ordered to leave Canadian waters the vesst-l was boarded in harbour, and it has been thought sufficient to give the name of the harbour by way of a description of the loc "ly. In the few cases in which vessels appear to have been boarded outside a port or harbour, in which cases no seizure was made or attempted, and a simple warning given in accoiduucc with the terms of the Circular, of which your Lordship has already seen a copy, it has, I understand, not b«^en thought necessary to instruct the oflicer t command of the police vessels to maik the locality with greater 9^ exactness than by giving the name of the port or harbour off or near which the vessel was boarded. In the case of vessels actually seized, the Reports contain much fuller information as to the locality. I may mention in" ex»^1anatioh of the fact, that the Returns of some of the police vessels have not been brought down to a more recent date ; tliat these vessels are ordered not to come into port more than once a week, and then only if they can be spared from their cruizing ground. I have given directions that your I .Iship is to bo from time to time supplied with further information in regard to any seizures or warnings which may hereafter take place. Inclosure 2 in No. 93. Port of Digby, N.S. ON the 7th day of May, 1886, I, Botsford Vieis, a Collector in Her Majesty's Customs, duly appointed ard sworn as such, did detain the following described vessel, to wit, the fishing-schooner " David J. Adams," of Gloucester, in the United States of America, of the burden of 66 tons, or thereabouts, commanded by Captain Allen Kenney, owner not known, of the probable value of 3,000 dollars, for an infraction of the Revenue Laws of the Dominion of Canada, that is to say, for having come from a port out of Canada and entered Digby Gut and anchored in the Annapolis Basin, near Digby, in the Province of Nova Scotia, not making a iieport in writing to tlie proper officer of the arrival and voyage of the vessel, as required ny section 25; wherefore the said vessel became liable to detention for a penalty under the provisions of tlie Act 46 Vict., cap. 12, sees. 25 and 29. The said vessel being to the best of my knowledge and belief the property (unknown), whose Post-office address is unknown, and at the time of this deten- tion in the possession or custody of Allen Kenney, at Digby, in the County of Digby, N.S., whose Post-oflice address is unknown. The circumstances which led to the deten- tion were the following, viz. : — On or about the 5th instant, the " David J. Adams " entered Digby Gut, and on the 6lh instant bought four barrels fresh herrings, on tlie lih anchored off Bear Island at a place known as the Half-tide Weir. Afterwards the vessel changed her berth and sailed further along the shore. On the 7th instant, Captain P. A. Scott, R.N., of Dominion Government's steam-ship " Lansdowne," boarded her, and she subsequently, on the same day, came to anchor off Digby. Information was derived from a person or persons not connected with the Customs service in Canada. Assistance was rendered in making said detention by other officers in Her Majesty's Customs, viz. : — Delivery made of the said detention to the Collector of Customs at Digby on the 7th day of May, 1886. At the date hereof the said vessel has not been claimed. The said reputed or supposed owner, , in such circumstances as to be able to pay the penalty fixed by law for the said contravention thereof, and been heretofore guilty of a similar offence. Dated at Digby, this 15th day of May, 1886. (Signed) B. VIETS. Port of Shelburne. On the 2nd day of July, 18S0, f, W. W. At wood, a Collector of Customs in Her Majesty's Customs, duly appointed and sworn as such, did seize the following described vessel, to wit, schooner " City I'oint," of Portland, 5!) tons, Stephen Keene, master, fishing schooner, of the probable value of 5,000 dollars, for an infraction of the Revenue Laws of the Dominion of Canada, that is to say, for having filled water and allowing seamen to land at their homes with their luggnge, &c'., without fust reporting inwards at custom-house; wherefore the said schooner ''City Point" became liable to a penalty under the provisions of the Act 10 Vict., i-ap. 12, sec. 29. The said schooner "City Point " being to the best of my knowledge and liolief the property of some person or persons to me unknown, whose Posl-otfice address is Portland, Maine, and at the time of this seizure in the possession or custody of Stephen Ivecne, master, at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, whose Post-office address is Portland, Maine. The circumstances which led to the seizure were as follows, viz. : — The schooner was discovered by Captain Quigley, of Dominion cutter *' Terror," at [84i] O 06 anchor 6 milei below Shelburne Town. The maater had allowed part of crew to land at their homes, taking their luggage, &c., with them ; also had filled water, and failed to report at custom-house until after vessel brought up by captain of cutter. Information was the cause of seizure, and was derived from a person or persons connected with the Customs service of Canada. Assistance was rendered in making said seizure by other officers in Her M^esty's Customs, viz., Captain Quigle v, of Dominion cutter " Terror." Delivery made of the said to the Collector of Customs at , on the day of , 188 At the date hereof, the said vessel hns been released, the amount of 400 dollars fine having been deposited with the Collector of Customs at Halifax. The said reputed or supposed owner, , in such cireumstances as 1 be able to pny the penalty fixed by law for the said contravention thereof, and been heretofore guilty of a similar oflfcnce. Dated at Shelburne, this 16th day of .July, 188G. (Signed) W. W. ATWOOD, Collector. Port of Shelburne. On the 3rd day of July, 1886, 1, W. W. Atwood, a Collector of Customs in Her Mi^esty's Customs, duly appointed and sworn as such, did seize the following described Teasels, to wit, American tishing-schooner "George W. Cushing," 61 tons, C. B. Jewitt, master, and the " C. B. Harrington," 21 tons, John Frellick, master, both of and direct from Portland, of the probable viiiue of 7,000 dollars, for an infraction of the Bevenue Laws of the Dominion of Canada, that is to say, for having allowed soamen to land, and masters on shore seeking to buy bait, without first reporting at custoi.. -house; wherefore the said vessels became liable to a penalty under tlie provisions of the Act 46 Vict., cap. 12, sec. 29, the said vessels being, to tlie best of my knowledge and belief, the property of some person or persons to me unknown, whose Post-office address is Portland, Maine, and at the time of this seizure in the possession or custody of Captains C. B. Jewitt and John Frellick, at Shelburne, N.S., whose Post-office address is Portland, Maine. The circumstances which led to the seizure were b& follows, viz. : — The vessels were discovered on the '2nd instant by Captain Quigley, of Dominion cotter "Terror," at anchor about 8 miles below Shelburne Town, some of the men and the masters of vessels on shore seeking to buy bait. Masters did not report until vessels brought up next morning by Captain Quigley. Master of " Cushing " had also been at the port of Yarmouth, seeking bait before arriving here, and failed to report at custom- house. Information was the cause of seizure, anil was derived fiom a person or })erson8 connected with the Customs service of Canada. Assistance was rendered in making said seizure by other officers in Her Majesty's Customs, viz., Captain Quigley, of Dominion cutter " Terror." Delivery made of the .'•aid to the Collector of Customs at , on the (lay of ,188 . At the date hereof the said vessels have been released, tiie amount of penalty, 400 dollars for each vessel, having been deposited with the Collector of Customs at HaUfax. The said rei)uted or supposed owner, , in such circumstances as to be able to pay the penalty fixed by law for the said contravention tliereof, and been heretofore guilty of a similar offence. Dated at Shelburne, this IGth day of July, 1886. (Signe W. W. ATWOOD, Collector. a I 61) o 00 ^iii « . S ,9 "S w a & |. -Sil-s-SS 18^^-3 .°.S^^. "^^51^ «n -^ B 9 -° to w'Tl/^0'-t^sJr<-)25«cM<;.-'^fi(r-lC!-"H;ri — H .a 13 & ^ O U u u u I^CUIm to CO to -^ r>» O 00 ?0 O ».■> ■^ t- <0 «>• 1-^ I-- <0 »ft ^ O tC ^ I'. CC 1^ -J O tS U5 ^ <-• I I cS -3 r ' ' — a s. " o (O (D tcr- « o •*to -» te L^ -2 9 IS || i • a <3 i- . ■" ° «: ° I &• ►? ffi ■.■S 6 3 3 932 - o o a Ul » CO »-< Oa: -2 ^^ 2 Jin: S o ^jpk ic W a U Ul l-{ S- -2 P I § J ^ I i a •J I I <4-l o eo a 1 o o 101 102 I I .1 rretrtir. trtrrrr -6 S t r f||| S t .1 2 e V ri->i«h>M S 3 ■3 SB -o «! C S - •§ '3 -- o . • . , 1l V " ii:. • • • • fl (A w I * •!: ^ ."I kiN (■ « ^ !.*•. =i •-= 103 to OS !> •2 ■3 2 S'S •SZ Oos a ; s^ - J J O a-?-. §. o I., ^ ^ 3 a. rtft.. I I u-S «! l-sO oa- oa a ^ •S 2- 03,6.0 S^:^ «^- .r^ as « J H O a. So 3(2 Co ;« 104 3 • • • • • • ♦J <• if 1 J3 K g a u is f C .o -7 H ■ -r 2 ^ ■° 1 (Ti OO 0> X O C4 rH ,^ CO to Port of Regiitrv. is - * 5 »-■ ■ »-• s 't.ftj ^ f £•« = St .:r ? 'P s" a o C S 13^ J § — -r t£ •«< •»• •»• ■ • CO . • u b S is O •■= ■1 > o 5 c — •« .i ^ ■? e ~ Ifi 1 • • * w -I • • c r.2 "^ -^ u 0«« coH 1 a^ ^ a fri o o V ^ 1 5 i tJ a •s fM t X u: « 6? I-S Hi -a-ssitSgiii .. ,.. ►2 saa jg^Sigjgaaaa t • • • • **•••••• ;>^ • • • « ^ 't s ►^ t : £ ;£::£s:st a , • • • • • • • • > ••••"«« ■a "■J a -« P it 1 :, ^ t 5 cSa to t^ r^ r* C4CltO4O;OCO(O<0, ^ 3 •-» • • • • fc- ^ f l4 • u ^ Kl u • II ^ 3i JliJio C i< 5 no S3 S:!;3Si>| a to ij^ tc |>- iCt^'i^utitOtOtOtOO ,0 s 1-« >-l f"* ^-* n-Mi-i«i-i>-" — '-''< n a 00 00 00 t-i-5 s •-> 35 l^a iamdw ft C • =|« tJ ■TS a •r u rt .It ..-|. c Ji • -a -S , itc.i c •J; =!? N r_ 1^ ^ • • • * «j * ■ * a ' * t I0& 2 II C § SSSqS t t % u E ? 3 I* s t : oS ;S (O <0 <0 <0 ^S " i K P 1 ^ to ts to 1 00 go iS . • i B o u 3 6 «> iH 5 =" u . . SoaUH - ? : « _ a b o >^ O » 2 s SS h3 t" 41 " ■ :•"•«;■ • • • • 3 bc^-. ► H a 4; i C •« i! !-• m u i ~ .c^ 9 -a T.— h Kt (A i ^B^.2252^^ ^<2|S2 2SSS^-J2-°2Sa H S c8 IP ^ o^ ^ o '^'S 3 **t^h»tOO tOtSt^O •r 'J t^ '^ «D CI -f tc tc ^^ •** »- '^ 'P ^ ^* O t'- gC 1^ I" I* !•* O O O ^^ to CT ;r* o o o o I- — « C- to C. >■ — iC I' ^s o -^ vi c r- -C ;- S ■5 2 =;? B. 9 'S ;3|»3 SSfJ:==, I," Co 1-? i-S i-i '-5 1-9 5 3 = "-i' , -.. a I U O _ o c 5 — 2-r; a oC ^■1 ■■'• "3 S "^i- 2 =-5 f • ''' .2 i(S> "Vc ? a c J. ^' ■> £ So? ■ " 5" r -x ^ ^. SO-; ?: £|e5;^5:=^-? ':£_-< '> i -S -2 .(i J ; 2C/v -;-j)iitf»- i Ilcr Majesty's Cbargi- d'AtinircH nt Wnshinston,* iiiciosiiiif a copy of a protest by ^lr. Hiiyard :i;jniiiHt iill(';>od unfriendly treatment of tbo Ifniti'd Static' (islunir sclioinicr " Huttlcr" in Sliclljurno Uftrl)oiir ; and I an> to roqiiost tli.it a Koport on the bnl)ject may bt- obtained from (lie Dominion CJovern- ment. I am, kc. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTK. No. 97. air L. tVest to the Earl of hldeslvKjh. — {lircrLred Autjuxt HO.) Vfy Txird, Wushinrjlnn, Aiirpisl 18, lS8(j. I HAVK the honour to trnnsinit lierewitli to your Lordsliip co])y of a note "hieh 1 have received from the Seerolary of St;ite prote^liuir airaiiint the action of tlie otlieer of the Canadian sehoouer " K. F. Conrad" in lorbidiiiuL' the master of the Amerinm schooner "(Jolden Hind" to enter tlie \h\y of Chalenr for the purpo.se of renewin!;' his supply of fresh water at that place. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Incloaure in No. 97. Mr. Buxjurd to Sir L. West. Sir, Drpurtrntnt of Stair, WnnhiiHjton, Auguxt 17, 188G. AN affidavit has been filed in this Dvpartnient by Heulieii Cameron, master of the American .scliooner " (iohlen Hind." of (lloueestiT, Massjirhusi'tt.-^, setting forth that on or about the 23rd July ultimo, being out of water, lie attempted to put into Port Daniel, Bay of Chaleur, to obtain a fre-li supply; that at tlie entrance of the bay, about 4 or o miles from land, the " (Jolden Hind ' «as lioarded by an officer from the Canadian .schooner '• E. F. Conrad," and by him onlered not to enter the Hay of Chaleur; that said officer furiiislied Captain Cameron uilli a printed " Warning." with this indorsement written thereon: "Don't enter the Bay of Chaleur, Nova Scotia;" and that in ccmsequence of said act of the Canadian otlicor. the "C(dden Hind "was obliged to go across to Tignish, Prince Edward i.»lan(l, to obtain water, whereby his fishing venture was interfered with and loss and injury caused to the vessel and her owners. I have the honour to protest against this act of ofticers of ITer Britannic Majesty as not only distinctly nnfrieiully and contrary to the Iniinane usa-ie of civili/ed nations, but as in direct violation of so much of Aitiile I ot the Convention of 181S between the United States and Great I'ritaiii as secures for ever to American fisiiermeii upon the British North American coa.st a(lniis>i()ii to (he bays or harbours thereof lor the purpose; of obtaining water. And for all loss or injury which may be shown to have accrued by reason of the act in question, the Government of Her Britannic Majesty will be held justly liable. I have further the honour to ask, with all earnestness, that the Government of Her Britapnic Majesty will cau-e steps to be forthwith taken to prevent and rebuke acts so violative of Treaty and of the common rights ot hospitality. I have, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. • No. 94. 107 IHKO. (1 lu'lorc tlnircH nt iitVicmily iiir ; ami Clovcrn- No. 08. Sir L. Wml /o thr Enrl of I(l(le.slei(jh.~{Rermy the Caniuiiiin autlioritiea at the })ort of Sliell)iirne, Xova Srotin. and jiiolcstin;; «;iiiin>t llieir action in so doing, I have the lionour to inform you, in accordance witli iiistructioiiH wliicli I liave received from H<'r Majesty's (jovcrnnicnt, tliat t!ie master nj' tiic schooner "City Point" committed a hrcacli of tl'c Customs Laws of Die Dominion hy i\ot reporting to Cutitoiii, and landing part of tlie crew and ba;j;gnge. The veHscl in question was Hubse(|uently released on depoHit of 400 dollars. 1 have, &c. (Signed) I., a. SACKVILLE WEST. r, 188G. ter of tlie til that on into Port ' the hay, from the le Pay of iiig." with I Scotia;" lind " was lerehy his ami her Mnjesty as itions, hut Iwcen the upon the 10 purpose u'crucd hy 11 he held nt of Her iko acts so No. 90. Mr. Meade lo Sir J. Pauncefotc. — ( I'emred AuijMt .'10.) Sir, Duirniiijt Street, Augunt 28, 1886. I AM directed hy Mr. Secretary Stiuihopo to acknowledne the receipt of your letter of the i7tii instant, inclosing copy of a despatcli Irom Her MH,iesty'fl Charge, d'Alliiires at Washington, with a note IVoiu Mr. Hawuii calling attention to alleged infractions of the Convention of ISIS liy i lie antiiorities of Canada and Newfoundland at the Magdalen islands and Ponnc Pay respectively. On the receipt of your letter Mr. Stanhope telegriiplied to the Oflficers adnink- tering the (Sovernmenls of Canada and Newloundlaml calling attention to these cases and explaining that, under the Treaty of ISlS, Ciiitcd States' lisliermen have tbc right to fish oW the coasts of the Maudalen Islands and olf certain coasts of Newfoundland, and stating thai it was presunicil that the Customs otiicials in those places had not been instructed in same wiiy as on other parts of the coast. Hut from the inclosed desjiatch recently received from the (Jovernor of Newfound- land, and from the inclosed tclcgra})liic correspondence, it would appear that such has been the case in that Colony. I am now to inclose, for the information of the llnrl of Iddesleigh, a copy of a despatch which has been addressed to the Otiicers administering the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland respectively upon this subject. I am, &o. (Signed) U. H. MEADE. YARD. [84] P2 iBolMura 1 in Ko. 09. Mr, Fllanhopf to novrrnor Sir O, IV, Dei Vmua. (Extmct.) (TclcKriphif.) July 20. 1886. RKFERRINO to vour tiloffrftui of llu« lOtli June, noW(»|mpcr rci)ortH warning Notice ban been given to Americim liaiiinj^-boat hy Customs olllccr, lJoi\no liay. Send «xplanatiun hy tdegrapli. Inclojiurc 2 in No. OU. Governor Sir G. IV. Dei Vtrux to Earl Oramulle, (Extract.) (Telegraphic.) July 30. 1880. DESPATCH by mnil, explaining that fislicry Notice merely to maintain protest. Action will not be taken tbin year in nnv inwo, not ut all without Order in Council under Act of Parliament 5!) CJeti. Ill, diap, .'IH, Attorney-General in England will explain. IncloHurc 3 in No. !)l). Governor Sir (i. 11'. Pes ]'(ru.,- to Earl Granville. My Lord, (iorrnimrnt llou.tr, Sewfnmi(llanf Notice inclosed (copy of each of which is annexed) has been forwarded to the various public oflliccrs stationed on the coasts of this island 2. In so far as has at present been <'eported, the warning has as yet been served on only one vessel, which left at once on iis receipt. 3. As stated in my telegraphic mcssag<.', there is no intention on the part of this Government to follow up the Notice by an action this year in any ease, or at any time, without the sanction of Her Majesty's (lovcrnment, conveyed by Order in Couneil. 4. The Government believe that the Notice will act to a. certain extent as a deterrent, and will serve as evidence that (his Colony docs not acquiesce in the assumption by American fishermen of a privileije to which tlicy have no ri^lit. 6. This being the sole siil)ject of the Notice, the subject did not strike me as of sufficient importance to deserve a separate Report, Now, however, that a newspaper account of the matter has, I (ind, caused apprehension of serious results, 1 take blame to myself for not having supplied your Loidship with early information. I have, &c. (Signeil) O. WH.LIAM DE8 VCEUX. IncloHure 4 in No. O'J. Circuliir, Colonial iSecrelary's Office, 8l. ,Inhn's, Neirfoundland, Sir, ■ June 17, 188G. IN view of the attempts of United States' fishermen to obtain fishery supplies on our coasts, contrary to the provisions of the Convention of 1818, the Government have ordered that the various Customs ollicers, immediately upon hearing of the arrival of any United States* fishing-vessel in ports within their jurisdiction, shall serve the master thereof with a letter warning him "f his infraction of the Treaty. To facilitate you in this matter, 1 inclose you printed copies of a letter which it will be only necessary to date, sign, and address. You will please report to me the names of all captains, with the names and tonnage and port of their vessel, to whom you may send this letter. I have, &c. (Signed) .1. W. WITHERS, pro Colonial Secretary. Indoran 5 in No. 90. Form of Nolict. Sir. 188 . I AM instrurtcd to kIvo you tiotico that the proscnro of your vohkpI in thin port is in violation of the Artieli>n of tiio Iiitornntioniil Convontion of IHIH ln-twcon Clreat Britain and tho United Htiitcs. in rclntion to ll^lu'iy riy;htH on tlio coaHt of Nowfoundland, and of tho IjawH in force in tliin country for tiie eiiforooment of tlie Articlcrt of tho Convention, and that tho purclmso of Imit or ice, or other trnnHaction in connoclion with fiithcry operationH, within i\ inilon of the coasts of tliis Colony, will bo in further violation of tho terms of said Convention and Luwm. I am, &c. Captain Schooner Officer of CuHtomH iit Inclosuro 6 in No. 9t). Oovernor Sir (i. W. Dei Vwux to Mr. Stanhope. (Telegraphic.) Newfoundland, August 24, 1P80. I FIND that mistake with regard to the American rightn was committed, but corrected three weeks ogo h\ order to (liscniitimie Notices on coasts referred to in Convention of 1S18. I am informed that Notices have been reported us served in only two cases. Details will be forwarded by mail. Inclosure 7 in No. 99. Mr, Stanhope to the Officer Administering the Oovernment of Canada and Governor Sir O. IV. Dcs Vcpux, Sir, Downing Street, August 26, 188G. ♦[WITH reference to your despatch of the 2nd instant] I have the lionour to transmit to you a copy, received tliroutih the Foreij;;!! Ollice, of a dc'^patch from Her Majesty's Charge d'AifaiiVH ut Wasliiiigton, with a nolo from Mr. IJayaid, calling attention to alleged inlrae'ioiis of the Convenlimi of HIS liy (lie authorities of Canada and Newfoimdland at the Miigdulen Islands and Honne IJay respectively. In my telegram of the 'Jlst instant I drew your attention to the ease at the Magdalen Islands [Honue Hay], and I pointed out that Uiiitod States' li^iiermcu have the right under the Conventinn of ISls to lisli olf the coasts of the Magdalen Islands [certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland, including the west coast], I have now to request that your (iovernniont will furnish me with a full Report upon the subject of Mr. Hayard's complaint, so fur as it relates to the action of the Canadian authorities [autlurities of Newfoundland]. Her Majesty's Govetimient would recommend that special instructions should he issued to the authorities at those places where the inshore fishery has been granted by tho Convention of 1818 to United States' fishermen, calling their attention to the provisions of that Convention, ami warning them that no action contrary thereto may be taken in regard to United States' iishing-vcssels, I have, &e. (Signed) E. STANHOPE. No. 100. The Earl of Iddesleigh to Mr. Phelps. Sir, Foreign Office, September 1, 188G. HER Majesty's Government have been anxiously considering what further action they can take iu the present state of the Canadian Fisheries question to advance matters * To Newfoundltnd only. 110 towards the frienuiy and equitable solution so ttiuch desired by both Governments, and I bcj? now to offor the following; obseivalionfi in order to explain the ditficultics which present tlicmstlves. There are two distinct issues involved. Tiie one relates to tlic precise limits of the Treaty rights of Americnn fisliernum in Canntlian waters ; tiie other to the legality of the measures a(lopt(Ml by the Canadian authorities (liivvinir regard to the existing legislation) against certain Americnn tisliinii-vesstis for an nlloged violition of Treaty. lioth lior addressed a despatch to Her Majesty's Minister at ■^VaslHllgton. containing a Heport Irom the Canadian Covernnient on ail the points involved, and instructed him to comnmiiicate ii to your Government, and to invite their friendly observations njoii that document, in the iiope that such an interchange of views might lead i) some busis of negotiation. No reply has been received by Her ^Majesty's Clovernment to that communication, hut assurances have repealediy been exciianged lietween the two Governments of their desire to come lo an arrangement. The hopes which were entertained at one time of a settlement on a broad and comprehensive basis by means ol' n new Comniercial Treaty were unfortunately frustrated by the rejection of the proposal for a .'oint ("ommi>sion. It may be, however, that a more restricted basis might be acceptable to your Government, such, for instance, as an arrangement limited entirely to the fishery interests. It is evident thai the great desire of both Governments to arrive at an equitable arrangement cannot be attaiiad unless they are both prepared lo make sjme concessions. The nature of the concessions wlr-ii it would be in tl;e power of this countr" to make with reference to the Canadian ii-heries are roll knoun; hut Her Majesty's Government, '.vho liav- naturally bi'cn in constant commuiiicatioii with the Dominion Government on this que>lion, .ire (juite unable to make any proposal to them of the nature contcuiplated, unless they are informed to what extent the United States' Govern- ment are disposed to nuet them in tlie waj of concession. Her Miije-ty's Goveriinu lit therefore ( ariieslly hope that the Government of the United iStates may lind themselves able to view the position in the light in which 1 have placed it iielore you, and by a frank declaration of the nature of the benetils which tliev are prepared lo oiler on their side to lacilitate the eiioris ol' Mer M^ijesty's (Government to take some iiiiuaHliate action towards the seUleiiRUt of this most important and nr"ent question. I have, &e. (Signed) IDDKSLEIGJl JS'o. 101. Sir L. West to lite Karl of Idclc.slcii/li. — (Received September 3.) My Lord, l\'(i.sliiiujton, August Id, 1880. I HaVE the honour to traihsmit herewith to your Lordship copy ot' a note wiiich I have received Irom liie Secretary of State iiiforii;ing me cd' tiie causes of comiilaint alleged by the masters of sev» rul Amerieun tishiiig-vessels against Captain Quigley, of the Canadian cruizer " Terror." I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Ill Inclosure in No. 101. Mr, Bayard to Sir L, West. Sir. ^^ Depart:npnt of State, Washington, August 18, W8Q. GRAVE cause of complaint is alleged hv tho masters of scveinl American fisliing- vessels, muon.n' wliich can l)c named tho schooners •' Stiiloh " ami "■ Julia Ellen," ajrainst the hostile anil ontraseous misbehaviour oi" Cauiain Qui^lcy, of the Canadian cruizer " Terror," who, n))()n the cntninee of these vessels into the harbour of Liverpool, Nova Heotia. tired a >^m\ across their hows to hasten lluir eoming-lo, and phu-ed a jiiiard of two armed men on board each vessel, who remained on bjard until tho vessels left the harbour. In my note to your Lcnration of the 9th instant I made earno.it rentonstrance against another unfriendly act of Caplnin <>uinlcy, a-rniiist iho schooner '• iiatllcr," of Gloucester, TMassachusetts, whicli, being fully laden and on her liomewani voyat^e, sought shelter from stress of weather in Shell)unu> Harbour. Nova Scotia, and was there compelled to report at the custom-house, and luivo a ;,'uard of armed men kept cm board. Such conduct cannot be dolonilod on any just i;r()an(l, and I draw your attention to it in order that Her Hriiannic .Majes y's (government may reprimand Captain Quigley for his unwarranted and ruch- act. _ It was simply impossible for this officer to suppose thai any invasion of the lisiiing privileges of Canada was intended by these vessels under the circumsvances. The filing «)f a gun acro.ss their bo.Ns wa.s a most unusual and who, ly uncalled-for exhibition of hostility, and eipially so wa.; the placing of armed men on board the peaceful and lawful craft of a friendly neighbour. I have, &c. (Signed) T. F. B.AYARD. No. 102. The Earl of Hdeslehjh to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Office, Srptrmher 4, 18S6. I HAVE received your despatch of the Ifith ultimo, inclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Ikiyard calliuii- attention to cause's i i" co;nplaint alh-gol by m:!>ters of several United States' lishing-ves-^els against CapUMn t^uigloy, of the C'Tiiadian cruircer "Terror;" and I have to acquaint you, in reply, tluit stops have iu'cn taken to obtain a Report from the Donnuion (jlovernment on the subject. 1 am, Kc. (Signed) IDDICSLEIGH. No. 10:3. The Earl of Iddesleisjh to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreigi Olfice, Seplemlier 4, I88li. WITH reference to Mr. HarJing(.''s despulcli of t.io ;iist duly last, inclosing a copy of a note from .Mr. Hayi.rd calling atlenlion t > alleged infmctions of the Convention of ISIH by the authorities at iJoiine liay, >ie\\fouiullaiid, and at Port AniluTst, iMagdaleu Islands, I transmit to you here\\ith a copy of a letter from the Colmnal OtHcr, with its iiu'losurcs on tins (pn.-stion ;* anil 1 have to reijuest Lhi'L you will aiKire.-s a communi- cation to Mr. Hayard, sliouing thi' steps which have been taken in ilie nuittor in conse- i|ueucc of the protest of the United States' Governmenl. I aui, \ny payment. When we counted herring first day we had 1,400, and we got 25 cents per 100. (Signed) DAN. G. McASKILL. Englishtown, May 31. I, the Undersigned, do certify -.lat the above statement was made in my presence. (Signed) D, McAulay, Deputy Collector. In the A''icE-AnMinALTY 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 certain Convention between His late Majesty George III, 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 20th day of October, 1818, and for violation of the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, made and passed in the lifty-ninth year of the reign of His late Majesty George III, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being chapter 38 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 61 of the Acts of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, made and passed in the year 1868, and of chapter 15 of tlie Acts of the said Parliament, passed and made in the year 1870, and of chapter 23 of the Acts of the said Parliament, made and passed in the year 1871. I, Lauchlin G. Campltell, of Baddeck, in the County of Victoria and Province of Nova Scotia, Collector of Customs, maUo oath and say ns follows : — 1. That the Honourable John S. D. Thompson, Her Majesty's Attorney-Gfjueral for the Dominion of Canada, claims, on behalf of Her IMojosty the Queen, to have the said ship or vessel "Ella M. Doughty" and her cargo condemned to Her Majesty the Queen for violation of a certain Convention between His late Majesty George III, King of the United Kingdom of CJreat Britain and Ireland, of the one part, and the United States of America of the other part, made and signed at London, in Great Britiiin, on tlie 20th day of October, in tlie year of our Lord IBIS, and also for violation of the Act of the Parliament of tlic United Kingdom of (Jreat Britain and Ireland, :nade and passed in the fifty-nintli yeiir of the reign of His late Majesty George III, King of the United Kingdom of (irent Britain and Ireland, being chapter 38 of the Acts of the said Parliament, made and passed in the said year, and l)cina; intituled *•' An Act to enable His Majesty to make Regulations with resi)eet to the taking and curing of fish in certain parts of the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and His said Majesty's other possessitms in North i\meriea, according to a Convention made between His Majesty and the United States of America." The said Honourable ,i nnirine miles of the coasts or shores of the said bay and harbour of St. Anns by Donald McAulay ami Lauchlin G. Campbell, officers of the Customs of Canada, as being li.'.ble to forfeiture for breach or violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts. 12. Metweeii the said lOtli and 17th days of May, 188G, and subsequently thereto, in the .«aid l«iy and liarbonr of St. Anns, within 3 marine miles of the shores thereof and within 3 marine miles of the coasts, bay.s, creeks, and harbours of those parts or portions of the dominions in America of His said late Majesty King George III, being now the dominions in America of Her present Majesty Qiieen Victoria, not included within the limits specified and defined in the said 1st Article of the said Couvention, and set out being George specified recited and wen Acts her .said sev( seized w by Doni being li; several . 1(3. master o .•^aid shi]) and whi 3 mariiu being a George m the m and recited in the said first paragraph hereof, the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty " was found to have been fishing within the said distance of ft marine miles of the said coasts, hays, creeks, and liarbours, contrary to tlie provisions of the said Convention and of the said several Acts, and the said vessel "Ella M. Doughty "and her cargo was thereupon seizeil within 3 murine miles of the coasts or shores of the said bay and harbour of St. Anns by Donald McAulay and Laiichlin Q. Campbell, oincLM-s of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to forfeiture lor breach or violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts. 1ft. Between the said lOlli and 17th day.s of May, 1880, and subsequently, in the said bay and harbour of St. Ann.s, within 'l marine miles of the shores tiicreof and within S marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours of those parts or portions of the dominions in America of His said late iMiijesty Kinlation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts. 14. During the months of April and May 188(5 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 " Ella M. Doughty," did in the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty" enter within ft marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours of the Province of Nova Scotia, being a portion of the dominions of America of His said late Majesty King George ill, and now of Her said Majesty Queen Victoria, not iniiluded within the limits specified and defined in the said 1st Article of the Convention, and set out and recited in the first paragraph hereof, for the purpose of procuring bait, that is to say, herrings, wherewith to fiih, and ice for the jjreservation on board said vessel of liait to be used in fishing and of fresh lish to b(; fished for, taken and caught l)y and upon the said vessel and by the master, ofiiceis, and crew thereof, and did procure such bait wherewith to fish and such ice for the purposes aforesaid, and diil so enter for "other purpotijs than the purpose of shelter or repairing damages or of purchasing wood or of oi)taining water, 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 ft marine miles of the coasts or sliores of the said Province of Nova Scotia by Donald McAulay and Lauchlin G. Campbell, ollicers of the Customs of Canada, as being liable to forfeiture for breach or violation of tiie said Convention and of the said several Acts. lo. During the months of April and May 1880 the said Warren A. Doughty, the master of tiie said ship or vessel ••Ella M. Doughty," and the olHcers anil crew of the said slii)) or vessel "Ella ]\I. Dougiity," uid in the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty," and while he and they and the .said ship or vessel " VAlu M. Dougiity" were within ft marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours of the Province of Nova Scotia, being a })()rtion of the dominions in America formerly of His said late jMnjesty King George HI, and now of Her ]Maje^ty Queen Victoria, not included within the limits specified and defined in the said 1st Article of the j^aid Convention, and hct 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 the several Acts hereinbefore mentioned, contrary to the provisions of the said Convention and of the .said several Acts, and the said vessel " lillla M. Doughty " and licr cargo were thereupon seized within ft marine miles of the coasts or shores of the said Province of Nova Scotia by Diniald McAulay and Lauchlin G. Campbell, officers of the Customs of Canada, as being lialile to forfeiture for breach or violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts. 10. During I'lC months of April and May ]88(i the said Warren A. Doughty, the master of the said ship or vessel " Ella M. Doughty," and the officers and crew of the .■laid ship or vessel " Ella M, Doughty," were in the said ship or vessel " Ella M. I »oughty," and while he and they and the said ship or vessel "Ella M. Doughty" were within 3 marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours of the Province of Xova Scotia, being a portion of the dominions in America formerly ot His late Majesty King George III and now of Her Majesty Quecii Vic/tovia, not included within the limits 120 spcified and deUiu'd in the said Iwt Article of the said Convention set out and recited in the first paragrapij hereof, prcpnring to fish ivithiii the meaning of the said Convention and of tlio ^cvol•ai Acts lieioinbcrorc mentioned, contrary to the nrovicions of the said Convention and of the said severul Acts, and the said vessel " Ella M. Dougiity'' and her cargo were thereupon seized within IJ marine miles of the coasts or shores of the said Province of Nova Scotia b_y Doiinkl McAulay and Lauchlin G. Campbell, ofiicers of the 'Customs of Ciuittdu, as being liable to forfeiture for violation of the said Convention and of the said several Acts. The Honourable John 8. D. Thompson, Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the Dominion of Cnnadu, on Lchalf of Hor Mnjcsty the Queen, claims the condemnation of the said ship and her cargo and licr guns, ammunition, tackle, apparel, furniture and stores, for violation of the haid Convention and of the said several Acts. (Signed) WALLACE GRAHAM, Solicitor for the Attorrxey-Gentrul of Canada, No, 108. Mr, Phelps to the Earl of Iddenleigh.— {Received September 13.) My Lord, Leijation of the United States, London, September 11, 1886. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1st September on the subject of the Canadian fisheries. I received also on the lOtli August last from Lord Rosebery, then Foreign Secretary, a copy of a note on the same subject, dated the 23rd July, 1886, addressed by his Lordship, through the Rritish Minister at Washington, to Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of State of the United States, in reply to a note from Mr. Bayard to the British Minister of the 10th May, and also to mine addressed to Lord Rosebery under date of the 2nd June. The retirement of Lord Rosebery from office immediately after I received his note pre- vented a continuance of the discussion with him. And in resuming the subject with yonr Lordship, it may be proper to refer both to Lord Rosebery s note and to your own. In doing 60 I repeat in substance considerations expressed to you orally in recent inter- ▼iews. My note to Lord Rosebery was confined to the discussion of the case of the " David J. Adams," the only seizure in reference to which the details had then been fully made known to me. The points presented in my note, and the arguments in support of them, need not be " ^peatcd. No answer is attempted in Lord Rosebery 's reply. He declines to discuss the questions involved, on the ground that they are "now occupying the attention of the Courts of Law in the Dominion, and may possibly form the subject of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council in England." He adds : — " It is believed that the Courts in Canada will deliver Judgment in the above cases very shortly ; and until the legal proceedings now i)onding have been brought to a conclusion. Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in expressing an opinion upon them, either as to facts or the legality of the action taken by the Cohmial authorities." And your Lordship remarks, in your note of the 24th August, " It is cleaily right, according to practice and precedent, that such diplomatic action should be suspended pending the completion of the judicial inquiry." This is a proposition to which the United States' Government is unable to accede. The seizures complained of are not the acts of individuals claiming private rights which can be dealt uith only by judicial determination, or which depend upon facts that need to be ascertained by judicial inquiry. They are the acts of the authorities of Canada, who profess to bo acting, and in legal effect are acting, under the authority of Her Majesty's Government. In the Report of the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, which is annexed to and adopted as a part of Lord Rosebery's note, it is said : — " The Colonial Statutes have received the .sanction of the British Sovereign, who, and not the nation, is actually the party with whom the United States made thj Con- vention. The oJliccis who are engaged in enforcing the Acts of Canada, or the laws of the Empire, are Her Majesty's officers, whether their authority emanates directly from the Queen or from her Representative the Governor-General." The ground upon which the seizures complained of are principally justified is the allegation, that the vessels in question were violating the stipulations of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain. This is denied by the United States' Government. The facta of the transaction are not seriously in dispute, and if they were Act thcl itse also be Sov< futur the G()v( and ant recited in Convention f the said '' and her if tlic said CIS of the ijntion and al for the innation of nituro and Canada. 1,1886. {September Secretary, scd by hie ccretary of Minister of ! 2nd June. a note pre- t with yonr ir own. In jcent inter- Ihe " David fully made rt of them, discuss the lion of the ipeal to the ■e cases very , conclusion, upon them, cs." Jcarly right, e suspended to accede, rivate rights Ml I'acts that ithorities of authority of Marine and i note, it is ereign, who, ide th i Con- r the laws of lirectly from stifled is the ' the Treaty nited States' if they were could be easily ascertained by both Oovcrnmonts. without the aid of the judicial Tril.unnlH ot cither And the question to bo determined is the tru.. .nt.>rprelation ot the Treaty, as understood and to be adininistered between the High CowtTflcting Partiei.. IT .//'« F"POH«tion of Ilor Majesty's Govornmont amounf* to thin: tb»t before the United States can obtain consideration of their complaint, that (l.e Oana.h^.v authorities, without justihcation have seizid, uiul nre proceeding to conllscate. Am- 'aM vessels, the result ot the proceedings in tlie Canadian Courts, instituted by the cat»l,m. ns the means ot the seizures, must be awaiteil, and the decision of IL.ii. Tribunal on the ...(einalional questnms involved (d)taine(l. The interpretation of a Treaty when it becomes th.' subxcl of discussion between two Governments IS not. I respcetlully insist, to be seftU'd by he judicial Tribunals of eitlicr. bat would bo placing its eonstruetion in the iiands ot aw of the piirli.-s to it. It enu only be interpreted lor such a purpose l.y the mutual consiiU.r(tii..n ami agreement which were necessary to make it. Questions l.,.l«oen in.iivi.lnals aris.u- U|m.i. the terms ot a Ircatymaybc for the ( '..urls to whieb lli.v ivs.^rl to adjust. t,)ne>tioiis between nations as to national rights secured by Treaty iire of a wry .lilierent chan-eter, and must be solved in another way. The United States' Government is no purt.> to the proceedings instituted by the British nuthonties in Canada, nor can it consent to iieeonie a piirly. The proceedings themselves are what the United States eumplain of, as iinautlidiized, as well as unfriendly. It would be inconsistent with the dignity of a Sovereign I'ower to become a party to such proceedings, or to seek redress in any wnv in the Courts . f another country for what it claims to be the violation of Treaty slip'ulatitnis !)v (he autlioritics of that country. Still less could it consent to be made indirectly a parly to the suits by being required to await the result of such defence as the individuals wlioso property is impli- cated may be able and may think proper to set up liit:;;ati<>n of that sort may be indefinitely prolonged. j\Ieanwhile, fresh seizures of \ni.iiean vessels upon similar grounds are to be expected, for wiiieh redress would in like manner await ihe'decisionsof the local 'rribunals, whose jurisaiction the captors iuvoke and the United States' (iovern- mcnt denies. Nor need it be again pointed out hov difleient may lie the question involved between the Governments from that which these proeeedings raise in the Canadian Courts. Courts in such cases do not administer Treaties. They ndminister only the Statutes that are passed in pursuance of Treaties. If a Statute eoutravein s the provisions of a Treaty, British Courts are, nevertheless, bound by the Stnluie. And if. on the other hand, there is a Treaty stipulation which no Statute gives the means of enforcing, the Court cannot enforce it. Although the United States' Government insists that there is no British or Colonial Act authorizing the seizures complained of, if the British Courts should, never- theless, find such authority in any existing Statute, the (piestioii whether the Statute itself, or the c(mstruction given it, is warranted by tlie Treaty, would still remain ; and also the stil! higher question, whetiier, if the strict technical reading of the Treaty might be thought to warrant such a result, it is one which oii«;ht ( < he enforced hotweeu Sovereign and friendiy nations, acting in the sjnrit of the Treaty. The I'nited States' Government must, therelbre, insist that, irrespective of the future result of the Canadian legal proceedings, the authority and propriety of -vhich is the subject of disjiuto, and, without waitini,' their ciuieliision, it is (o Ilor .^luiesty's Government it must look for redress and satisfai-tion for t!ie transactions in question, and for such instructions to the colonial authority as' will prevent their repetition. While, as I have observed, Lord Kosehery declines to discuss the (juestion of the legality of these seizures, the able and elaliorate I'eporl on the subject from the Canadian Minister of Marine and Kidieries, which is made a piirl of it, attempts in very general terms to sustain their authority. He says ; — " It is claimed that the vessel (the ' David .1. .\daius ') vitdacd the Treaty of 1818, and rn)arlianu>nt (.''0 Geo. Ill, cap. ■\f^) or in any HuliKecinent Coloniul Act, i>t not nierely a leffal ohjcction, thouKli (juilo a sufhcieni one, to the Miliditv ol the |iroeeediii>.'N in (jueHtion. If iitlonlH tiie most mitinfaclorv evidence tlml. up to the tiiin' ot tiu- |irescnt controversy, no nucIi con- struction lias liceii uivcn to llic Treaty hy the HritiHli or hy the Colonial I'arlianient as is now sought to i)e maintained. No other attempt is made in the Report of tlii' (^anadian Minister to juHtify tho leffalitv of these sii/ures. It is appavi'iit Innn the whole of it that lie iecoj;nizes the necessity of the priipo»"ii enactmcul tif tiic Act of the Canadian Parliament already alhuietl to in order to sustain them. This reunirk is further contirmed In (he comiuui\icnlioii from the Mar(piiH of Lans' doune. (;.)V( they relate to the comuiunicatious aildresHeil to the Hritisli Minister hy .Mr. I?ayard. the Seorctary of Stuto will douhtless umke such reply as may seem to him to he called for. Ill various other in-.tauees American vessels have heen Moizod or driven away hy the provincial authorities when not en;;ancd or proposin;;- to ensjape in any ille^-nl employ- ment. S(Mne of these cases are -imilar to that of the "Adams;" tlie vessels having heen taken possession of for purchasing; bait or supplicH to ho used in lawful fishiiifj, or for alleged technical hreaeli of Cu-.iom-house regulations, where no harm was either intended or committed, ami umlcr ( ii( iimstances in which, for a very long time, HUch rcf^idaiions have heen treated as inapplicahlc. In other cases, nn arldtrary cMension of the :5-mile limit fixed hy the Treaty has heen annoimced, so as to include within it portions (d" the hi;L?h sea, such as the Hay of Fundy, (lie May el Cliaienr, and other similai waters, and American fishermen iiave been prevented IVoin lishinu' in llmse places hy threats o{' seizure. I do not propose, at this time, to discuss the ipiestion id' the exact location of that line, but only to protest aarainst its extension in the iiwiiiiu'r attempted hy the provincial authorities. To two recent instanc/s of interference by Canadian otiicers with American fishernu'n, of a soin«M\hat dill'erent character. I am sjiecially instructed hy my Ciovern- ment to as-Ic your Lordsliip's attention -those of the schooners " Thomas V. Hayard " and '■ Mascot." These vessels were proposing'' to fish in waters in which the rij^ht to fish is expressly so; ured to Americans, hy the terms of the Treaty of 1S18. The former in Bonne Kay, on the north.w»'st coast of Newfoundland, ami the latter near the .shores of the Maa;ilalene Ishmds. For this jiurpose the " Hayard" attempted to purchase had in the port of Hotnu- Hay, having' repoiied at the Custom house and announced its object. The " Mascot " mad" a similar ;itti'm|il at I'ort .\ndierst, in the .Maj;tlalene blanils, and also desired to take en board a jiilot. Holh vessels were refused permission by the authorities to purchase bait, and the ".Mascot" to take a pilot, and were notified to leave the )ir)rts within twenty-four hours on penally of seizure. They were tluTC- fore compelled to depart, to break up their voya;i('s, and to return home, to their very jjreat loss. I append copies of the allidavits of the masters of these vessels .stating the facts. Vour l-ordshi]) uill observe upon reference to the Treaty, not only lliat the right to fish in these waters is eonfcrieii by it, but that the clause prohibiting entry hy .\mciican fisbeimen into Canadian ])orl.s, excipt for certain specified purposes, which is relied on hy the Canadian (Jovernmint in the cases of the " .\dams " and of some other ve.ssels, has no jqiplication whatever to the ports from wliicb the " Hayard " ami the '• .Ma.scot '' wert; excluded. 'I'lie only prnliihition in the Treaty having reference to those ports is against curing and drying tl>h there, without leave of the inhabitants, which the vessels excluded had no intention of doing. The conduct of the provincial (dliciMs toward these vessels was therefore m.t meridy unl'riemlly and injurious, but in clear and plain violatii>n of the t(rnis of the Treaty. ,\nd I am instructed to say that reparation for the losses sustained l)y it to the owners of the vessels will be claimed by the United States' Government on their beiiidf as soon as tlie amount can be accurately ascertained. Unif( of Huch r ill tbo thori'to t, in any ]c(). HI, ^;ll (|liilO lie most icli f«in- cnt fts in stit'y the iii/.cH tlio iilrcudy (if littllS- luincxcd , IHSd, a t)t' Miunc u|ioii the micniions doiilitloss tiy Ity the [ ein|th)y- Is liaving [isliiiifi, or aH cither ime, wiwh rrrftl.v liAH !H' Hay of iiave been sc, at tliis ;o protest Anu'iicaij Ciovern- Ruy anl " o fish is oriiier in sliores of ise ban in ts ()l)icct. a mis, and >M l»y the olilird to ere tlierc- lo their LMs stating u' riglit to Ameiican ri'lied on vv vessels, Miiscot " ie ports is llie vi's.-ols ward tliese n violation the h)sseK ed States' led. m It will lie ohmervpd that intrrfereni'c with American finhing-vcssols l)y Canadian authoritieH U lieeoinin;; more and more frequent, and mori- and more llugrant in ita disregard if 'I'lcat) obligations and of the principles of comity and friendly intoicourMO. The fl lo have been tnken advantage ol" by llio Provincial ( !ov»Miiment. 'I'lie eomse of llie Wiiited States lias been dictated nol only by an anxious desire to preserve friendly relations, itiil by the full eontideme that tlio interposition of Her Majesty's (lovemiiient would bo such as to put a stop to the transactions eontplaineilof. and lo all'onl reparatiuii for whal loss lias already talicn place. Tlie subject has become one of ;;iave importanci', ami I earnestly solicit tlie immeiliatc attention of your liordiliip to (lie (|uestions it involves, and to the views preHented in my former note, and in tiuwe of the Heeietary iif State. The proposal in your i.onlsliip's note, tlial a revision of the Treaty stipulations hearing upon tlie subject of the li^lieries slioulil he attempled by the (Jovi'nimeiits upon tiio basis of mutual concession, is one that under other circumstances would merit and receive serious consideration. Such a revi.sion was desired by tbo Government of the United States l»efore the present disputes arose, and when there was a reasoiml)lo prospect that it might have been carrii'd into ell'ect. \'arious reasmis, not within its Control, now concur to make the present tiino inopportune for that purpose, and greatly to diminish the hope of a favourable result tr» sueli an effort. Mot the leasl of them is the irritation produced in tlie I iiited States hy the course ot the Canadian (Jovernment, and the belief thereby enjjendertid that a new Treaty is attempted to be forced upon ihe United States' (Jovernmeiit. It seems apparent that tlie (lueslions now presented and the transactions tliat are the subject of present complaint nuist be considered and adjusted upim the provisions of theexi-ting Treaty, and upon the ((nistruction that is to be given to them. A just construction of tliese stipulations, and such as would consist witli the dignity, tlie interests, and tlu' friendly relations o[' the tuo countries, ought not to be ditHcult, and can doubtless he arrived at. As it appears to me very important to these relnti(ms that the collisions between the American lisbermen and the Canadian otKcials should terminate, I suggest to your fjordship whether an atl /a^'r/m construction of the terms of the existin;; Treaty cannot be readied, by inutiuil umlersianding of the (Jovernments. to he carried out informally by instruc- tions given on both sides, without prejudice to ultimate claims of either, and terminable at the will of either, hy which the conduct of ibe busine s can be so regulated for the time being as to iirevent disputes and injurious proceedings until a more permanent understanding can be had. Should this suggestion meet with your Lordship's approval, perhaps you may'ue able to propose an outline for such an arrangement. 1 am not prepared nor authorized to ])resenl one at this tuue, hut may hereafter be instructed to do so if the etlort is thought advisable. I have, &c. (Signed) E. J. PHELPS. Inclosuic i in No. 108. Slateinrnt of Jamen Mardonalcl. United State- of America, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I, .jAMivS MACDONALl), of (iloucester, on my oath do say :-- " I nm master and part owner of the schooner ' Thomas V. Havard." a licensed vessel of the United States ; that slie sailed with a permit to trade Iroin Gloucester the -2iiil .lune on a trip for Halibut. AVe tished (Ui the north-west coast of Newiouiulland near Ihmne Hay, where my supply of bait being exliansted I ran into the port the llHh.Inly, and reported at theCiistom-lHmse, stating to the Cidlector that my puri»ose was to buy bait, 'fhe Collector immediately served me with the notice hereto appended, and made part of this albdavit. 1 had with me a copy of tlie Canadian warning of the oth .March, IHSt!, which contained the clause J of the 'Treaty ;otary Public, duly commissioned and sworn, and dwelling at Glouoi'stcr, in county and State aforesaid, personally appeared Alex. Eachern, master of the scliooner called " Mascot," of this port, who deposes and says : — " That on the 10th day of June, 1886 A.D., I went into Port Amherst, Magdalene Islands, for the purpose of buying bait, but as soon as I went ashore I was met by the Custom-house officials, wlio forbid me from so doing, slating that they would seize my vessel, and I had no right to enjoy any privileges here except to get wood and water. I inform him that I wr.nted to take a pilot, as I could find a spot where I was informed that tlu; fishing was good. He also said if I shipped such pilot or laid in port over twentv-four h(jurs he would seize my vessel. (Signed) "Gloucester, July 27, 1886." Before me, (Signed) Aa.ron Parsons, Notary Public. ALEX. McEACHERN. No. 109. Mr. Bramston to Sir J. Pauncefote. — (Received September 1 7.) Sir, Doirning Street, Septemher 16, 1886. WITH reference tu previous correspondence relating to warnings alleged to luivo been given to United States' ii^hing-vessels bj the Collector of Customs at Canso, I am (iiroct'.d by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of ! Mi'sieigl), a copy of a despatch from the Officer administering the Government of •Canada, with its inclosures, on the subject. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Sir, no sent diate T vessel of war that " Here Glouec I to koe Bayar< T at Can that t trustw( W follows 125 Inclosure 1 in No. 109. Lord A. Jtussell to Mr. Stanhope. ^"> „,™Lr /. Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 21, 1886. VVITH reference to Earl Granville's despatch of tlie loth July last, addressed to the Marquis of Lansdowne, requestinfr a Report from my Government on the subject of an inclosed note from the Secretary of State of the United States to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, relating to certain warnings alleged to have been given to United States' fishing-vessels by the Collector of Customs at Canso, I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of nn approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council, embodying a Report by my Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject. I have, Ike. (Signed) A. G. RUSSELL, General. Inclosure 2 in No. 109. Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Administrator of the Government in Council on the IQth August, 1886. [Extract sent to Sir L. Wpst tor communication to Mr. Bayard. See No. 1 15, post.] THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated the 1.5th July, 1883, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he asks for a Report from the Canadian Government on the subject of an inclosed note from Mr. Secretary Bayard to the Britisii Minister at Washington, relating to certain alleged to have been to United States' fishing-vessels by the Sub- Collector of Customs at Canso. Mr. Bayard states: — "1. That the masters of the four American fishing- vessels of Gloucoster.Mass., 'Martha C. Bradley,' 'Rattler,' 'Eliza Boynton,' and 'Pioneer,' have severally reported to the Consul-General at Halifax that the Sub-Collector of Customs at Canso had warned them to keep outside an inia i^inary line drawn from a point 3 miles outside Canso Head to a point 3 miles outside St. E>iprit, on the Cape Breton coast. " 2. That the same masters also report that they were warned against going inside an imaginary line drawn from a point 3 miles outside North Cape in Prince Edward Island to a point 3 miles outside East Point on the same island. " 3. 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 Manne and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosures were referred, observes that the instructions issued to Collectors of ( -ustoms authorized them, in certain cases, to furnish United States' fi.shing vessels with a copy of the Circular hereto attached,* and which constitutes the only official "warning" Collectors of Customs are empowered to give. It was to be presumed that the Sub-Collector of Customs at Canso, as all other Collectors, would carefully follow out the instructions as received, and that therefore no case such as that alleged by Mr. Secretary Bayard would be likely to arise. The Minister states, however, so soon as the despatch above referred to was received he sent to the Sub-Collector at Canso a copy of the allegations, and requested an imme- diate reply thereto. The Sub-Collector, 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 e.\cept to deliver copies of the official Circular above alluded to, and states that he hoarded no United States' vessel other than the "Annie Jordan" and the " Herert-aid," and that neither the " .MarJia C. Bradley," " Kattler," or " Pioneer " of Gloucester have, during the 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 (rom Cape .North to East Point, alluded to by Mr. Secretary Bayard, or that they woidd not bo permitted to enter Bay des Chaknns. The Minister has every reason to believe the statements made by the Sub-Collector at Canso, and, taking into consideration ail tlie circumstances of the case, is of the opinion that the information which has reached the Secretary of State does not rest upon a trustworthy basis. With reference to the concluding portion of Mr. Bayard's note, which is as follows : — • For Circular, see p. 68. 126 " Such warnings are, as you must be well aware, wholly unwarranted pretensions of extra-territorial authority, and usurpations of jurisdiction by the provincial oliicials. " It becomes my duty, in l)rinKins this information to your notici-, to request that if any such orders for interference with the unquesliouiihlf rij^hts of the American fis'uerinen to pursue their business without molestation at any point not within 3 marine miles of the shores, and within the defined limits, as to which renunciation of the liberty to tish waa expressed in the Treaty of 1818, may have been issued, the same may at once be revoked as violative of the rights of citizens of the United States under Convention with Great Britain. " 1 will ask you to bring this subject to the immediate attention of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, to the end that proper remedial orders may be 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 farther observes that, in his opinion, the occasion of the present despatch, which has to deal mainly with questions of fact, does not render it necessurj for him to enter upon any lengthened discussion of the question of headland limits. i.t^ cannot, however, do otiierwise than place upon record the earnest expression of his entire dissent from the interi)retation therein sought to be placed upon the Treaty of 1818 by the United States' Secretary of State. The Connnittee concur in the foregoing Eeport of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and advise that your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy tliereof to Her Majesty's Secretary of Slate for the Colonies. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, I'rivy CoumcU, Canada. No. 110. Mr. bramston to Sir J. Pawnctfoti. — {Received September 17.) Sir, Downing Street, September 16, 1S86. WITH reference to your letter of the 28th July last, relating to protests by Mr. Bayard against the action uf the Canadian authorities in regard to United States' fishing-vessels, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, to be laid before the Eail of Iddesleigh, a copy of a despatch from the Officer administering the Government of Canada on the subject. I am, 8ic. (Signed) JOHN BEAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. 1 10. Administrator Lord A. Russell to Mr. Stanhope. Sir, Halifax, Nova Scotiti, Auguat 21, 1886, I CAUSED to be referred to my Government a copy of Earl Granville's despatch of the 2!)th ultimo, addressed to the .Marquis of Lansdowne, inclosing two despatches from Her Majesty's Ci)arge d'.Affaires at Washington, containing protests of Mr. Bayard against the action of the autiioritics of the Dominion in regard to certain United States' fishing-vessels. •-'. I now have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council, to which is annexed a Report by the Minister of JIarine and Fisiier'es, relalive to the circunistances undei' which the Secretary of State of the United States affirms that the American fishery steamer " Novelty " was not permitted to take in steam-coal, purchase ice, or tran.ship fish in bond to the United Slates at l^ictou, Xova Scotia. 3. You will observe that Mr. Foster's lieport deals also with Islx. Bayard's note of the lOtii ultimo, relating to the alleged threats by the Customs olHcials of the Dominion to seize American l)oats coming into those waters to purchase herring from the Canadian weirs for the purpose of canning as sardines. I have, &.C. (Signed) A. G. RUSSEf.L, General. 127 Inclosure 2 in No. 110. Report of a CommiUef of the Homnmtble the Privy Counrilfor Canada, approved bu His hxcellency the Admimntralor of the Government in Council, on the 2uth Augunl, 1886. THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration tiie despatch, dated the 29th July lust, from Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, inc Osing two notes from Mr. Secretary Bayard to the British Minister at Washington, and askmg that Her MaJeBty's Government he furnished with a Report upon the cases therein referred to. The Committee respectfully suhmit the annexed Report from the Minister of Marine and Fisiieries, to whom liie said despatch and its inclosures were submitted, and they advise tiiat your Excellency he moved to transmit a copy thereof, if approved, to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies. (Signed) .lOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council, Canada. Inclosure 3 in No. 110. Report. Department of Fisheries, Ottawa, August 14, 1886. THP] Undersigned has the honour to suhmit the following in answer to a despatch from Lord Granville to tiie Governor-General under date of the 29th July last, inclosing two notes from Mr. Pi>cretary Bayard to the British Minister at Washington, and asking that Her Majesty's Government he furnished with a Report upon the cases therein referred to. In his first communication dated the 10th July .Mr. Bayard says: — " 1 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 ' 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, Nova Scotia. " It appears that having reached that port on the 1st instant, and finding the Customs Olfice 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 permiited to do any of the three things mentioned above ; that he received in reply a telegram reciting with certain inaccurate and extended application and language of Article I of the Treaty of 1818 the limitations upon the significance of which are in pending discussion Iwtween the Government of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesi , ii. -^ entering and clearing the 'Novelty' on the following day at the Customs-house, i Collector stated that his instructions were contained in the telegram the master had received, and that the privilege of coaling being denied, the ' Novelty ' was compelled to leave Pictou without being allowed to obtain fuel necessary for her lawful voyage and a dangerous coast. "Against this treatment I make instant and formal protest as an unwarranted interpretation and a])piication of the 1'reaty by tiie otiicers of the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia, as an infraction of the laws of commercial and maritime intercourse existing between the two coimtries, and as a violation of hospitality, and for any loss or injury resulting therefrom, the Government of Her Britannic Majesty would be held liahle!" With reference to this the Undersigned begs to observe that Mr. Bayard's statement appears to need niodiricatiou in several important particulars. In the first place, the " Novelty " was not a vessel regularly trading between certain ports in the United States and Canada, hut was a fishing vessel, whose purpose was to carry on the mackerel seining business in the waters of tlie Gulf of St. Lawrence, around the coast of Prince Kdward island and Nova Scotia ; that she had on board a full equipment of seines and fishing apparatus, and men ; that she was a steam-vessel and needed coal not for purposes of cooking or warming, but to produce motive power for the vessel, and that she wished to pursue her luisine^s of fishing in the above-named waters, and to send her fares iiome over Canadian territory to tiie end that she might the more uninter- ruptedly and profitably carry on her business of fishing. That she was a fishing vessel and not a mercliant-vessel is proved, not only by the facts above mentioned, but also 138 from a telegram over the Rignnture of H. B. Joyce, the captain of the vesflel, a copy of which is appended. In his telegram, Captain Joyce indicates the character of his vessel by using tlie words "American fishing-steamer," and he signs himself "H. B. Joyce, master of fishinjr-steamer ' Novelty.' " There seems no doubt, therefore, that the "Novelty" was, in character and in purpose, a fishing-vessel, and as such comes under the provision of the Treaty of 1818, which allows United Stntes' fishing-vessels lo enter Canadian ports " for the purpose of slicltcr and repairing dama;res therein, and of purchnsing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other jnirpose 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 lyir. Bayard's statement that, in reply to Captain Joyce's inquiry of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, " he received, in reply, a telcuram reciting certoin inaccurate and extended application of the language of .Article I of the Treaty of 1818," the Undersigned considers it n culficient answer to adduce the telegrams themselves. 1. Inquiry by the captain of the "Novelty"': — "From Pictou, Nova Scotia. " Ottawa, July 1, 1886. " Will the American fishing steamer now at Pictou be permitted to purciiasc coal or ice, or to tranship fresh fish in bond to United States' markets r Please answer. (Si-;ned) " H. B. Joyce, '' Maftrr of fishing steamer 'Novelty.' " Hon. Geo. E. Foster. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.'' 2. Reply of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries thereto : — " Ottawa, July 1, 1886. " By terms of Treaty 1818, United States' (isliing-vessels are permitted to enter Canadian ports for shelter, repairs, wood, and water, and for no other purpose whatever. That Treaty is now in force. (Signed) "Geo. E. Fostkr, " Minister of Marine and Fisheries. "To H. B. Jovce, Master American steamer ' Noveity ' Pictou, N.S." The Undersigned fails to observe wherein any " inaccurate or extended r plication" ■of the language of the Treaty can be found in the above answer, inasmuch as it consists of a de facto citation from tiie Treaty itself, with tl;c added statement, for the informa- tion of the captain, that said Treaty was at that tinje in force. As to the " unwarranted interpretation and application of the Treaty," of which Mr. Bayard speaks, the Under- signed has already diseus-ed that phase of tJie question in his Memorandum of the 14th June, which was adopted by Council, and has been forwarded to Her Majesty's Govern- ment. Mr. Bayard's second note is as follows : — " On the 2nd June last 1 Iiad the honour to inform you that despatches from East- port, in Maine, had been received, reporting threats by tlie 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 tlie same as sardines, which would be a manifest infraction of the right of purchase and sale of herring caught and sold by Canadians in their own waters in the pursuance of legitimate trade. " To this note 1 have not had the honour of a renly." To-day Mr. C. A. Boutelle. M.C.. from Maine, informs me that "American boats visiting St. Andrew's. New Hrunsuick, for the purpose of there purchasing herring from the Canadian weirs f.')r canning, had been driven away by the Dominion cruizer ' Middleton.' " Such inhibition of usual ami legitimate commercial contracts and intercourse is assuredly without warrant of law, and I draw your attention to it in ord(;r that the commercial rights of the citizens of the United Slates may not be thus invaded and subjected to unfriendly discrimination." With reference to the above, the Undersigned observes that, so far as his informa- • tion goes, no Collectors of Customs or captains of cruizers have threatened to " seize American boats coming into Canadian waters to purchase herring from her Canadian weirs, for the purpose of canning them as sardines." 129 copy of i vessel Joyce, and in f 1818, rpose of T water, fishing, ■y to the Minister [accurate 18," the , 1886. ,c coal or r. 'ovelty.^ I, 1886. 1 to enter whatever. -herinon (sent 17th June) until lurtlior i.istructod." 1 beg to Htato that I scrvi-d a notice on the master of one United States' (ishing- gchooner only. Rho was called liio '* Velocipede," 64 tons, roi-istcred at Gloucester. This vessel, i licar, has since then sailed lor the Tnited States, after having done well with hulibut fishing. I shall not serve any more notices upon Unito-lStitos' fishermen, agreeably to your respected telegram nbovo mentioned. I have, &c. (Signed) LAWRENCE BARROW, Sub-Collector. No. 112. Sir It. Herbert to Sir J. Paxmc^fote. — (Received September 20.) Sir, Downing Street, Septembei- 18, 188C. WITH reference to your letter ,;t" the 2Gth ultimo, I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit t*) you, to be laid before the Earl of Iddesleigh, a copy of a telegram from the OlKcer administering tlio Government of Canada respecting the American flshing-boat " Rattler.' 1 am, &c. (Sinned) IlOiil'irr G. W. HlRBliRT. Inclosure in >?o. 112. Goviruor the M'nqui.'! of Lanntloirne lo Mr. Stanhope. (Telegraphic ) September 14, 1880. REFERIUNG to your tel^'^ram of the 1st September relative to (isliing*boat " Rattler," fuels are as I'ullows : — " 0:i morning of the 4th Autfust bor captain called on Collector of Cuslons, Shelburnc, aeeompiiuied by chief olficer fisliery police cutter, and reported his ariivul inwards, laden with mackerel, for shelter. Afterwards chief officer informed Collector of Customs fishing-boat fov.nd |irevious evening at anchor u miles down harbour. Two men from fishery police cutter put on board, and master required conveyance to report Custonwhouse in tlie morning. Master attempted put to sea at night, but prevented by fishery police officers." No. 113. Sir L. IVeat to the Earl of Iddcsleiyh. — (^Received September 24.) My Lord, fp'as/iinyton, September 11, 1880. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a note from the Secnitary of State, dated the lOth iuHlant, callim; attention to the case of an American iisliing-vussel, the " Mollie Adams," on account of the alleged refusal of the Collector of Customs at Porl Mulgrave, N(tva Scotia, to allow the master of the " Mollie Adams " to purchase barrels to hold u supply of water for the return voyage. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. 181; InclosureinNo. 113. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. Weit. ^*''» , Washington, September 10, 1886. ir 18 my duty to ask you to bring to the attention of Her Britannic Majesty's Government the troatnu'nt lately experienced by an American ashinjf-vcHsel, the " Mollie Adnms," of Glouooster, ^klnssnclnisotts, at the honds of the Collector of Customs nt Port Mulgnive, in the Strait of Canso, Nova Scotia. l?y the sworn statement of Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner " Mollie Adams," it appi'ius tliat on the :'.lst ultimo, whilst on his homeward voyage, laden with fish from the fishing l)anl\ (lc^i)n*cb from Her IMnjo-ty'H Minister nt WnHiiiojiton,* inolosiji!; n ropy of ,•! note fniii tho United State?' Scrrct.iry of State, cnlliii;: nttentioii to iin nllppoil rol'(is;\l nf t'lo C'oHfrtor of Ctistonis nl Port Mulfyrnvc, Nova SiOliu, to ni!o\v tho nin-tor of tlic United Htntos' fishinfj-vcHse! " Moilio Adams" to ])t:relitse bnncls to liold n Mii|i])ly of water for tlie rclnrn voyii:re, nnd I nni to request tl.at a liOport on (l.c subject mny Ik* olitnined from tbe Dominion (iovernmoiit. I am. &c. (8i,:rncd) V. OURRIB. Sir, No. 121. Sir J. Piiiiiicefote to Sir It. Herbtrt. Foreign Office, October 0, \fi)iitch from llor .Mnjo.sty'.s Minister at Wnsjunirton, inclo>in;; a copy if a note Ironi tlie United Slates" Secretary of Siiile, callin-; atunt'on to tho case of the United iSlates' tisiiin;;-sclu)oncr " Ciittenden," which it is alleged put into Steep Creek, m tho Straitn of Canso, for water, and v.as threatened with seizure in conseqm'nce ;t and 1 am to request tiiat a Report on the Hulyect may be obtained from, the Dominion Government as soon as possible. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 122. The Earl of hidesleiyb to Mr. Phelps. Sir, Foreiijn 0/Hce, October 11, 1888. I H.WE the hunour to aekno«lei]ge tho receipt of your note of the 11th ultimo on the subject of tho Canadian fisheries, and I leiy leave to acquaint yon that tbe note is under tho careful cmisideration ct(»r to tiie inquiries adiln'.NScil (o him in re.pcct to this matter is appended to the .Minister's Re|)oit,iiiid in it, tho f.iels of llie eas.« as set forth iu my telegram of the 1 ith instant are gL-fU. n. I have eomnmnicatcd your despatch of tlie Isi instant, forwarding Mr. Hayard'tt jirotcst concerning this ease, to «\y MiniHterH, and re(|i»'sted to ho lurnisheil with u Report theieon, which I shiill forward, for your iiifurnnilion, as soon as it lias been received, I have, I've, (aigued) A, (;. RUSJSELL. General. Inclosurc 2 in No. 1J3, Report of a Committee of the llononr-hlc the Privy Couiiril for Cunida. uppioved by his Excrllency the Admininlratnr of the Government in Council on the l(i//i Heptember, issn. THE Committee of Council h.ave ha I iiefore tliem a eahlegrim from tiie Right Honourable the Secretary of Stale for tliy Colouiei-', dated lliu 1st September, II::' 80, as follows : — " Report .should he innde as to troatmeul Uuitod Stnles' lisliing l)oat ' llattler,' alleged compelled report Customs when seeking Shelburue Harbour. Despatch follows by mail," The Minister of Customs, to wiiom tiie cablegram \m>s ii I'erred for imnu-iliate report^ caused a telegram to I)C foruaidod to the ( 'olleesor (d' ' nstom ,it Slii'li)urne, to tlie ettiect that it was "stated that United States' tishiug-boat • Uiiltlor' eompolled report Customs when socking Shelburne Harbour: what were cireumslaiiees > Answer i>y telegram, and report in full by mail ;" and lie sub. nils tin- iie|iorl, dated tln> (ithSeplenilji-r instant, from Mr. Attwood, the Collector of Custonis nt Sliolluune, The Committee advise that your {■Jvcelleuey be moved to tal»h' a copy of the Report above nientionod, for the information of t!ie Higlit ilonomable tlie Secretary of State for tlie Colonies. (Signed) .lOllN' .1. Mi^lJHK, ('Ink, /•;•(>»/ iouneil. fnclosure ;l iu l\o. I J . Mr. Attwood lo Ihe Commissioner of Viislim:.-, OUoirii, gj,- r'//v/o»i-/(OH.vc, l^hvllitirnv, Srniembcr (>, 188(5, I HAVE to acknowledge receipt of your telegrauj of the tth lustaut relative lo schooner "Rattler," and 1 wired an answer this iiKU-niug iis reipiested. On the morningof the -Kb ultimo Chief Ollieer of "'reri'or." aeeompanied by (.'aplain A. F, Cunningham, called at this Office. Caiitaiu Ciiniii;igliani reported his vessel inwards as follows, ^" . :— "Schooner ' Rattler,' of Gloucester. 93 tons register, slxteon men frem lisliing bank, with -lG5 barrels mackerel, came in for shelter." 1 was afterwards iiifoi-ncd by the otlieer of culler thai lliey I'rund tlie schooner tho evening l)efoiv at nnelior olf Sandy Point, '> miles do.vn tlie liarbonr. Two men fro'n cutter were put on board., and the mister requiivd to ivpoii at Cnsloms in the morning. . I was also informed that the master, t'aplam Cumimgbam, made an attempt to put to sea in the night by hoisting sails, weigiiing anchor. \e., but was slopped by olllcers from cutter. I am, «c. (Signed) W. W. ATTWOOD, Collector. 186 No. 124. Mr. liramnton to Sir J. Paunc^Jntr. — (Received October 20.) Rir, Downing Street, October 10, 1880. I AM directed l>y Mr. Sccroinry Stntihopo to trnnmiiit to you, for the infonnhtion of tho EnrI of MtloHloiKli, a copy of a despnlch from llic Oflloer mlininiHtrutin^ the Qovcrn- tnont of Cnuadn, forwarding a copy of n Cimtonis Circular in relation to tho coanting trade of the Domioion. I am, fic. (Signed) JOHN BRAM8T0N. IncloHure 1 in So. 124. Ailiniimtralor Lord U. Rusnell to Mr. Stanhope. Sir, lliili/nr, Nova Scotia, September 21, 1886. I HAVE tlie honour to iiicloBC herewith, for your information, copy of a Circular of the Canndinu Cuhtoms in relation to the conHting trade of the Dominion. '2. I underHtnnd tiiat a general Regulation dealing with thin subject is now in course of piei)arati(»n by the Department of Cu8tom« for confirmation by my Privy Council. 1 Hhall take care that a copy of thiH document is forwarded for your informa- tion whenever it is available. I have, &c. (Signed) H. RUgSELL. Oeneral. IncIoBurc 2 in No. 124. Circular. Sir, Custoinn Department, Ottawa, August 14, 1886. NUMEROUS HcizurcH have been recently made by officers of tho Special Agent's Branch of this Department, which, with other evidence in the possession of the Department, goes to nhow that great laxity exists on the part of Collectors and other Customs otticers in connection with traflk going on in small open boats and fishing- vessels between Canadian and foreign ports. 1 am directed by the Honourable the Minister of Customs to call your attention to certain retiuircmcnts of the Customs Law and Regulations bearing upon this subject, and to enjoin upon you the necessity for greater vigilance, and a stricter enforcing of the law than you have apparently been in the habit of insisting upon. Hection 38 of the Customs Act declares that it shall not be lawful, unless otherv^Ue authorized by the Governor in Council, to import goods, wares, or merchandize from any port or place out oi' Canada in any vested which has not been duly registered and has not a certificate of registry on board. Sections 141 to 150, relating to the exportation of goods, require that any vessel outward-bound shall deliver to the Collector a proper entry and report of all goods on board, and prohibits otliccrs giving clearances until such report and entry has been made, and fixes peualties for non-observance of these requirements. Section iM gives authority to the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting coasting vcyages. These regulations you will find embodied in an Order in Council bearing dale the 17tli April, 1S8'5: they declare what shall be considered a coasting trade, and wlmt vessels o;dy can be allowed to conduct such trade, viz., only British registered vessels and boats wholly owned by British subjects, and such other boats and vessels as may be owned by the subjects of countries included in any Treaty with Great Britain, by which the coasting trade is nuitually conceded. As there is no reciprocal coasting trade existing between Great Britain and the United States, United Slates' vessels cannot be allowed to in any manner participate in sucL trade. Coasters are not permitted to go on a foreign voyage without reporting in the same manner as would be required from all vessels not coasters. Foreign vessels or boats must not be allowed to go from place to pkce in Canadian m waters for the purpono of makinff up or seeking a cargo, ai such a courHo would be in violiitiou of the Coasting KogulationM. The Collector of a port may iishign to mifh vchhcIh a landing liorth at any one place within thu liniitH of hin jnriK(li( tion, but muHt nut allow vohscIh to go from place to place in order to till up or take in her cargo. No ]>i-rmitH arc to he given under any circumstanceH hyCustoniH ofliccrs, under cover of which, or under pretext of which, any law or regulution can he ovatlod. Stringent mcnuH inunt be taken to confine all small or unregisteretl vcshcIh •"' 'n the strict limits allowed by law and regulations. VcHaeU or boatH of any kind or class, iilthough of Canadian build, or ow , 'v ('anndiann, which have been entered as personal properly, or otherwise, and \. 'ii duty has been paid in any foreign port, must be consitlered Htrictly an foreign ' itt. and excluded from any rights that might attach to them had tliev not been hc ntored, an Buch entry changes their nationality, as much so as if they had been formally registered. in order to insure the better protection of the revenue, it is absolutely necessary that ''.cse instructions receive your closest attention, and that all vessels, irrespective of t^vir nationality, be required to observe the fame. (Signed) W. O. PARMELEE, Asmtant Commissioner. Collector of Customs, Port of No. 125. Sir L. West to the Earl of Itldrshiijli, — {Reiifived October 23.) My Lord, IVnxhinr/ton, October 12, 1880. I HAVE the honour lo acknnwledj,'e the rccei|it of your Lordship's despatches iiavo conimuiiiiated to the Council dealing f the Canadian and the action of thu of the 30th ultimo, and lo inform your Ijordsliip that ^ ^ _ Secretary of State copies of the certilied Uiports of tli{> Canadian I'riv y Council dealing with the (luestiou of the .'J-mile limit off Canso and with I ho action of tlie Canadian authorities with regard to the United StaleV vessel ''Novelty" and the action of t'" Canadian cruizer " Middleton." I li.'ive, 8cc. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST No. 120. The Earl, of IddvsHgh lo Sir L. West, Sir, Foreiijn Office, October 2=3, 1880. WITH reference to Mr. ILirdiiigc's desimtch of the lOtii August last, I transmit to you herewith a copy of n lottor fiom the Colonial Otliei',* inii Oliice, with ii copy of a iiott I'rom Mr. IUjuhI, protesting iigainnt tliu acton of Cai luiii Kcut, of tlie Ooininion cruis;er " Gcnernl Middloton," in rofusinc,- Stephen A. Fiiiikiwii pormissior. to Ituy ii>h from < 'anailians, 1 hiivc tlic linnour to forward herewith a copy of tin approved Keport of a Committee of the Privy Council, •mbodying a Report by my Mirigter of Marine and I'lshories on the subject, J have, &c. (Signed) A. G. RUSSELL, General. Inclosure 2 in No. '27. Report of a Coi'niltee of the Honourable the Privii Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Adminislrutor of ihe Govtrniiieut in Council on the 2\st September, 188(5. TUT'j Comniittee of tlie Privy Council li.ave liid luidcr their consideration a despatch dated the 5tli Aujjuat, ISj^d, from llu; Hiuht ]ionoiinil)le the Secretary of State for the Oolonies, traiisiiiittmcf a copy of ii letter from the F(»rcign Olfico with a copy of a note from Mr. Rayiin). atul protestiii^r apaiiist tlie action of (_'ap(ain Kent, of the Dominion oruizer " General Middleton," in rofusini,^ Stephen A, iJalkam permission to buy fish from Canadians, The Minister of JIarine and I'^islieries, to whom the despatch and inclosures were referred, submits the following Report from the first officer of the " General Middleton " :— "Halifax, August 25, 188(j. "I have the honour to state that when boarding several boats in St. .Andrew's Bay I asked Steplien R. H,)li\i from the weirs in Kelly's Cove without a permit. I dcelin'jd to acceile to his reijue-t. "Mr. i?uikam went !iro md tlie point in his boat, and after accosting several others, I met him a^ain evidently trying to evade my instructions. I told him that he must not take the fish without permission from the Customs. He left for the \mcrican shore, and I returned to the ' Middleton.' "Mr. Stephen R. Mnlkam [ have known for .some years. He formerly belonged to St. Andrew's, init is now iivinij; in Haslport. His business is to carry sardines from the English side to Eastport for canning purposes,' 'the Minister is of opinion, in view of the above, that in warning Mr. Halkam that if his boat l)elonged to tlu; United States he could not take herring from the weirs without firsv having reported at the cuslom-hoiise, Mr. Kent acted witiiin the scope of the law find his instriiclions. The <''mnniil(>.' respeell'iilly i'dvi.'^.' (hat yuur l',xcelK'iicy be moved to iran-niit a cop;' of tiiis Minute to tiie Kiwlit Honourable tlie Surrefary of Slate lor tlie Colonies, ai« requested in his despatch of ll>e 'Ah August la-^l. (Signed) JOHN .1. McCJliE, Vlerk, Privy Council, Camnlu. Sir, ernment of MSTOIS. 26, 1880. a<^ a copy , protesting ddloton," in o honour to ivy Council, , General. approved by t Seplfinber, n a despatch litato for the \y of a note 10 Dominion (uy fisli from J inclosures e " General 25, 188(i. _ it. Andrew's replied that not tnko fish ;' Customs at »ve without a jvoral others, he must not ivn shore, and bclonfjed to nes fiom the \lkam that if weirs without [jc of the law () iraii'-niit a L' ColoilioS, US' ;//, Canitdti, 139 No. 128. The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. Wpst. ^^^' ^.vl'vzl V Forplrjn Office, October HO, 1886. WllH retcrenco to Mr. Hardinge's despatch of the 17th July last, inclosing a copy of a note from the United Htates" Secretarv of State, protestm-.- against tho action of Oaptam Kent, of the Canadian cruizei- " Ccneral Middleton/' in expelling Stephen R. Balkam from tho harhour of St. Aiulre>v-,s, New lirunsnick, I tianainit to you herowith a copy of a letter from tlie Coloninl Office,* inclosing a copy of a certiHod Report of the Privy Council for Canada upon the suhjcct. I have to request that you will communicate a copy of the Report to Mr, Bayard in reply to his note. [ am, &c. (Signed) IDDESLEIQH. No. I'JO. Sir L. West to Ihn Eurl of hid eslei(jh.— {Received November 1.) My Lord, ^ Washinrjton, October 20, 1888. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship hcrc»itli copy of a note which I have received troni the Sccrotarv of State, liriiming to the notice" of Her Majesty's Government the case of tlic liniicd S'ntcs' iisliiM\;-vcssol " Hverclt Sloole," which is alleged to lia-.c cntcroil the poit of Sholhiiine, Nova Sciitia, for shelter, water, and repairs, ami to iiave been detained i)y the captain of the Canadian cruizor '-Terror." 1 have, &c. (Signed) L. S. S.VCKVILLl-: WEST. Inclosure in ]S!o. 129. Mr. Bayard to Sir L, Went. Sir, ^ Department of Stale, WashiiKjion, Ortober l!>,, 1886. THE " Everett Steele," a fisliinu-vossol of (iloiiccstcr, Ahissachusetts, in the United States, of which Ciiarlos K. Forl)cs, an American citizen, was master, was iilioiit to enter, on the 10th Scpteuilier, 1 !■'.■<'>, the harhour of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, to procure water and for shelter during repairs. She was hailed when entering the harbour l)y the Canadian cutter " Terror," by whose captain, t^uigiey. her papers were taken and retained. Captain Forbes, on arriving off tiie town, anchored, and \eace, aid of the Treaties wlii:h followed between Great Britain and the United States, that the •'subjects of the two parts of the divided Empire should, notwiihstanding the separation, he protected in the mutual enjoyment" of the rights these Treaties aifirmed. if, as I cannot permit myself to believe, Great Britain should refuse to citizens of the United States the enjoyment of the plainest and most privilcf vessels, I citizen money that suffered HI 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. (Signed) T. R BAYARD. No. ] ."^O. Sir L. Went to the Earl of Id(leslclrjli.~{Recciird November 1.) My Lord, Wnshhujton, October 21, 1886. IN connection witli iny proceilin^ desiiatcli, I liave the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a furtlier note which I have received from the Secretary of State, together with iDpy of tlic document wliiili acc(mii)aniod it, dra^^ing the attention of Her Majesty's (idveinment lo tlic case, as therein set fortii, of tiie^'United States' fishing-vessel ''Pearl Nelson," whici> it is alleged has been subjected to treatment by the Customs officials at Arichat, Nova Scotia, inconsistent witli the international law of ordinary amity and hospitality, and also pluinly violative of Treaty rights under th'e Convention of 1818 between Great Britain and tlie United States. I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLB WEST. Inclosurc 1 in No. 130. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. Sir, Department of Stale, Wdshinr/tnu, Octohnr 20, 1886. PERMIT me to ask you to draw the attention of your Government to the case set forth in the inclo'ed affidavit of Murdoch Kemp, master of tlie American fisiiing-vessel " Pearl Nelson," of Provincetown, Massacluisetts, which lias been subjected to treatment by the Customs officials at Arichat, Nova Scolin, inconsistent with the international law of ordinary amity and hospitality, and also jjjainly violative of Treaty rights under the Convention of 1818 between Great Britain and the United States. The vessel in (luestion was compelled by stress of weather to seek shelter in the harbour of Arichat, Nova Scotia, and arrived late at night, when the custom-house was closed. Before the custom-housi. 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 tlie clothing of a sailor lost overboard, whose family resided in that vicinity. He was then informed 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 Collector knew such report was impos- sible, and that the landing of the cre.v was usual and customary, and that no charge of smuggling had been suggested or was possil)le under tiie circumstances. To compel the payment of a line, or " :i deposit " of 200 dollars, which is practically the same in its results, was harsh and unwarranted, and was adding a price and a penalty to the privilege of slielter gnaranteed to American lishermen by Treaty. Tnis vessel was a lishing-vessel, and although seeking to exercise no commercial privileges was comjjellod 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 representing the wrong inflicted upon an unoffending citizen of the United States, and procure tlie adoption of such orders as will restore the money so compelled to he deposited. I am, Sfc. (Signed) T. P. BAYARD. Jnclosure 2 in No. 130. Affidavit of Murdoch Kemp, Schooner " Pearl AV/.voh," U.S.A., Di.'^trict of Masmrhmctt.^. I, MURDOCH KliMP, of Provincetown, in Massachusetts, a citizen of the United States, on my oath do say : That I was master and part owner of the schooner " Peari Nelson," a vessel of the 141 United States, duly licensed, 1886, for the fisheries, . ud holding a permit to touch and trade during the existence of said licence. I further say that the crew ot said vessel were shipped on wages at Provincetown and Boston for u fishing voyngo to the Grand B.inks and return fo Provincetown for discharge. Said schooner, witli licence and permit as aforesaid, sailed the 29th .May, 1886, from Provincetown, and on her pasHntie home tonclied at Aiichnt, Ciipe Breton, driven in there by stress of weather. Hailed by the wind from Banii Qnero, ami blowing fresh, a heavy sea running, and foggy, made Point Miciiaux, 9 miles from Ariehat. The ve.ssol was deep, her doiys floated on ileik in her lee waist, wind being about we>t. I oonclndcd to make a harbour and wait for better weather and wind. I ancliorcd the Teasel in Ariciiat Harbour at 11 I'.M. 2n(J September, 1880. I bad lust a man on the Grand Banks, named James i^ampson, who belonged to Arichat, and 1 wanted to land his eflects it' the Customs ofliccrs would allow me to. Borne of my crew belonged in that nuigiibourhood. William Batino, my cook, and nine others of the crew took boats off the deck and went ashore, wi '. out asking my permis- lion. I saw them, but had never known that was iniy objection. 1 had been in this and other British North American ports frecjiiently, and witnessed the landing from my own and other vessels' crews, but never before heard such landing was illegal or improper. ThftM men took nothing from the vessel with them, nor carried away anything but the clothes they wore. From the time I left Provincetown 1 hnd been "to tio port anywhere. Next morning, after my arrival in Arichat, at lialf-paHt 8 o'clo* <, ^ went ashore to enter at the custom-house, but found it closed 1 calkd at 9 o'clock, ...id it was not open. I went again at 10 o'clock, and found the Collector opening the oHice door. I made the regular inward report to him, and requested permission to land the clothes of James Sam^.sun, ■who had been lost from my vissel on the Urand Banks. He told me he had sent a man for me. After 1 got there this man came in the office and was bidding my papers, and told the man to go back and take charge of the vessel. 1 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 would tell :ne was, he said, he would telegraph to Ottawa and find out what to do with me, and he did telegraph imniouiritcly. Aljout ') o'clock v.m. the Collector received an answer, and told me io deposit 200 dollars and the vessel would bo released. The Collector would not allow me to bind this dead man's elotiies until after I had paid tlie 200 dollars fine. I gave the clotiics to the shopkeeper, to be given to Sampson's widow or friends. I came out of Arichat about 1 1 a.m. on the 8th Sei>ter.iber, I88G, having l)ought there one bushel of potatoes, with the Collector's permit, and arrived at Provincetown the 14th September, 188G. 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 w(i;e all paid olf and discharged. Some of the crew that went ashore at Arichat returned aboard as early as 7 o'clock, and all were aboard about the time the vessel was seized. I gave them no money tliere, 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 bu^ines-^, but soKly because of the stress of weather that had driven me tliere. it «a.s mere kindness only that prompted me to oH'er to land Sampson's clothes there, where his friends could got them. 'I'hcre was no profit to the ves.sel, crew, or myself expected in so doing, or attiinpted to be gained in entirin;^ the port of Arichat other than shelter from the stres* of weather we h:ul been under from Quero Bank. If any revenue law of Canada was violated by my vessel or by myself, the same was done through ignorance and inadvertence, and not with any intention to defraud the revenue or offend (he law. Personally appeared before me Murdoch Kemp, at Provincetown, Htate of Massa- chusetts, United States of America, this 27tli day of September, 18c0, who suhserilied and made oath to the forogoitig. (Signed) MURDOCH KE.MP. (Seal.) (Signed) James Gikfohd, Notary Public. a permit irincetown ctovvn for !9th May, le Brefon, (i blowing I Arifhat. bout we>t. jliored the jlotiged to )w me to. and nine ly permis- n this and in n>y own improper. n Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, + containing a Protest tvom Mr. nayard ngiiinst the action of the Customs officials at .Ariciiat in the case of tli, Vnieiiean tisliing vessel " Pearl Nelson ;" and I am to request that the Canadian CJovernment may be asiced to furnish a iieport on the subject. I am, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 133. Mr. Brumston to *'/;• J. Pauncefote. — {Received November 6.) Sir, Downing ISIteet, November 4, 1886. WITH reference to the Bill passed l)y the Parliament of Canada at its last Session, and resorved by the Governor-General (>f the Dominion for tlie signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, oniitled " An Act further to amend the Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels," I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanliope to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Iddesleigh, a co\)y of a despatch upon the subject, which was received in this Department in August last, together with a copy ot the reply which has been returned to it. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. 133. Tlie Marqvi.t of Ltusdounc to Earl Gninville. (Extract.) Citadel, Quebec, July 29, 1886. I HAVI'^ the lionour to forward herewith a copy of an appro\ed Report of a Committee of the Privy Council in reference to fbe Act entitled "An Act further to amend the Act nspcctii'ig fialiing by foreign vessels," whicli was passed at its last Session by the Parliament of Canada, and which, as your Lordship will remember, was reserved by me for the signification of Hit Majesty's jileasure therton. 2. Your Lordship will observe that, for the reasons otlered by the Minister of Justice, • No. 12!t. t No. 130 \u my GovoriinuMit roconiMiciuls that the uttention of Her Majesty's Government may be drawn to I he noi-ossily tor iittviiijr the Royivl Aysent given at as early a (Jay as possible to the Act ubitve retVrroil to. Your Lordship has already been fully intbiined of the circum>>tan('es under wliich this IJill was originally introduced, and which are again recurred lo in thf Uepiut n ■» Huhinitted. ■I. 1 ineloM' ln'iewilii nipy of clause I' of the Act No. 85menlioncd by the Minister, and 1 apprehend that there can he no doul)t that should the ]'rcsident at any time determine to issue a i'loclaniation such as that contemplated in the clause, Canadian vessels would heconio liable lo seizure and forleiture in consequence of acts for which, as the law now stands, it might not he possible to enforce the same penalties against vessels of the United States, Inclosure 2 in No. ia3. Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, upproird by ')>, (ieo. Ml, cap. 88. provides ibe penalty of forfeiture as to any foreign fishing-vessels found fishing, or to have been hshing, or preparing to fish within 3 marine miles of any ot the const:!, bays, creeks, or harbours in any part of Her Majesty's dominions in Ann'rica, &c. The Canadian Act of 1808 (chapter 01), entitled "An Act respecting fishing by foreign vos^CH hy n further term of imprisonment, as the persons on whom the penalties would fall wcndd prohahly he unable to hear a considerahie fine. It is obvious that tlie mere rinlit to bring a suit against the masters of olTending fishiiig.ves>.ils is a remedy of little or no avail. Before Judgment for the 200/. could be obtained, the jiersons sued would he almost certain to be out of the jurisdiction of the Dominion Courts, and the enforcement of the Judgment would for that reason become in most cnsc^ impo>sihle. even if the defendants possessed the means from which the Judgment cunhl he n-aiized, The .Miiii»ler siihmits that the penalty of forfeiture applied by the 2nd section of the Imperial Statute, ami hy the Canadian Act. to the offence of fishing, &c., would be a suhal)le and most available pmaity for the infringement of the Statutes. It cannot he ilaimed h\ the United States' Government to be an excessive or an unreasonahle penalty, hecause, hy Statute No. 8.i of the United States' Congress, lately flssenled to by the President of the United States, the same penalty is established against foreign vessels, \\ho«e masters. otKeers, or agents do any act which may bo contrary to any Proclamation issued under that Statute. The Committee concurring in the foregoing Heport, and considering the great value of th(! Canadian lisliiny-grounds, and the necessity which cx'^ts for their protection from encroachmentH iiv loreinn lishermen, in order that these natural resources may he made available to our own people, recommends that the attention of Her Majesty's Govern- ment be drawn to this subject, and that representations be made as to the necessity for Sir, 14S having the Royal Assent given at as early a day as possible to the Ac! of last Session, which '" before referred to, Au tvhich is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council. Inclosure 3 in No 133. Section 17 of Bill No. 85 passed h\j the United States' Comjress, 1886. THAT, whenever any foreign country whose vessels have been placed on the same footing in the ports of the United States as American vessels fllie coastwise trade excepted] shall deny to any vessels of the United States any of the commercial privileges accorded to national vessels in the harhouis, ports, or waters of such foreign country, the President, on receiving satisfactory information of the continuance of such discriminations against any vessels of the United States, is hereby authorized to issue his Proclamation excluding on and after such time as he may indicate from the exercise of such commercial privileges in the ports 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 discrirainalcd 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, if the master, officer, or agent of any vessel of such foreign country, excluded by said Proclamation 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 be liable to seizure and to forfeiture to the United Slates, and any person opposing any officer of the United States in the enforcement ot this Act, or aiding and abetting any other person in such opposition, shall forfeit 800 dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, upon conviction, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Inclosure 4 in No. 133. Mr. Stanhope to the Marquis of Lansdowne. My Lord, Downing Street, November 4, 1880. I HA"VK the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 2nth July last, inclosing a copy of an a])proved Keport of your Privy Council in reference to the Bill recently passed by the Parliament of Canada, and reserved by you for the significa- tion of Her Majesty's pleasure, entitled " An Act further to amend the Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels." Her Majestv'a Government, after having given their most attentive consideration to the question and to the views which have been urged by your Ministers, and having, moreover, had tlu. advantage of con.'sidering the rejiresentiitions which you have yourself made upon the subject during your recent visit to this country, have come to the conclusion that they would not 1)0 justified in advising Her Majesty to withhold her assent from the Bill in question. They will, therefore, be prepared to submit the 15ill to Her Majesty for confirmation on receiving a transcript of it properly authenticated in the usual form. I have, Sii'. (Signed) EDWARD STANHOPE. No. 134. The Ear! of hhlcskiijh to Sir L. West. Sir, Fnreujn Office. November ii, 18SG. I HAVE received your despatches dated respectively the :.'Oth and 21st ultimo, containing copies of notes addressed to you by Mr. Bayard concerning the action of the Canadian authorities in the cases of tiie American fishing-vessels " Everett Steele " and "Pearl Nelson;" and I have to request you to inform IMr. Bayard that the Dominion Government have been asked to furnish immediate Reports upon those two cases. I am, &c. (Signed) IDDESLEIGH. 145 5o. 135. Mr. Bramaton to Sir J. Pauncefote.— (Received November 18.) Sir, Downing Street, November IT, 1886. "WITH reference to the letters noted in the margin,* relating to the cnses of the United States' fishing-vessels '* Rattler," " Julia Ellen." and " Sliilo," I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Iddcslfigh, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing Reports from the authorities of the Dominion in reference to these cases. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. 135. Acting Governor Lord A. Russell to Mr. Stanhope. Sir, Halifax, Nova Scotia, October 29, 1886. I HAVE the honour to forward lierewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council of Canada, furnishing tlie Report asked for in your despatch of the 1st September last, respecting the alleged unfriendly treatment of the United States' fishing schooner '• Rattler " in being required to report to the Collector of Customs at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, when seeking that harbour for shelter. I beg also to draw your attention to the statement of the Captain of the "Terror," appended to the above Order in Council, which gives the facts concerning the cases of the " Shilo " and " Julia Ellen," a Report as to which was requested in your despatch of the 9th ultimo. I have, &c. (Signed) A. G. RUSSELL, General. Iiiclosurt- 2 in \o. 135. Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Administrator of the Government in Council on the 2>roteetion Service; he, the Minister, tlierefore, respectfully submits that the reflections of .Mr. Secretary Bayard, characterizing the treatment extended to the captain of the " Rattler " as unwarrantable and unfriendly, is not merited in view of the facts as stated by Captain Quigley and Collector Attwood. The Conmnttee concur in the Report of the Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and advise that your iixecllency 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. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council. Inclosure 3 in IS'o. i;VJ. Extract from I lie " Boston tleraUl" of October \), 1886. A FisuiNG Caitain's Exi>i;uiKN-CE. — The letter of Captain Nathan F. Blake, of the fishing schooner " Andrew Burnham, ' of this city, wliicli wo published on Wednesday, •vould apparently indicate that the Canadian ollicials have not bt'en disposed to push the requirements of their law (juile as vigorously us some of our fishermen have maintained. Captain Blake says he has exiierioncod iioL the least trouble in his intercourse wi(h the Canadian ollicials, hut that as he treated them courteously, they, on their side, have reciprocated in like terms. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of bitterness ielt on both sides, and probably this bitterne>s has led both parties to be ungracious in their own conduct, and to exaggerate the wrongs they liave endured, hardsliips frequently due to an unwillingness to observe the leciuirements of the law as these are now laid down. If all American fishing cajjtains exhibitLd the same courtesy and moderation that Captain Blake has shown, we inuigine that there would be very little trouble in arriving at an equitable and pleasini'; understanding with Canada. Inclosure 4 in No. ISy. Captain Quigley to Major Tilton. Sir, Shelburne, September 80, 1886. I BEG to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the -'7th instant, requesting the circumstances connected with the boarding of the vessels "Rattler," "Julia and EUen," and " Shilo." In the case of the " Rattler," she came into Shelburne Harbour on the evening of the 4th August at 6 o'clock. She being at some distance from where 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 slie did, and came to an anchor alongside o f my vesnel. [84l U 2 iE '■% 148 I tlioii sent the chief officer . Mr. AttwoQil to thf Coininlniiionpr of Cuntntnit, Otfitwa. Sir. ^ Ciisttim-Uousi', Shi'lhiirnr, Sriiti'wlii-r (i, ISRt^. T ITAVK to aekn()wlod;,'e the receipt of your tolesram t • tlie Kli instant relative to schooner "Rattler," and I wired nn answer tliis niornin;; ih recjuested. On the inovnin^' of the 4th ultimo chief ollieer of " Tenor, aci-oinimnit'd l)y Captain A. F. Cnnnin!,rhiini, called at this Ollice. Ciijitain Cunuinuhaui reported his vessel inwards as follows: viz., schooner " Rattler," of (Houcester, W\ tons ro^'ister, 10 men, from fishin:? hanks with 4fl'i barrels nmekerel came in for sheher. I was afterwards informed by the olHcer of cutter tliiil they found the schooner the evening before at anchor off Sandy i'oint, fi miles down the hiirbiur. Two men from cutter were put on Ixwrd, and the master recpun^d to report at Customs in the morning. I was also informed that tiie master, Captain Ciinnii\gliain, made an attempt to put to sea in tlie night, by hoisting sails, weighing anchor, &C., but was stopped by officer from cutter. I am, ^c, (Signed) \V. H. A.TTWOOD, Collector. Inclosure in No, l.'ir>. Extract from the " Montreal Ctzrlie " of Ortobrr IH, 1881). A FisiiF.aMAN's Talk.— The following letter, which appears in the Boston " Heralil," conveys a dill'erent impression to many statements Hint hiive 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 yon would open your coiumna and give your readers an insijrht into tlie otiier side of tlie story. I sailed from Boston for North Hay on the iHth June, not knowing just wliat the eulier.s would do, or how tlie law would be intcr|)retcd. I nearcd the coast with fear and aii\iety. The first iaud sighted was Whitehead, and immediately cries came from aloft: "Cutter in sight, a-hcad ! " I rushed to the deck, found the vessel, which proved t(» hi* the " Howlet," commanded by Captain Lowry, Hearing us rapiilly. At time of sighting the cutter wo were standing insliore. She hoisted her flags to let us know wliat slie was, and wc immediately " aliont ship," and put to sea to net out of lier way, fop fear wo might be placed on the ))rize-list of the captures. We finally headed up for Port Mulgrave, in Canso, expecting to receive rough usage from the authorities, but, to our surinise, found Collector Murray a perfect gentleman, willini;' to assist me as far as he could without encroaching on the Canadian laws. From tiiere we put in at Port llawkesbury, and hoarded the cutter " Conrad," and asked the Chaplain for instructions in regard to the 3-mile limit, and what privileges, if any, we bad. I was answered, in a courteous and hearty way, that he did not have them aboard, but woiiKl «o aslior*; in a few moments and get me a printed copy of the Regulations, which ho did, and assured us that if we followed tlicin wc would be unmolested ; that ho was tluMc to sec that the law was not violated, but not to cause unnecessary annoyance. After receiving in.structions from the captain, thanks to him, 1 went to the Custom-house and entered my vessel, paying 25 cents, I found a very pleasant gentleman in the Collector, who did all in his power to relieve my mind and make us comfortable. Souria was our next port of landing, where we also reported and were well treated. Trom there wc wont to Malpeque, where fit IM wo fnunil nnothor gentleman in tho Collector. Wo root tho cutter " Howlot " at rnsmmi|M CO, nml Iniil xi'viml iiitcrviowx with tho ('■>mmander, ('apliiin Lowry, whom I found n (juii't, just, iiiiil (jontli'manly otflccr. My vchhcI wan one of tho flet>t ordorod out ot hiir))iMir hy liitn. At thitt time il wak as good ii fish daya« onu could ask fur, and tho itiHtrui'tions woro phiiii lluit at such tinu's wo lnul no ri^ht to remain in harhour. At nr) timo is thoro miioli wator to sparo on tlio har, and it is a common occurronco for vossels to fjiound in ^^oin;^ in or out, and that soino did toucli was due to ii;niirancc of tho channel or oarolossnoss on tlio part of oaptains. At tho timo the order was iHsued tho werthor was lair, hut hoforo all tho lleet oould work out tl»r(ini>l» tho channel, one of the sudden ciiaMj^oH in wcalhor, so iniioh to ho dreaded on such a coast, came, and tho (litter rricinded tho 'inlor and the Hoot lolnrnod. It has hocn printed in a Hoslon paper that, owiny; to Iteiii;; forced to sea hy tho cutler's orders in had weather, my nchooner, llie " Andrew Burnliam," fouled two En;;IiKhmen and narrowly escaped serious daniarre. If true, it would look like u hanUhip, It was simply this: fn jj;etling under way, in a small and crowded space, (indinn I would not liave room, I dropped our starhoard anchor. That not holding;, wo let go tho iither, and it hroui^ht us up all ri^ht ; not much in this to po.nt to as an outrage or ilonifor from stress of weather. I holievo Captain Lowi y to ho a man. who would carry out all tho require- menti of the Canadian I.;iwh, hut 1 saw nothing; in my experionro in those waters that could ho considered as hoinj{ arhitraiy, or taking a moan ailvantage of his ofticial authority to annoy any one. Captain Lowry has hecn a master of vessels for twenty- firc years, is a man of hifih reputation as a seaniivn, and as f^ood a .judujo of whether the wi>athor is I'avourahle tor a vessel to j(o to Hoa as any man who walks a di'ck, and when ho unlerod the ticot to sea he went himself, and I know ho would not order a vessel to leave harlmur if there was any danj^or of !o-s of lite or property. We reported at Oascumpec, 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.s, no trouble would he met witli. " If we had 'free fish ' it woidd give the Canadians some recompense for what our fishermen want, viz., the right to go anywhere and everywhere, use their harhours, ship men, sjct provisions, lainl and mend our nets, buy salt and barrels, and ship our catch home liy rail or steamer without «'X])ense or annoyance, tho .same as wo have heretofore. " If wo bad had tbal privilege this year, myself and vessel woidd have boon 5,000 dollars better off thi« season, and all the fishermen in the hay would have been in the same boat with me. I do not say that 1 am too honest not to fish within the 3-milo limit, nor do I believe there is a vessel in the fleet who would not, if the cutter was out of sight. I made two trij)s to the hay. both of which were very successful, and I lived up to the requirements of tin- law as well as I knew liow, ond did not find them olinoxious, or to interfere with my success, and everywhcro I went I was courteously treated by the officials, eapccially so by both tho cutters. Should it be a bay year next season. I hope to meet them ogain. Those who openly preached that they would go where tliey 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 satisfaction of damning the cutter, the Captain, the (iovernnient, and everything else when they knew they could do it with impunity, ami that tho men they were tal.. ng to could not resent il by word or blow, wore looked after sharp, and were not extended the courtesy that was shown so many of us. " In the interest ot fair ])lay, I could not help writing rou and asking you to give this to your readers, if not t iking up too much of your valuable space. , " Very respectfully, (Signed) " Capt. Nathan F. Blakk, " Schoonrr ^Andrew Burnliam,' of Boston. "Boston, October 0. 1R86." No. 136. •Sir Ix. Ili'ibvrl lo Sir ■/. Pauncefole. — (Received November 19.) Sir, Downimj Strvel, November 18, 1886. I AM directed hy the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, to be laid before the I'^arl of Iddcsleigh, a copy of a despatch, with its inelosurc, from the Officer administering the Government of Canada, respecting the action of the Canadian Sir, consi(ler( and requ an hour if his ve requeste( lowered possessi< vessel ha The Qnigley the law. Tho Minute, and to Governra All Sir, WIT of the Ci Howlot" at owry, whom liH't ordered ask for, and arbour. At curronci! for unnrancc of ■r was issued innel, one of , came, and I in i\ Hostim weatlior, my •aped serious \, I (iropped , hroui^ht us om stresH of tlio roquirc- those watofB of hii olUi'ial H for twcnty- ;c of whether alks a dt'ck, u' would not or property. H we touched ne as they do J for what our larbours, ship lup our catch liorotofore. 1 r),000 dollars [he same boat imit, nor do I t of sifjht. I eil up to the noxious, or to roatcd by the 5i'ason. I hope ! they pleased, ed or openly he cutter, the nld do it with t by word or was shown so ig you to give ,' of Boston. cutter " Terror " in loworing the flag of tho United StateH* flsliinff schooner " Marion Grimes." I am, Ike. (Signed) ROBERT G. \V. HERBKRT. (ncloHure 1 in No. 130. Aflinij Oorrrnor Lord A. Iluasfll. lo ^fr. Slnnhnpfi. Sir, Hiillf(u; Nova Srntia, October 27, 1P80. 1 HAVR the honour to transmit herewith a copy of an appntvi'd Minute of tbo Privy Council of Canada expressing the regret of my Uovcrninent at the action of the Captain of the Canadian cutter "Terror" in lowering the Tnitcd States' Hag from the United States' fisliing schooner " Marion (irimes." of Gloucester, .Mussaeliusetts, wliilo that vessel was under detenti(m at, Slielburne. Nova Scotia, by the Collector of Custoraa at that port for an infraction of the Customs Regulations. I have communicated a copy of this Order in Council to Her Moijesty's Minister at Washington. I have, &c. (Signed) A. G. RUSSELL, Genfral. Inolosure 2 in No. 136. Report of n Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Administrator of the Government in Council an llie 2()e moved to forward u copy of this Minute, if approved, to the liiglit Honourable the Secretary of State iov the Colonics and to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, expressing the regret of the Canadian Government at the occurrence. All which is respcctfullv submitted for your Excellency's approval. ' (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privij Council. .) ',er 18, 1886. t to you, to be )sure, from the the Canadian No. 137. Mr. Braviston to Sir J. Pauncefofe. — {Received November 20.) Sir, Downing Street, November 19, 18ir6. WITH reference to the correspondence noted in the margin,* respecting the action of the Customs officer at Magdalene Island in the case of the United States' tishing- * Not. 92 and 99. 162 vessel "Mascotte," I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit (o you, to be laid bfforc the Earl of Iddesleigh, a copy of a despatch, with its inclosuie, from the Officer administ(Miiipf the (Jovcrnment of Canndn on the subject. I am to point out tlwit the concluding paragraph of Sir L. West's note to Mr. Bayard of the 17th September should have referred to the case of Newfoundland only. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN IJRAM8T0N. Inclosure 1 in No. Ifi?. Acting Governor Lord A. Hu.ispII to Mr. Stanhope. Sir, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Oclohi-r 30, IBM. WITH reference to your telegraphic message of the 22nd August, and to your despatch of tlic 2.')tli August, transmitting copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Chargd d'Aflaires at Wasliington, with a note from Mr. Bayard complaining of tlie action of the Customs orticcr at Magdalen Islands, with reference to tlic American fishery schooner " Mascotte," I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Trivy Council of Cf.nada, embodying a Report of tho Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject. I have, &c. (Signed) A. G. RUSSELL, Oenerai. Inclosure 2 in No. 137. Rppnri of u Committcp of tho Honourable tho Privy Council, approved by hii Excellency tho Au',ninistralor of tho Government in Council for Canada on the Sbth day of October, I88(i. THE Committee of the Trivy Council have had imder consideration a telegram of the 22nd August and a despatch of the 25th August last, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, transmitting copy of a letter from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, inclosing a note from Mr. Secretary Bayard, com- jihiining of tho action of the Customs officer at Magdalen Islands, with reference to the American fishing so'iiooiicr " Mascotte. *' The Minister of Maiiiic and Fisheries, to \.hoin the correspondence was referred, «il)sorvch that Mr. H.ayard, in liis note to tlio British Minister at Washington says: — " I am also i.i possession of the adid.tvit of Alex. T. Vachem, master of the .Vmerican fishing schooner ' Mascotte,' wio entered Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, and «as there threatened by ihe Customs official with seizure of his vessel, if he attoniptinl io obtain bait for fishing or take a pik)t." And from a Report t)t' the Customs officer at Magdalen Islands, a copy of which, H(.> far as it relates to tlie case in point, is hereto anne.xed, it appears that no grounds exist for the ''(unpiaint made by the master of the " Mascotte." 'i'iie Mini-^tiT s''ites that Ciiptain Vaclu:iii was served with a i)riiUt(l copy of tlic •• wamiiig, ' and -.as, in addition, informed by tlu Collector that niuier tlie Treaty of 1818 h'.' had no right to buy halt or to ship m<'ii. He was not forbulden to take fish, but, on the couliury, the Collector jioiiited out to hi:'i on the (Ihart tlie places in whi'h, by till! Convontioii of isiS, he, as a United States' tislierman, had tlii.' right to inshore fishing, and one of the places so pointed out to him was the Magdalen Islands. Nolwilhstamling the " warning " and the pcrsfmal explanation of the Collector, i;, appears that ('a])tain Viiclieiii did go up the coniitry and attempt to hire men, and upini bis return iiifonucd the Collector that he coiihl not get any. For this, clearly an illegal act, lie was not interfered with by the Collector. The Miiiislt'r further observe-* that the (.'onveiition of 181^*, while it grants to United States* lisherineii the right of fishing in common with British subjects on the shores of the MiigJiileii inlands, does not confer upon them jirivileges of trading or of .shii)|)ing men, and it was against possib'e a-, ' ^ of the latter kind, anil not against lisliing insimre, or seeking the rights of hos|)itality guaranteed under the 'I'reaty, that Captain Vachi'in was warned by tlie Collector. ■ With reference to the remarks of the Colonial Secretary that "Her Majesty's Ciovernmenl would recommend that special instructions should be issued to the autho- Sir, I couutry I not oppi since, not use to makt I wit: at I knowinjr I inacciira My Lon I H tlio 3()th therein ci Report of againiit expelling [8 I, to be roai the Bayard TON. , 1886. to your Majesty's n; of the \merican py of ail linistcr of ItfS rities at the places where the inshore fishery has been granted by the Convention of 1818 to the United States' fishermen, c&Wing; tlieir attention to the provisions of that Convention, and warning them that no action contrary thereto may be taken in regard to United States' fishing-vessels," the Minister states that the Circular instructions issued to Collectors of Customs recite the Art idea of the Convention of 1818, which grant to United States' fisliermen the right to tnlcc iisli upon the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and of certain parts of the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland, which instructions the Collector in question had received, and the import of which his Report shows him to be familiar with. In addition to this the Commander of the fishery protection steamer "La Cana- dienne " was ordered to visit Magdalen Islands and explain fully to Collectors there the extent of their powers. The Minister, in view of these in.structions, printed and oral, does not deem it necessary to send further special orders. The Committee concurring in tiie foregoing Report advise that vour Excellency be moved to transmit a copy hoieol, if approved, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies. All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council. jenerai. ellency the )/ October, clegram of ionourable from Her yard, com- nce to the is referred, ays: — cr of the en Islands, sisel, if he of which, no grounds opy of the Treaty of o take fish, IS in \vhi;'!i, to inshore jollector, i;. Hud upi>ii an illegal t grants to ects on the luliiig or of lliIl^l lisliin,!; hat Captain r Majesty's the autho- wnrning," personally louc'vor, to hire, went no the Inclosure ti in No. V\7. Mr. Poinchaud to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Sir, Cii:^tom-hniisf, Maifdalen Jsidiul.i, August 28, 1886. I BEG to acknowledge the rejeipt of ymir teleguun rcspoetf.ng captain of the schooner "Mascotte's" report in reference to my liaving threatened him with seizure. I rejAied, on receipt: " ' Mascotte,' infornintion incorrect. Particulars per mail Tuesday." Parlictdars. — On arrival of the captain I served iiim a informed him he could not buy [.' bnit] or sliip men. I say tiiis to all American fishermen. He triec' country to hire, but could not hire a man. I saw him and men go up, and on his return he told r.e ho could not hire. I did not oppose him. Ho intended halibutting at Seven Islands !)i ininiou. I ibund this out since. I deny having' said I would sci;;e luiii il' lie oi)liuiH;(l ! ; alter entering, having returned to my vessel, some of my relatives came otf to sec me. When Captain Quigley saw their boat alongside of mv vessel he sent an otlicer and boat's crew, who ordered them away, and at suiudown he I? ^\ 166 placed an anned guard on board our vesoel who remained on board all night, and was taken off just before we sailed in the murning. I complied with the Canadian laws, and had no intention or desire to violate them in any way, but to be made a prisoner on board my own vessel, and treated like a auspicious character, grates harshly upon the feelings of an American seaman, and I protest aginst such treatment, and respectfully ask from my own Government protection from such unjust, unfriendly, and arbitrary treatment. (Signed) JOSEPH TUPPER. Mass., Essex, s.s. Personally appeared Joseph Tupper and made oath to the truth of the above statement. Before me, (Seal) (Signed) Aabon Parsons, N.P. Novmber 4, 1886. No. 141. The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Office, November 20, 1886. I TRANSMIT to you a copy of a letter from the Coloninl Office, inclosing a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, \vith copies of Reports from the Dominion authorities, relative to the causes of complaint nlleged by the masters of the United States' fishing-vessels "Uattler," '• Sliiloli." nnd "Julia J:llen," against Captain Quigley, of the Canadian cruizer " 'i error."* I have to request that you will communicate a copy of the Governor-General's despatch, with its inclosures, to the Secretary of Slatt; of th^' United Slates, in reply to the notes wuich he addressed to Mr. Hardinge and f o you, on llio subject on the 9th and 18th August last, copies of which notes wtre inclosed in Mr. llai dingo's despatch of the 10th August, and in your despatch of the IPth August, respectively. I am, &c. (Signed) IDDESLEIGH. Sir, No. 142. The Earl, of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Office, November 26, ISSO. WITH reference tor my despatch of the 4th September last, I transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from the Colonial ORice, inciosini;' ii copy of a despatch, with its inclosures, from the Otiicer administering the (Joveinniciit of Canada, respecting the action of the Customs otncer at iMagilalene l^liind in the case of the United Stales' fishing-vessel " Mascotte ;" t and 1 have to request Uiat you v.ill communicate a copy of the despatch, with its inclosures, to the United States' Secretary of Slate. I am, &c. (Signed) IDDESLEIGH. No. 14.3. The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West. Sir, Foreign Office, November 2G, 1880. 1 TRANSMIT to yon herewith a copy of a letter from the Coloniai Office, inclosing a copy of a despatch, with its inclosurc, from the Officer administering the Government of Canada, expressing the regret of the JJoniinion (iovernnicni iit the action of the Captain of the Canadian cutter " Terror," in lowering the United folates' flag from the •No. 188. t No. 137. and WM ite them d like a nan, and I'otection PPER. le above ;, 1886. ig a copy from the srs of the t Captain ■General's 11 reply to ic 9th and ;ch of the .EIGH. 161 United States' flshing-schooner " Marion Grimes," of Gloucester, Massachusetts, while that vessel was under detention at Shelbume, Nova Scotia ;• and 1 have to request that you will communicate a copy of the despatch, with its inclosure, from the Officer administering the Government of Caiiada to the Secretary of State of the United ntates. I am, &c. (Signed) IDDESLEIGH, No. U4. Sir R. Herbert to Sir J. Pauncefote,— [Received November 27.) ^^^' T * T»* J- Downing Street, November 25, 1886. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Iddesleigh, a copy of a despatch from tlic Governor-Goneral of Canada, forwarding an authenticated copy of the Reserved Act passed by the Dominion Parliament, entitled " An Act further to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels." lara to add tliat this Act will ha submitted for the Queen's Assent Council. at the next I am, &c. (Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT. Inclosure 1 in No. 144. The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope. Sir, Government House, Ottawa, November 9, 1886. IN accordance with the request contained in your telegram of the 2nd instant, I have the honour to .orward licrewltli a certified copy of the Bill entitled "An Act, further to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," which was passed by the Parliament of Canada last Session. (Signed) ' LANSDOWNE. 6, 1S?6. nit to you mtch, with ccting the cd Stiiios' ite a copy LEIGH. 26, 1886. e, inclosing jovernment tion *)f the ig from the (L.S.) Inclosure 2 in No. 144. Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments. I, PiDOUARD JOSEPH LANGEVIN, Clerk of the Parliaments, Custodian oj the Statutes of the liOiri-latures <>f tlio late Provinces of Upper and liOAcr Canada, of the late Province oF Caiahi, and of t!ie Parliament of Canada, certify the subjoined to be a true copy of tlio ori;j;inal Act jiassod hv.the l^arliament of Canada, in the Session tlRTt-of held in tiie 4'.lth year of Mer Majosty'ji roign. and. reserved by the Gov(.!rnor-(icneral on WednosJay, the -uA aay of .June, ISSG, for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon. Given under my hand and seal, at llio city of Ottawa, Canada, on the 8rd day of November! 1886. (Signed) EDOUARD G. LANGEVIN, Clerk of the Parliaments, An Act further to Amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels. Whereas it is expedient, for the more olfoctual protection of the inshore fisheries of Canada against intrusion liy foreigners, to furlhor amend the Act intituled "An Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," passed in the iilst year of Her Majesty's reign, and cliapterod 01 : therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and aonseiit of the Senate and House of Conunoiis of Canada, enacts as follows : — 1. The section substituted by the 1st section of the Act 33 Vict., cap. 15, * Inclosures in No. 136. ll .If 198 entitled *' An Act to iimeiul the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels," for the 3iU Nflotioii of the hereinbcforo-recitcd Act, is hereby repealed, and the following sertinn mihstitntod in lieu thorool'; — 3. Any «»no of i\\v ollircrs or persons hereinbefore mentioned may bring any ship, vessicl, or liont, l)oiii;>' within any harbour in Canada, or hovering in British waters witlun H marine milen of oiiy 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 the master or person in cot^mand does not truly answer the questions put to hin\ in sncii examination he shall incur a penalty of 400 dollars; and if such ship, vessel, or boat is loreijin, or not navijjated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada, and (a) bus been found fishing or preparing to fish, or to have been tlshing in British waters within .'i marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or liarbours of Canada, not included within the above-mentioned limits, without a licenco, or after tlio expiration of the term numod in the last licence granted to such ship, vessel, or boat under the 1st section of ibis Act; or {!>) has entered such waters for any piir|ios(< not permitled by Treaty or Convention, or by any Law of the United Kingdom or of Canada for the lime btina- in lono. such ship, vessel, or boat, and the tackh', ri;.'ging, apparel, I'lirniture, Nlores, and cargo thereof shall bo fort'cited." 3. The Acts mentioned in the schedule beivto are hereby repealed. a. This Act shall lie construed as one with the said "Act respecting Fishing by Foreign \'eHiels" and the amendments thereto. Schedule. Acts of the fiCgislature of the Province of Nova Scotia. Yiur, iteiirii. ftiul Chn|itcr. Title ol' Ai t. Kcvisid Stntiit, c, Unl Si'riin, | (If tlio (\msi :iii"d Rtcte t' fighsrmcn without any other right to visit those coasts than are possessed h} i tb'iir,T craft of any foreign country simply as sucli, the arrest and boarding of the "<' "••es, : above detailed, followed by forcing her into the port of Slielburne, there subj*. .'ng he t" fine lor not reporting, and detaining her until her bait and ice were spoiled, are wroi;.'. • liich I am sure Her Majesty's («overnment will be prompt to redress. No Oovcrnments have been more earnest and resolute *n insisting that vessels driven by stress of weather into foreign harbours should not be subject to Eort exactions than the Governments of Great Britain and the United States. So far as tins solicitude been carried that both Governments, from motives of humanity, as rcil as of interest as leading Maritime Powers, have ado])ted many measures by which foreigners as well as citizens or subjects arriving within their territorial waters may be {»rotected from the perils of the sea. For this purpose not merely light-houses and ight-ships are placed by us at points of danger, but an elaborate life-saving service, well equipped with men, boats, anil appliances for relief, studs our seaboard in order to render aid to vessels in distress, without regard to their nationality. Other benevolent organizations are sanctioned by Government which bestow rewards on those who hazard their lives in the protection of life and property in vessels seeking in our waters refuge from storms. Acting in this spirit the Government of the United States has been zealous, not merely in opening its ports freely, without charges to vessels seeking them in storm, but in insisting that its own vessels, seeking foreign ports under such circum- stances, and exclusively for such shelter, are not under the law of nations subject to Custom-house exactions. " In cases of vessels carried into British ports by violence or stress of weather," said Mr. Webster in instructions to Mr. Everett, the 28th June, 1842, " we insist that there shall be no interference from the land with the relotion ov personal condition of those on board, according to the laws of their own country; that vessels under such circumstances shall enjoy the c •.»imoM laws of hospitality, subjected to no force, entitled to have their immediate wpi.is and necessities relieved, and to pursue their voyage without molestation." In this ease, that of the '• Creole," .Mr. Wheaton, in the "Revue Fran9aise et l>;trang(Me" (IX, 346), and M. Legarc (4 Op. At. Gen., 98), both eminent publicists, gave o|)inions that a vessel carried by stress of weather or forced into a foreign port is not subject to the law of such port ; and this was sustained by Mr. Bates, the Umpire of the Commission, to whom t.ie claim was referred (Rep. Com. of 1863 ; 244, 245) ; " The municipal law of England [so he said] cannot authorize a Magistrate to violate the law of nations hy invading with an armed force the vessel of a friendly nation that has committed no oflence, and ♦orcibly dissolving the relations which, by the laws of his country, the captain is bound to preserve and enforce on board. These rights, sanctioned by the law of nations, viz., the right to navigate the ocean and to seek shelter in case of distress or other unavoidable circumstances, and to retain over the ship, her cargo, and passengers, the law of her country, must be respected by all nations, for no independent nation would submit to their violation." It is proper to state tliat Lord a\shburton, who conducted tli.:: controversy in its diplomatic stage on the British side, did not deny, as n general rule, the propositions of Mr. Webster. He merely c|uesticmed the applicability of the rule to the case of the " Creole." Nor has the principle ever been doubled by either Her Majesty's Government or the Government of the United States; while, in oases of vessels driven by storm on inhospitable toasts, both Governments have asserted it, sometimes by extreme measures of redress, to secure indemnity for vessels sutlering under such circumstances from port exactions, or from injuries inflicted from the shore. It would be hard to conceive of anything more in conflict with the humane policy of m ^/^* ?'!**!? *",**'^" respect, as weU as with the law of nations, than was the conduct ,ot Captain Quigley towards the vessel in question on the morning of the 8th October. In such coasts, at early dawn, after a stormy night, it is not unusual for boats, on errands ot rehef, to visit vessels which have been struggling with storm during the night. But m no such errand of mercy was Captain Quigley engaged. The " Marion Grimes, having found shelter during the night's storm, was about to depart on her voyage, losing n time while her bait was fresh and her ice lasted, when she was boarded by an armed crew, forced to go 7 miles out of her way to the port, and was there under pressure of Captain Quigley, against the opinion originally expressed of the Collector, subjected to a fine of 400 dollars with costs, and detained there, as I shall notice hereafter, until her voyage was subHtantinlly broken up. I am confident Her Majesty's Government will concur with nie in the opinion that, as a question of international law, aside from Treaty and other rights, the arrest and detention under the circumstances of Captain Landry and of his vessel were in violation of the law of nations as well as the law of humanity, and that on this ground alone the fine and the costs should be refunded and the parties suffering be indemnified for their losses thereby incurred. It is not irrelevant, on such an issue as the present, to inquire into the official position of Captain Quigley, "of the Canadian cruizer ' Terror.' " He was, as the term "Canadian cruizer " used by him enables us to conclude, not an officer in Her Majesty's distinctive service. He was not the Commander of a Revenue cutter, for the Head of the Customs Hervice of Canada disavowed him. Yet he was ar- ting and boarding, in defiance of law a vessel there seeking shelter, over influencing le r-^Ucctor of the port into the imposition of a fine, hauling down with his own hana th< lag of the United States, which was displayed over the vessel, and enforcing arbi)^aaly an additional period of detention after the deposit had been made, simply because the captain of the vessel refused to obey him by executing an order insulting to the flag which the vessel bore. If armed cruizers are employed in seizing, harassing, and 'humiliating storm-bound vessels of the United States on Canadian Coasts, breaking up their voyages and mulcting them with fines and costs, it is important, for reasons prep ntly to be specified, that this Government should be advised of the fact. From Her Majesty's Government redress is asked. And that redress, as I shall have occasion to say hereafter, is, not merely the indemnification of the parties suffering by Captain Quigley's actions, but his withdrawal from the waters where the outrages I represent to you have been committed. I have already said that the claims thus presented could be abundantly sustained by the law of nations, aside from Treaty and other rights. But I am not willing to rest the case on the law of nations. It is essential that the issue between United States' fishing, vessels and the " cruizer ' Terror ' " should be examined in all its bearings, and settled in regard not merely to the general law of nations, but to the particular rights of the parties aggrieved. It is a fact that the fishing-vessel " Marion Grimes " had as much right, under the special relations of Great Britain and the United States, to enter the harbour of Shelburnc, as had the Canadian cruizer. The fact that the " Grimes " was liable to penalties for the abuse of such right of entrance does not disprove its existence. Captain Quigley is certainly liable to penalties for his misconduct on the occasion referred to. Captain Landry was not guilty of misconduct in entering and seeking to leave that harbour, and had abused no privilege. But whether liable or no for subsequent abuse of the rights, I maintain that the right of free entrance into that port, to obtain shelter, and whatever is incident thereto, belonged as much to the American fishing-vessel as to the Canadian cruizer. The basis of this right is thus declared by an eminent jurist and statesman, Mr, R. R. Livingston, the first Secretary of State appointed by the Continental Congress, in instructions issued on the 7th January, 1782, to Dr. Franklin, then at Paris, entrusted by the United States with the negotiation of A rticles of peace with great Britain. " The arguments on which the people of America found their claim to fish on the banks of Newfoundfand arise, first, from their having once formed a part of the British Empire, in which state they always enjoyed, as fully as the people of Britain themselves, the right of fishing on those banks. They have shared in all the wars for the extension of that right, and Britain could with no more justice have excluded them from the enjoyment of it (even supposing that one nation could possess it to the exclusion of another) while they formed a part of that Empire, than they could exclude the people of London or Bristol. If so, the only inquiry is, how have we lost this right. If we were tenants in common with Great Britain while united with her, we still continue so, unless by our own act we have relinquished our title. Had we parted with mutual consent, we should doubtless [8d.J T m 1' it t6i hart made partition of oar common rights by Treaty. But the oppreMioni of Oreat Britain forrod us to a aeparatior (which mutt be admitted, or wo have no right to be indcpuiidcut) ; and it cannot certainly be contended that thoie opprensions abridged our rights, or gave new ones to Britain. Our rights, then, arc not invalidated by thia separation, more particularly as wc have kept up our claim from the commencement of the war, and aMHigncd the attempt of Great Britain to exclude uh from the tishcrics, ua one of the causcH of our recurring to arniH." As I had occasion to show in my note to the Britinh Minister in the case of the " Everett Steele." of which a copy is hereto annexed, this " tenancy in common," held by citizens of the Tnited States in the H.sheries, they were to "continue to enjoy " under the Preliminary Articles of 1782 an well as under the Treaty of I'eace of 1783 ; and thia right, as a right of entrance in thoMO waters, wan reserved to them, though with certain limitations in its use, by the Treaty of 1818. 1 might hero content myself with noticing that the Treaty of 1818, herein reciting a principle of the law of nations as well as ratifying a right previouHly pos-sessed by fibhermen of the United States, expressly recognizes the right of these fishermen to enter the " bays or harbours" of Her Majesty's Canadian dominions, " for the purpoHe of shelter and of repairing damages therein." The extent of other recognitions of rights in the same clause need not here l)e discussed. At present it is sulKcient to sny that the placing an armed cruizer at the mouth of a harbour in which United States' tishing- vessels are accuHtomed and are entitled to seek shelter on their voyages, such cruizer beiii^ authorized to arrest and board our fishing- vessels seeking such shelter, U an infraction not merely of the law of nations, but of a solemn Treaty Hti])Uiuti(m. That, so far as concerns the fisherman so atfccted, its consequences are far-reaching and destructive, it is not necessary here to argue, fishing-vessels only carry provisions enough for each |>articulaft- voyage; if they are detained several days on their way to the fishing-banks tho venture is broken up. The arrest and detention of one or two operates upcfn all. They cannot, as a class, with their limited capital and resources, aflbrd to run risks so ruinous. Uence, rather than subject themselves to even the chances of suffering the wrongs inflicted by Captain Quigley "of tlie Canadian crui/.er 'Terror,'" on some of their associates, they might prefer to abandon their just claim to the shelter consecrated to them alike by humanity, ancient title, the law of nations, and by Treaty, and face the gravest peril 4nd the wildest seas in order to reach their fishing grounds. You will therefore represent to Her Majesty's Government that the placing Captain Quigley in the harbour of Shelburne to inflict wrongs and humiliation on United States' fishermen there seeking shelter is, in connection with otlier methods of annoyance and injury, expelling United States' fishermen from waters access to which, of great importance in the pursuit of their trade, il pledged to them by Great Britain, not merely as an ancient right, but as part of a system of international settlement. It is impossible to consider such a state of things without grave anxiety. You can scarcely represent this too strongly to Her Majesty's Government. It must be rememl)ered, in considering this system, so imperilled, that the prelimi- naries to the Article of 1782, afterwards adopted as the Treaty of 1783, were negotiated at Paris by Dr. Franklin, representing the United States, and Mr. Richard Oswald, representing Lord Shelburne, then Colonial Secretary, and afterwards, when tho Treaty was finally agreed on, Prime Minister. It must bo remembered also that Lord Shelburne, while maintaining the rights of the Colonies when assailed by Great Britain, was nevertheless imwilling that their independence should be recognized prior to the Treaty of Peace, as if it were a concession wrung from Great Britain by the exigencies of war. His position was that this recognition should form part of u Treaty of Partition, by which, as is stated by the Court in Sutton v. Sutton, 1 Rus. and M. G76, already noticed by nie, tiie two great sections of the British Empire agreed to separate, in their Articles of Separation recognizing to each other's citizens or subjects certain territorial rights. Thus the continuance of the rights of the United States in tho fisheries was recognized and guaranteed ; and it was also declared that the navigation of the Mississippi, wliuse sources were in the imperfeit condition of geographical knowledge of that day, supjiosed to be in British territory, should be free and open to British subjects and to citizens of the United Stat«a. Both Powers, also, agreed that there should be no further prosecutions or confiscations based on the war ; and in this way were secured the titles to property held in one country by persons remaining loyal to the other. This was afterwards put in definite shape by the following Article (Article X) of Jay's Treaty : — " It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the Territories of the United Statv<;B, and American citizens who now hold lands in the Dominion of His 168 f OreAt it to be god our by this mont of icries, M B of the m," held ' " under and thid b certain noticing i well as expreasly Vtaijesty's therein." liHCUSsed. 9uth of a d to seek r fishing- , but of a ccted, its :o argue, they are up. The class, with ither than y Captain hey might humanity, il rind the present to Shclburne elter is, in id States' beir trade, i part of a You can le prelimi- ncgotiated d Oswald, the Troaty that Lord lat Britain, •ior to the exigencies ■ Partition, rc, already eparate, in ;ts certain tea in the vigation of knowledge to British that there in this way ig loyal to (Article X) >ries of the ion of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tftnnrc of their respectlre estates and titles therein, and may grant, sell, or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives ; and that neither tliey uor their heirs or assigns shnll, so far as may respect the said lands and t!ie legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens." It was this Article whioli the Court, in Sutton r. Sutton, above referred to, held to be one of the incidents of the " s<'|iar»tion " of l"H:\, of pcvpftuul ohligation unless rescinded by the portics, and hence not iihrogntcd hy the war of 1H12. It is not, however, on the continuoiisneHs of the reciprocities recognized by the Treaty of 17S3 that 1 '".cHire now to dwell, "What I am an.xioiis you should now impress npon the British Government is the fact that, as the tlshery clause in this Treaty, a clause continued in the Treaty of 1818, wii'< a part of a system of reciprocal recognitions which are interdependent, the abrogation of this clause, not by consent, but by acts of violence and of insult such as those of the Canadian cruizer "Terror," would be fraught with conseciuences which I nm sure could not bo contemplated by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain without immcdiale action being taken to avert them. To the extent of the system thus assnilod I now direct attention. When Lord Shelburne and Dr. Franklin nejiotiated the Treaty of Peace, the area on which its recognitions were to opt^rate was liiiiiled. They covered, on the one hand, the fisheries; but the Map of Canada in those day, as studicil by Lord Sliolbume, gives but a very imperfect idea of the Territory near which the fisheries lay. Halifax was the only port of entry on the coast ; the New Eiijjiand Stales were there, and the other nine provinces, but uo organized Governments to the west of them, it was on this area onlv, as well as on (ireat Britain, that the roco^>niti several channels and passages between the various islands lying near the junction of the Hiver St. Clair with the lake of that name. By the Treaty of IS^G, the principle of common border privileges was extended to the Pacific Ocean. The still existing commercial Articles of the Treaty of 1871, further ami»lified those mutual benefits, hy embracing the use of the inland water-ways of either country, and defining eidarged privileges of bonded transit by land and water through the United States for tne benefit of the inhabitants of the Dominion. And not only by Treaties has the development of Her Majesty's Amdcan dominion, especially to the westward, been aided by the IHiited Stales, but the vigorous contem- poraneous growth under the enterprise and energy of citizens of the North-western States and territories of the United States has been productive of almost equal advantages to the adjacent possessions of the Ibitish Crown ; and the favouring legislation by Congress has created benefits in the way of railway facilities, which, under the sanction of State Laws have been, and are freely ami beneficially enjoyed by the inhabitants ot the Dominion and their Government. Under this system of energetic and co-operative ilovelopmcnt the Coast of the Pacific has been reached by the trans-continental lines of railway within the territorial limits of the respective countries, and as 1 have stated, the United States being the pioneers in this remarkable progress, have hcii happily able to anticipate and incidentally to promote the subsequent success of their n^ inhhoiirs in Hritish America. It will be scarcely necessary for you to say to Lord Iddesleigh that the United States in thus aiding in the promotion of the prosperity, ami in establishing the security of Her Majesty's Canadian dominions, claims no particular credit. It was prompted, in thus opening its Territory to ( anadian use, and incidentally for Canadian growth, in large measure by the consciousness that such good otiices are part of a system of mutual convenience and aavsntage, growing up, under the Treaties of Peace, and assisted by the natural forces of friendly contiguity. Therefore, it is that we witness with surprise and painful apprehension the United States' fishermen hampered in their enjoyment of their undoubted rights in the fisheries. , , ^ , ... , ■ ^ ■ r,^ The hospitalities of Canadian coasts and harbours, which are ours by ancient right, r84] ^ 2 m m 164 and which theoo Troatica confirm, eoiit Oanftda nothinff and are produetiro of advantoffe to her pcMiile. Yet, in dcflanco of the moat aolemn obligationa, in utter diaregard of the facilitica and aasiatancea (granted by the United 8tatc«, and in a war eapeoiallv irritating, a deliberate plan of annoyancoH and aggrcuiona hait been inatituted and plainly exhibited during the laat tiahing aeaaon, a plan calculated to drive theae fiahermon from ahorea where, without ii^ury to othera, they prosecute their own legitimate and uaeful induatry. It is impoaaible not to nee that if the unfriendly and unjust ayatem, of which the casea now prcHcntcd arc ])art, is sustained by Her Majesty's Government, scrioua reaulta will almost necessarily ensue, great as is the desire of this Oovcrnment to maintain the relations of good neighbourhood. Unless Her Mnjcsty's Government uhall effectually check these aggressions, a general conviction on the part of the people of the United States may naturally be apprehended that, as Treaty stipulations in behalf of our fishermen, based on their ancient rights, cease to be respected, the maintenance of the comprehensive system of mutual commercial accommodation between Canada and the United States could not reasonably be expected. In contci iplation of so unhappy and undesirable a condition of affairs t express the eamebt hope that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate measures to avert its possibilitv. With no other purpose than the preservation of peace and good-will, and the promotion of international amity, I ask you to represent to the statesmen charged with the administration of Her Miyesty's Government the necessity of putting an end to the action of Canadian otiicials in excluding American fiHhcrmen from the enjoyment of their Treaty rights in the harbours and waters of the maritime provinces of British North America. The action of Captain Quigley in hauling down the flag of tlie United States from the "Marion ( i rimes " has naturally aroused much resentment in this country, and has been made the subject of somewhat excited popular comment; and it is wholly impossible to account for so extraordinary and unwarranted an exhibition of hostility and disrespect by that othcial. I must suppose that only his want of knowledge of what ia due to international enmity and propriety, and overheated zeal as an officer of police could have permitted such action ; but 1 am contident that, upon the facts being made known by you to Her Majesty's Government, if will at once be disavowed, a fitting rebuke be administered, and the possibility of a repetition of Captain Quigley's offence be prevented. It seems hardly necessary to say that it ia not nntil after condemnation by a Prize Court that the national flag of a vessel seized as a prize of war is hauled down by her captor. Under the 14th section of the 20th chapter of the Navy Regulations of the United States^ the Rule in such cases is laid down as follows : — "A neutral vessel, seized, is to wear the Hag of her own country until she is adjudged to be a lawful prize by a competent Court." But, (I fortiori, is this principle to apply in cases of Customs seizures, wlicre fines only arc imposed and where no belligerency whatever exists. In the port of New York, and other of the countless harbours of the United States, arc merchant-vessels to-day flying the British flag wliich from time to time are liable to penalties for violation of Customs Laws and Regulations. But I have yet to learn that any ofticiai assuming, directly or indirectly, to represent the Government of the United States, would, under such circumstances, order down, or forcibly haul down, the British flag from a vessel charged with such irregularity ; and I now assert that if such act were comntittcd, this Government, after being informed of it, would not wait for a complaint from Great Britain, but would nt once promptly reprimand the parties concerned in such misconduct and would cause proper expression of regret to be made. A scrupulous regard for international respect and courtesy hhould mark the intercourse of the otficials of these two great and friendly nations, and anything savouring of the contrary should be unhesitatingly and emphatically rebuked. I cannot doubt that these views will find ready acquiescence from those charged with the administration of the Government of Great Britain. You arc at liberty to make Lord Iddesleigh acquainted with the contents of this letter, and, if desired, leave with him a copy. I am, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. dvtntoM rd of the rritatiug, oxhibitod m iliorea id useful rhich the iB results ntain the iffectually le United If of our intenance a Canada [press the I avert its and the i charged an end to lyment of ish North tales from , and has is wholly itility and of what is of police kCts being 1, a fitting ''a oHence by a Prize wn by her ons of the ttil she is here fines STew York, scls to-day iolation of assuming, )uld, under im a vessel nitted, this rom Great misconduct mark the I anything I cannot I with the nts of this lYARD. 188 Incloauro 2 in No. 14B. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. tVeal, Auguiit 18, 188f). [See IncloBure in No. 101.] Inclosuro 3 in No. 145. Mr. hayard to Sir L. West. ^*'' rpiTw » Department of State, Waahinyton, October 10, laSQ. THE " Everett Steele," a fishing- vchhcI of Gloucester, MuHHachusettH, in the United States, of which Charles E. Forbes, an American citizen, was muster, wns about to enter, on the 10th September, 1 880, the harbour of Shelhumo, Nova Scotia, to procure water and for shelter during repairs. Slic was hailed, when entering the harbour, by the Canadian cutter "Terror," by whose captain, Quigley, licr papers were taken and retained. Captain Forbes, on arriving of! the town, anchored and went with Captain Quigley to the Custom-house, who asked him whether he reported whenever he had come in. Captain Forbes answered that he had reported always with the exception of a visit on the 2jth March, when he was driven uito the lower harbour for shelter by a Htorm, and where he remained only eight hours. The Collector did not consider that this mad" the vessel liable, but Captain Quigley refused to discharge her; said he would keep her until he licard from Ottawa, put her in charge of policemen, und detained her until the next day, when at noon she was discharged by the Collector. But a calm having come on, she could not got to sea, and by the delay her bait was spoiled and the expected profits of her trip lost. It is scarcely necessary for me to remind you, in presenting this case to the con- sideration of your Government, that when the north-eastern coast of America was wrested from France, in a largo measure by the valour and enterprise of New England fishermen, they enjoyed, in common with other British subjects, the control of the fisheries with which that coast was cniiclied. and that by the Treaty of Peace of 1783, which, as was said by an eminent English Judge when treating an analogous question, was a Treaty of "Separation," this right 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 Brftish north-eastern possessions for the purpose of obtaining wood, water, and shelter, and for objects incidental to those other rights of territoriality so retained and confirmed. What is the nature of these incidental prerogatives, it is not, in considering this case, necessary to discuss. It is enough to say that Captain Forbes entered the harbour of Shell)urne to obtain shelter and water, and that he had as much right to be there under the Treaty of 1818, confirming in this respect the ancient privileges of American fishermen on those coasts, as he would have had on the high seas, carrying on, under shelter of the flag of the United States, legitimate commerce. The Government which you so honourably represent has, with its usual candour and magnanity, conceded that when a merchant- vessel of the United States is stopped in time of peace by a British cruizer on the groundless suspicion of being a slave-trader, damages arc to be paid to this Government, not merely to redress the injury sufiered, but as ai apology for the insult offered to the flag of the United States. But the case now presei ted to you is a much stronger one than that of a seizure on the high seas of a ship unjustly suspected of being a .slaver. When a vessel is seized on the high seas on such a suspicion', its seizure is not on waters where its rights, based on prior and continuous ownership, are guaranteed by the Sovereign making the seizure. U" 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 far- reaching ; and if a blow is struck at a system of which such vessel is unjustly supposes' o be a part, such system is one which the civilized world execrates. But seizures of e character of that which I now present to you have no such features. They are ma i waters not only conquered and owned by American fishermen, but for the very puq;usc for which they were being used by Captain Forbes, guaranteed to them by two successive Treaties between the United States and Great Britain. These fishermen also, I may be permitted to remind you, were engaged in no nefarious trade. They pursue one of the most useful Jvnd meritorious of industries. They gather from the seas, without detriment to others, a food, which is nutritious and Ifl ■'P 166 cheap, for the use of an immense population . They belong to a stock of men which contributed before the rcvohifion most essentially to British victories on the north- eastern Atlantic, and it may not be out of place to say they have shown since that revolution, when serWng in the navy of the United States, that they have lost none of their ancient valour, hardihood, and devotion to their flag. The indemnity which the United States has claimed, and which Great britain has conceded, for the visitation and search of isolated merchantmen seized on remote African seas on unfounded suspicion of being slavers, it cannot do otherwise now than claim, with a gravity which the importance of the issue demands, for its fishermen seized on waters in which they have as much right to traverse for shelter as have the vessels by which they are molested. TMs shelter, it is important to observe, they will as a class be debarred from if annoyances such I now submit to you are permitted to be inflicted on theni by minor officials of the British Provinces. Fishermen, as you are aware, have been considered , from the usefulness of their occupation, from their simplicity, from the perils to which they are exposed, and from the small quantity of provisions and protective implements they are able to carry with them, the wards of civilized nations ; and it i° one of the peculiar glories of Great Britain tNat she has taken the jjosition— a positicni now generally accepted — that even in time of war they are not to be the subjects of capture by hostile cruizers. 1' ct, in defiance of this immunity thus generously awarded by humanity and the laws of nations, the very shelter which they own in these seas, and which is ratified to them by two successive Treaties, is to be denied to them, not, I am confiden!, by the act of the wise, humane, and magnanimous Government you represent, but by deputies of deputies i)ermitted 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 annoyances and expulsions such as these, the door of shelter is shut ro American fishermen as a class. If a single refusal of that shelter, such as the present is sustained, it is a refusal of shelter to all fishermen pursuing their task in those inhospitable coasts. Fi.shermen have not funds enough nor outfit enough, nor, I may add recklessness enough, to put intc harbotirs where, perfect as is their title, they meet with such treatment as that sufferet^ 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 'IVeaty is a part of a system of mutual ccmcessions. As was stated by a most eminent English Judge in the case of Sutton i;. Sutton (1 Ihiss and M., (17.5), which I have already noticed, it was the principle of the Treaty of Peace, anil of the Treaties wliich followed between Great Britain and the United States, that the •'subjects of the two ]mrls of the divided Fimpirc should, notwithstanding tiio separation. Ik- protected in the mutual enjoyment" of the rights those Treaties iiHirined. If, f>.n I cannot permit myself to believe, (Jreat Britain should refuse to citizens of the U.ijted States the enjoyment of the plainest and most undeniable of these rights, the consecjuences would be so serious that they cannot be contemplated by this Government but with the gravest concern. I have, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD. No. 146. The Earl of Iddesleirjk to Mr. Phelps. Sir, Foreign Office, November iW, 1886. I FIAVE given my careful consideration to the contents of the note of the llth September last, wliicli you were good enough to address to nie in reply to mine of the Ist of the snmi numtii on the sultject of the North American fisheries. The question, as you are aware, has for some time past engaged the serious attention of Her Miij-sfy's (Jovoninicnt, and the notes which have been addressed to you in reliitiori to it, lidtii In my iirciicc* ssor and l)y niysclt', have amply evinced the earnest desire of Her Maji'sty's (iovcrnineut to arrive at some e(|uital)le settlement of the controversy. It is, therefore, with feelings of disappointment that they do not find in yirtir note under reply any indication of a wish on the part of your {iovernment to enter upon negotiations based on the principle of mutual concessions, but rather a 147 met! which the north- since that i8t none of hritain has on remote e now than men seized ! vessels by ■i a class be inflicted on ;s8 of their id from the with them, •eat Britain I in time of defiance of IS, the very successive ne, humane, ermitted to hing waters Hieials have ?h as these, a rcl'usal of crmen have to put intc hat sufferet^ the United iciont right, is a part of udge in the , it was the rtccn Great dod Empire nt" of the rcat Britain st and most hev cannot AYAllD. ;30, 1886. of the nth nine of the the serious uUircHsed to evinced the ictt lenient of do not find vcrnmcnt to but rather a saggestion that some ad interim construction of the terms of the existing Treaty should, if possible, be reached, which might for the present remove the chance of disputes ; in fact, that Her Majesty's Government, in order to allay the differences which have arisen, should temporarily abandon the exercise of the Treaty rights which they claim, and which they conceive to be indisputable. For Her Majesty's Government are unable to perceive any ambiguity in the terms of Article I of the Convention of 1818 ; nor have they as yet been informed in what respects the construction placed upon that instrument by the Government of the United States differs from their own. They would, therefore, be glad to learn, in the first place, whether the Government of the United States contest that, by Article I of the Convention, United States' fishermen are prohibited from entering British Korth American bays or harbours on those parts of the coast referred to in the second part of the Article in question for any purposes save those of shelter, repairiny damage,s, purchasing wood, and obtaining water. Before proceeding to make some observations upon the other points dealt with in ^our note, I have the honour to state that I do not propose in the present communi- cation to refer to the cases of the schooners "Thomas F. Bayard" and "Mascotte," to which you allude. The privileges manifestly secured to United States' fishermen by the Convention of 1818 in Newfoundland, Labrador, and the Magdalen Islands are not contested by Her Majesty's Government, who, whilst determined to uphold the rights of Her Majesty's North American subjects as defined in the Convention, are no less anxious and resolved to maintain in their full integrity the facilities for prosecuting the fishing industry on certain limited portions of the coast which are expressly granted to citizens of the United States. The communications on the subject of these two schooners which I have requested Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to address to Mr. Bayard cannot, I think, have failed to afford to your Government satisfactory assurances vi this respect. Reverting now to your note under reply, I beg to offer the following observations on its contents : — In the first place, you take exception to my predecessor having declined to discuss the case of the " David J. Adams," on the ground that it was still mh judice, and you state that your Government are unable to accede to the proposition contained in my note of the 1st September last, to the effect that "it is clearly right, according to practice and precedent, that such diplomatic action should be suspended pending the completion of the judicial inquiry." In regard to this point, it is to be remembered that there are three quetions calling for investigation in the case of the " David J. Adams " : — 1. What were the acts committed which led to the seizure of the vessel ? 2. Was her seizure for such acts warranted by any existing laws ] 3. If so, are those laws in derogation of the Treaty riglits of the United States 1 It is evident that the first two questions must be the subject of inquiry before the third can be profitably discussed, and that those two questions can only be satisfactorily disposed of by a judicial inquiry. Far from claiming that the United States' Government would be bound by trie construction wliicli the British Tribunals might place on the Treaty, I stated in my note of the 1st September that if that decision should be adverse to the views of your Government, it would not preclude further discussion between the two Governments and the adjustment of the question by diplomatic action. I may further remark that the very proposition advanced in my note of the 1st September last, and to which exception is taken in your reply, has, on a previous occasion, been distiiictlv asserted l)y the Government of the Uniteil States under precisely similar circumstances, that is to say, in 1870, in rehition to the seizure of American fishino-- vessels in Canadian waters, for alleged violation of the Convention of 1818. hi a despatch of the 2i»th October, 1.^70, to Mr. W. A. Dart, United States' Consui-General at Montreal (which is printed at p. 431 of the volume for that year of the Foreign Relations of the United States, and which i'ormed part of the correspondence referred to by Mr. Bayard in his note to Sir L. West of the 20th May last), Mr. Fish expressed himself as follows: — " It is the duty of the ' ture until the case has been judicially decided. It is further stated in your note that " the absence of any Statute authorizing proceedings or providing a penalty against American fishing- vessels for purchasing bait or supplies in a Canadian port to be used in lawful fishing" affords "the most satisfactory evidence that up to the time of the present controversy no such construc- tion has been given to the Treaty by the British or by the Colonial Parliament as is now sought to be maintained." Her Majesty's Government are quite unable to accede to this view, and I must express my regret that no reply has yet been received from your Government to the arguments on this and all the other points in controversy which are contained in the able and elaborate Report (as you courteously describe it) of the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, of which my predecessor communicated to you a copy. In that Report reference is made to the argument of Mr. Bayard, drawn from the fact that the proposal of the British negotiators of the Convention of 1818, to the effect that American fishing-vessels should carry no merchandize, was rejected by the American negotiators ; and it is shown that the above proposal had no application to American vessels resorting to the Canadian coasts, but only to those exercising the right of inshore fishing and of landing for the drying and curing of fish on parts of the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Report, on the other hand, showfi that the United States' negotiators proposed that the right of " procuring bait " should be added to the enumeration of the four objects for which the United States' fishing-vessels might be allowed to enter Canadian waters; and that such proposal was rejected by the British negotiators, thus showing that there could be no doubt in the minds of either party at the time that the " procuring of bait " was prohibited by the termu of the Article The Report, moreover, recalls the important fact that the United States' Govem- 'jcnt admitted, in the case submitted by them before the Halifax Commission in 1877, that neither the Convention of 181R nor the Treaty of Washington conferred any right or privilege of trading on American fishermen; that the "various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the Treaty, such as the i)rivilca;es of traF.c, purcliasing bait, and other supplies, are nut the subject of compensation, because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United States, wlio now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them." This view was confirmed by the ruling of the Commissioners. Whilst I have felt myself bound to place the preceding obsciTatioT r before you, in reply to the arguments contained in your note, I beg leave to say that Her Majesty's Government would willingly have left such points of technical detail and construction for the consideration of a Commission properly constituted to examine thorn, as well as to suggest a means for citlier modifying their application, or substituting for them some new arrangement of a mutually satisfactory nature. I gather, however, from your note t-n*, in the opinion of your Government, altliough a revision of Treat v stipulations on the basis of mutual concessions was desired by the United States before the present r'ns, nnd which 1«9 would therefore (to use the language of your note) " consist with tlie dignity, the interests, and tie friendly relations of the two countries." Her Majesty's Government cantvot conceive that negotiations oommenccil with such an object and in such a spirit could fail to be successful ; and they trust, therefore, that your Government will endeavour to obtain from Con-jress, which in about to assemble, tbe necessary powers to enable thorn to make to Her Majesty's Government some definite proposals for the negotiation of a mutually advantageous arrrngement. I have, &c. (Signed) IDDESLEIGH. No. 147. Mr. Bramston to Sir J. Pauncefote. — {Received December 2.) Downing Street, December 1, 1886. \vlTH reference to the letter from this Department of the 25th ultimo, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, for the information of the Ear of Iddesleigh, a copy of an order of Her .Majesty in Council assenting to the Reserved Bill of tbe Legislature of Canada, entitled "An Act further to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels." I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosure in No. 147. At the Court at Windsor, the 2t3th day of Noveiuber, 1886. Present : THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLliNT MAJESTY. Lord Puesiuent. Eaui. op Rosslvn. ViscorNT Cross. Lord Stanley of Pkestun". WHEREAS by an Act passed in the r.dth year of Her Majesty's reign, entitled "An Act for the Union of Cannda, Nova Scotia, and Now J^runswick and the Govern- ment thereof, and for purposes (lounected therewitli," it is amongst other things enacted that a Bill reseivad for the signifuiatiou of the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years t'roiu tiie date on whicli it was presented to th(! Governor-(iener;il tor the Queen's assent, the Governor-Gi neral signifies hy Speech or Messaj;- ' to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or liy Proclamation, that it has received the vissent of the Queen in Council. And whereas on the 2nd day of Juno. 1880. the Cjovernor-Goneral of Canada re:'erved a certain Bill passed by the Senate and House of Commons of C'anada, entitled " An Act further to amend tlie Act respecting Pishing by Foreign Vessels," for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon. And whereas the said Bill so reserved as foresaid has heen lai(l hefore Her Majesty " " nincil, and it i^ expedient that the said Bill should be assented to by Her Majesty : Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance ol the said Act and in exorcise of the Powers thereby reserved to Her Majesty as aforesaid, doth by this present Order, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's privy Council, declare her assent to t!ie said Bill. And the Right Honourai)le Edward Stanhope, one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, is to give the necessary directions herein accordingly. (Signed) C. L. PEEL. m 170 No. 148. Mr. Eramstan to Hir J, Paunce/ote. — {Kaceived December 2.) Sir, Downing Street, Decemhei 1, ll88t». \V ITH reference to previous t'orrospondence re>>pcctiiijf the seizure of (he "Daviii J. Ailatns," and to the general qncHtioi) of the North American fisheries, 1 am directed by Mr. Becretiiry Staiiiiopi- to trnnsDiit to you, to ho laid hefore the Earl of Iddcsleigh, a copy of a tiespiitcii from tlic tJoveinor-General of Canada, forwarding a Report on the subject by the Dominion .Minister of Justice. T am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BIlAiMS'l'ON. luclosuro 1 in No. 14H. The Marquis of Lansdoinir to Mr. Stanhope. Sir, {hu'cniwvnt flnii.^f. Ottawa, November 9, 1886. WITH rct'erciice to Karl Granville's despatch of the li'lth June last respecting the Fisheries (lucslion, ami inclosing ci;pii.'s of two letters from the Kuieign Office, and one from the TTiiited States' .Mini?ter in London addressed to the Secictary of Slate for Koreij.n Ariiiirs. 1 havf inc huaoui to transniil licrcsvith ;i copy of aii :i)>p.'o\cd Miiinto of the Privy Council of ' anada, concuuing in a Ri'iiort of the Minister of Juttice dealing with tlie points raised iiy .Mv. I'liclps in his note I't the 2n(l June last, on th; subject of tiie seizure of the United ."Statts* Hshing-vcssel "David J. -Adams," near Oii;by, Nova Scotia. I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE. lucloBure 2 in No. 148. lii'jtorl of a CoimniltPK of the Honnuralili: the Priri/ Council for Canada, aiiproved h\j Hin ExceUcnvy th. .Ulniinistrdtor (f the fioicriiiiiv,i' in Council o:. I'lc 'Ind Xoninlipr, 1H86. THIi Cornmiltpc of the i'rivy Coun . ',■■. c had under consideration a despatch da^cu 24th June, 1886, from the Hight llono;, atJie the Secretary of State for the Colonies, respecting the JMsheries question, and inclosing copies of letters on the subject from the I'orcigii Othce to the Colonial Office, and of one from Mr. Phelps to the Secretary of State for Foi-eign Atiairs. The .Minister of Justice, to whom the despatch and iiiclosurea were referred, submits a ileport therton herewith. The Couiinittce concur in tlit' said Ileport, and advise that your K.vcellencv hi: moved to transmit a copy thereof, if ap[)roved, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State <'or \he Colonies All which i^ submitted for your Excellencv's approval. (Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council, Canada. Inclosure 8 in No. 148. R^ort. 'I'o his lixcelleticy the Administrator ot the Government in Council. J)<'pttrtment of .lustice, Ottawa, July 22, 188G. WITH rcffrencc to the (iospatcli of the '2ft!i June lust from the Secretary of .'^tate for 'he Cit'.onies to ynr Excel!', ncy respecting!; the Kishcri(s question, and inclosing copies of letters on ihc subject from tlie Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, and of one 171 1, 13814. "David J, ,re(!tcd by Icsleigh, a lort on the /ISTON. 9, 1886. jccting the 2e, and one Slato for •ed Miimto tioe dialing i: subject of iirbv, Nova KnVNE. (.(■(/ by Hi!< her, 1H86. 1 despatch be Colonies, ect from the ary of State lI, fubmits a •V hi: moved of State for ■krk, I, Canada. I 22, 1880. tary of St;ito iiid inclosing ;e, and of one from Mr. Phelps to the Set 'etiiiy of State for Foreign AWhi'r,, th? "Undersigned has t'l'^ honour to report as follows. - The letter of Mr. Phei;m seen-,-, desimiicd to prescni i^^ Earl Rosobery tlie case of the "David J. Adams," tiic lishing-veshei seized a short tine ago . ear Digby, in the I'rovinoaof Nova Scotia. Mr. Phelps intimates that he lias received from his Goverrunent a copy of the Report of the Consul-General of the iJn.ted States at Halifax, giving full details and depositions relating to the seizure, and that that T?cpo:t and the evidence annexed to it appear fully to sustain the points which he had 8ul)riiitted to Iktl Rosebery at an interview wliich he had ad a short time before the date of his letter. The Report of the Consul-General, and the depositions referred to, seem not to hav been pre.-»»nted to Earl Rosebery, uud their contents can only be inferred from the statements made in Mr. Plielps' letter. These btatciucius appear to 1) ^ biised on tlie assertions made by the penons intc lasted in the ves'jcl by way sel. Wiieiher, as alleged in her behalf, her occupation wa> deep-sea fishing or not. and v.hetber, as suggested, she had not been engagccl, nor was intended to lie engaged, in iishiuiiiii any limit prescribed by the Treaty of 1818 or not, are questions which do not, in tiie opinion of the Undersigned, affect the validity of the seizure and oftiie proceedings Mib.-e(|uent thereto, for reasons which will be hereafter stated ; but in so far m they may he deemed material to the vlefcnce they uie questions of fact, which remain to be proved ia tlie Vice-Admiralty Court at Halifax, in which tlie proceedings for the v.'.-sel's coiulemnation 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 elaim the restijration of the vessel, and to assert a right to damages for her detention, on the assumption of the supposed facts before referred to. It is uliegcd in the evidence on behalf of the prosecution tiiat the •' Oavid J. Adams," being a United States' tishinsi-vesse!, on the morning of the ")th .May, 1886, was in what is called the " Annapolis Hasin," which is a harbo\;r on tiio north-west coast of Nova Scotia. She was several miles within t!ie Basin, an. I the excuse suggested (that the captain and crew- may have been there tiu'ough a misapprehension as to the locality) by the words of Mr. Piielps' letter, " Digl)y is a siiidi tishing settlement, and its harbour not defi:...i," is unworthy of much consideration. Digby is not a fishing settlement, although some of the people on the neighbc; i.;,g shores engage in fishing. It is a town with a population of about 2,0U0 persons. Its harbour is formed by the Annapolis Basin, which is a large inlet of the Bay of Fundy, and the (Entrance to if consists of a narrow strait marked by conspicuous headlands, which are a little more than u mile apart. The entrance is called " Digby Gut," and for all purposes connected with this inquiry the hm-bour is one of the best defined in America. The '-David .J. Adams" was, on the morning of the nth day of May, 1886, as has already been stated, several miles within the (xut. She was not there for the purpose of " shelter," or " repaiis," nor to " purchase wood," nor to " obtain water." Slie remained there during the .'jtb and lith May, 1886 ; she was lying at anchor about lialf-a-mile from the shore, at u locality called " Cleiuent'ti West." (3n the morning of the 6tli May, ls86, the ei-.,|)taia made application to the owners of a tisbing-weir near where he was lying for bait, and purchased lour and a-lmit barrels of that article. He ulso pureliascd and took on bnard^ about 2 tons of ice. While waiting at anclior for these lunposes the name ot the vessel's " hailing place" was kepi v-overcd by canvas, and this concealment continued wh le she afterwards sailed down l»Q:it D'gbv. Oiic ov the crew represented to the persons attending tin; weir that the vessel belonged to 'h.' , ■■'L'hbouring province of New IJiunswick. The captain told tne owner ot the weir, \\\..A\ (!,t~Treaty was spoken of hv tiie latter, that the vessel was under IJritish register. The "Upl.ain said" he would wait uiiiil tiie next morning to -ef more bait from the catch in the wcir which was expected tliat dav. At daybreak, however, on the morning of the 7tii Mav, ItiSb, the Gt)verniaont steamer '• Und/mess was not such as to make it her interest to attract the attention of tlie Canadian authorities, and it is not difficult, therefore, to conjecture the reason why slu- was not ao reported, or to see that the reason put forward, that Digby is but " a small tithing settlement, and its harbour not defined," is a disingenuous one. In going to the weir tn p irelia'ic bait the vessel passed the custom-house at Digby almost within hailiej."; liistaiin'. When at the weir she was within 1 or '4 miles of another custom-house (at Clemeiitsport), and v.ithin about lo miles of another (at Annapolis). The master has not asserted that he did not know the law on this subject, as it is established (hat lie knew the law in relation to the restriction on foreign fishing-vessels. The piovisioiis of the Customs Act of Canada on (his subject are not essentially ditferent Irom ll.oso ol his own cmnitry. The captain and crew were ashore, during the 5lh and ''!!i May, If^Hi). The following provisions of the Customs Act of Canada apply : — " 'iT mj'ster ol i very vessi-! comin,:;^ from any port or place out of Canada, or coast- wise, aiK. enliiiiu' aa> |..)ii in Canada, wlu'tlicr laden or m ballast, shall go without delay, when sueii vchMJ is anchored or moored, to the custom-house for the port or place of entry where he arris i ^, aud there make a report in writing to the Collector or other proper officer of the arriviil utri voyage of such vessel, staling her name, country, and tonnage, thr port ol rcfiisiry, the name of the master, the country of the owners, the number and names of the passengers, if any, the number of the crew, and whether the vessel is laden or in !i illast, and. ;! hulen, the marks; and numbers of every package and parcel of goods on liourd, and '.vliei;' the same was laden, and the particulars of any goods stowed loose, an I »shere and to v honi consigned, and where any and what goods, if any, have been laden or nniaden, m hulk has been l)roken, during the vovage, what part of the cargo, and the nund :r and names of the pass'jngers which are intended to be landed at that port, and what and wliom at any other port in Canada, and wliat |)art of thecaru'o, il any, is intended to Ite exported in the same vessel, and wliat surplus stores remain on board as fiar as any ol sueii piirliciilavs are or can he known to him." — 40 Vict., cap. 12, sec. 25. "The master slinll at tin; time of making his lleport, if required by the officer of Cufitoms, prodme to him the bills of lading of the cargo, or true copies thereof, and shall make ands.diserilie an allldavit referring to his Repoit, and declaringthat all the (statements ninde in the Kepoit are true, and shall further answer all such questions concerning the ' of bait, sdowue," to that t bait on iked him the Gut, tain were ■ious day, :eived for ;he infor- had been e captain iind went lit. Both 11 that she le seizure. r. Phelps, sure " was ue to the to enforce ommitted, forty-eight ed at any ittract the ecturc the it Digby is s one. In ;by almost ot" another Annapolis). :t, as it is -vessels, essentially ilurini; the u a\)ply : — a, or coast- liout delay, i)r place ol ther proper id tonnage, umber and ;cl is laden el of floods jwed loose, , have been ; cargo, and at port, and is intended far as any le otfii-er of )f, and shall • statements ceruing the 173 vessel and cargo, and the crew, and the voyage, as are denmnded of him by sucli officer, and shall, if required, make the substance of anv such answer pnrt of his Uenort."— 40 Vict., cap. 12, see. 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 jioport, or does not truly answer the questions demanded of him, as provided in the next preceding section, he shall incur a penalty of <100 dollars, and the vessel luav be detained until such pt-naltv is paid." — 46 Vict., cap. 12, sec. 2P. " ' ProtJeediiKji following the Seizure. These have been made the subject of complaint by Mr. r-helps, although the explanations 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 Governnr-Ceneral on the I4tli June ultimo, coupled witli a disavowal by the Canadian fiovernment of any intention tliat the proceedings in such cases should be unnecessarily harsh or pursued in ^ pt'.iitivo spiiit. might have been expected to be sufficient. After the seizure was mar..- the Commander of the "Lansdowne" took the " David J. Adams " across the Ra" of Fundy to St. John, a distance of about 40 miles. He appears to have had the impression that, as liis chitiis would not permit him to remain at Digby, the vessel would not be secure from rescue, wliich has in several cases occurred after the seizure of fishing-vessels. He believed site would bo more secure in the harbour of St. John, and that the legal proceedings, which in due course would follow, could be taken there. He was immediatelv directed, however, to return with the vessel to Digby, as it seemed more in order, and more in eotnpliance with the Statutes relating to the subject, that she should be detained in the place of seizure, and Uiat the legal proceedings should he taken in the Vice-Admiralty Court of the Province wiiere the offence was committed. It does not seem to be claimed hv the United States' authorities tliat any damasie to the vessel, or that any injury or ineonvenience to any one concerned, was occasioned by this removal to St. .lohn. and bv her return to Digby, occupying as they 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 seizure made "to enforce a right or to redress a wrong." Another ground for complaint is that in Digl)y, " the paper alleged to be the legal precept for tlie capture and detention of the vessel was nailed to her mast in such a manner as to prevent its contents heini read," and Uiat "the request of the captain and of the United States' Consul-General to be allowed to detach t!ie writ from tiie mast, for the purpose of learning its contents, was ;,iisitively 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 pplication to tliat effect was fruitless." 1. As to the position of the ])aper on the mast, it is not a fact that it was nailed to the vessel's mast " in such a mau'cr as to prevent its contents being read. It was nailed there for the purpose of being read, and cou!(i have been read. 2. As to the refusal to allow it to he detached, s\ieh refusal wa: not intended as a discourtesy, but was legitimate and i)ropcr. The paper ])uriiort. '' to be, and was, a copy of the writ of summons and warrant, which were tlien in the Registry of the ^"ice-Ad:lliraity 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 (bv which it was so attiched did not admit of any Consent for its removal. 3. As to the desire of th,' captain and of the United States' Consul-General to ascertain the contents of the paper, the original was in the Registry of the Court, accessible to every i>erson, and the Resistry is within 80 yards of the Consul-General's office ; all the reasons for the seizme and detention were made, however, to the captain, days before the paper arrived to he ])laced on the mast, and. l)Libre the Consul-General arrived at Digby, these reasons were not oidy matters nf public notoriety, but had been published in the newspapers of the province , and in hundreds of other newspapers circu- lating throuuhout Canada and the Uni'cd Slates. The eapti'.in and the Consul-tieneral did not need, tiieretbre, 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 transpired that he had reported the seizure, and its causes, to his Government, before the application was made. It has been already explained in the previous m Memorandum of the UndersigucJ, uitd iu the Riport of the Minioter of Marine and Fisheries, that the a|)|)liciuion was for a specitic 8t«tement of the charges, and that it was mdde to an otticer wliu Ii.kI nuiiliei' liio ieu;iil ac(|tiirL'iiu'nts nor the authority to state tiiem in a more spccitic form than that in which ho hn(| nircady stutcul them. The Commander of the " Lansdowne " rc(|UC8teil t!iu C'onsul-Cjenural to malaived. 2. Mr. Plielps remarks that this t-hai ;:e is " not the one on which the vessel was seized," and "was an aftertliouuht.'' The vessel was seized by the Commander of the " Lansdowne" tor a violation of the Fishery Laws before the Customs authorities had any knowledge that such a vessel had entered into the |)ort, or had attempted to leave it, and the Commander was not aware iit that time whetlier the " David J. Adams" had made pr()f)er entry or not. A few hours afterwanis, however, the Collector of C'ustoms at Digby ascertained the facts, and on the facts being made known to the Head of his Department at Ottawa, was immediately instructed to take su(-h steps as might be necessiiry to assert the claim for the penalty which had been incurred. The Collector did so. .•). Mr. Phelps asserts that the charge of breai:h of the Customs Law is not the one which must now be principally relied on lor eondenmation. It is true tliat condem n i does not necessarily follow. The penalty prescribed is a forleiture u( tOO dollars, on payment of which the owners are entitled to the release of the vessel. If iMr. Phelps means by the expression just (juoted tlial the Customs offence cannot l»e relied on in respect to the [lenalty claimed, and that the vessel cannot be detaineil until that penalty is (luid, it can onl}' be said that in this contention the Canadian Government does not concur. Section ■V.) of the Customs Act, before (juoted, is explicit on that point. 4. It is also urged that the otlence was, at ii:ost, "only an accidental and clearly technical breach of a Custom-lioiisc llei^uliitioii. 'ly which no harm w.is intinded and iroin which no h.arm came, ;ir.:i w.nld in ordinary eases he easily condoned by an apology ami perhaps payment of costs." What has already been said under the heading "Tho Offence (as to Customs Laws) " presents the contention opposed to the oU'ence being 175 irine and id that it hoiity to nil them, make his (} specific is hoped n against und to be e " David y tbreiga forfeited dless. It ed States, ne of the mt. The the rights nfringed. 3 be made ould, with any mis- use to be )vei'nment ill respect to fishing a stay of ,holo or ill ifraction of executive [» Govern- he Fishery iiers 1)1 the d be made ;hey lni^ht vt'ssel wjis der of the es liad any ;) leave it, lams " had f Customs ead of liis might be 15 Collectiir lot the one idem n i ilollars, on Mr. Phelps lied on in . penalty is not concur. ind clearly Glided and an apolof^y (ling "'I'lie enee being considered as "accidental." Thf master of the "David J. Adams" showed by hii language and conduct that what hr did lie 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 frustrating the purposes for which he had gone into port. As to the hroacii hoinu; a "technical" one, it iiiust be remembered that with thousands of milts of coast indented, as the coasts of ('anada are, by hundreds of harbours and inlets, it, is impossible to entbice the Fishery Law without a stiict enforce- ment of the Customs Laws. This ditliculty v/ns not unforeseen by the framers of the Treaty of lt«18, who provided tlmt the fishermen should be "under such restrictiona as might be necessary to prevent their taking, dryin}.';, or curing fish .... or in any other manner whatever abusing/ the privihges reserved to them." No naval force which could be equipped by the Dominion would of itself bo sutficient for the enforcement of the Fishery Laws. Foreign fishing-vessels are allowed by the Treaty to enter the harbours and inlets of Canada, but they arc 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 by ofliccrs all along the coast. A strict enforcement of the Customs Law-s, and oiu> consistent with the Treaty, would require that, even when coming into jiort for the juirposes lor which sucii vessels arc allowed to enter our waters, a Keport should he made at the custom-house, but this has not been insisted on in all cases, when the Customs Laws are enlorccd against those who enter for other than legitim;ite purposes, and who choose to violate l)0th the Fishery Laws and Customs Laws, the Ciovernmrnt is far within its riglit. and should not be asked to accept an apology and payment of co>ts. It mny be observed here ns affecting Mr. Phelps' demands for restoration and damages that the apolofry and costs have never been tendered, and that Mr Phelps seems to he of ojiinion that they are not called for. !>. Mr. Phelps is informed by the ConsnI-Oencral at Halifax that it is "conceded by the Customs authorities there that toreign fishing-vessels have for forty years been accustomed to go in and out of the bay at pleasure, and have never been reijuired to send ashore and report when they had no business with the port and made no landing, and that no siizuie had ever before been made or claim against them for so doing. ' Nothing of this kind is or could he conceded by the Customs authorities there or elsewhere in Canada. The bay referred to, the Annajiolis Ha>in, is like all the other harbours of Canada, O'Cjpt that it is unusually well delined, and land-loi^ked and furnished with custom- houses. Neither there, nor anywhere else, have foreign tisning-vessels been accustomed to go in and e-ut at i)leasure witiiout reporting. If tlu y h.ul been so permitted the Fishery Laws could not have been entbired, and tliere would huvii been no protection against illieit trading. While the Reeiproeity I'leaty of Ib'H and the Fishery Clauses of the Washington Treaty were in lorce, the Convention ot 1818 being, of course, suspended, considerable laxity was allowed to the United States' fishing-vessels, much greater than the terms of tliose Treaties entitled them to ; 'out the Coiisul-General is greatly mistaken when hi.' supposes that at other times the Customs Laws were not enforced, a'ld that seizures of foreij^n lishing-vcsseis were not made for omitting to report. Abundant evidence on this point can he had. In 1839 Mr. \'ail, the Acting Secretary of State (United States), reported that most of the seiziires, which then were considered numerous, were for alleged violation of the Customs Laws (Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, vol. vi, p. 283, Wasliington edition). From a letter of the United States' Consul at Charloltetown, dated 19th August, 1.^70, to the United States' Consul-Gencral at Montreal, it appe^trs that it was the practice of the United States' fishermen ai that time to make regular entry at the port to which they resorted. The Consul said, " Here the fishermen enter and clear, and take out permits to land their mackerel from the Collector, and as their mackerel is a free article in this island, there can be no illicit trade." ., „r ^ ' In the year 1870 two United States' fishing-vessels, the " H. W. Lewis, and the " Granada," were seized on like charges in Canadian waters. What Ml. Phelps stylos "a Custom-house Regulation" is an Act of the Parliament of Canada, and has tor many vears been in force in all the provinces of the Dominion. It is one which the Government "cannot at all alter or rc;)eal, and which its officers are not at liberty to disrci^ard. (). it is suggested, though not asserted, in the KtU'r 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 176 enforcomciit a novelty. A« tlu« OovermiiL-iit of tin; Unit •(! State* cltooses to put an ciul to tlio urninix 'incnt luukr whicli tlio tiHlicinicn ol' timt, country wcic accustomed to frequiMit ('iinadian wutcrs witli su iiuicli Ireeiloiii, t'lo oljli^ittioii of Ki^'i"}!! nutico to tho»L' risliirtmii that (!uir ii'.;lits wore tlr rjulter, by the action of their own liovcrn- meut, to be grcully rcstricffti, unci tiiat they must not infringe the F/iws of Cunuda, was surely a duty inciinibent on the (iovi'rnincnf oi" the United States ratiicr than on that of (anadn. Tliis point caiinot be better expieshed than in the lan^^uugu reported to have been recently Used by Mr, Mayard, the United States' Secretary of State, in IiIh reply to the owners of the " CcDr^^e ('ushing,'' a vessel recently hoized on a similar charge: " You are well aware that (luestions are now pendinj; between this Government and that of (ireat Hrituin in relation to tiie justiticatiuu of the .ights of American ti'ent on this point, it should be borne in mind, as already stated, that in so far as the fact of the bait Inning been intended to be used in lawful fisiiiiiL; is material to the case, that is a fact which is not admitted. It is one in res|)ect of which the burden of proof is on tlie owners of the vessel, and it is one on whicli the owners of the vessel have not yet obtained an aiijudiealion by the Tribunal before whicli the case has gone, Mr. Plielps admits " that if the laiiLruagc of the 'rre:ity of 1818 is to be interpreted litcially, rather than aecorditii; to its spirit and plain intent, a vessel engaged in fishing would be prohibited lioin entering a Canadian port for any purpose whatever, except to obtain wood or water, or to rcjiair damages, or to m ek shelter." It is claimed on the jiart of tiie tiovernnient of Canada that this is not only the language of the Treaty of \x]f<, but 'its spirt and [ilain intent." To establish this contention, it should be sufficient to point to llie clear unambiguous words of the Treaty. To tliose eleur and uiianibi!.'nous words Mi'. I'belps seeks to attach a hidden meanini: by suggesting that certain '■ preposterous consequences " might ensue Irom giving them their ordinary construction. Ho says that willi such o construction a vessel might be forteited tor eiirerins; a ])oit to •' [ ost a letter, to send a telegram, to buy a newspaper, to obtain a |)liys;eiaii in ease of illnes>, or a siirL'i'on in case ot accident, to land oi bring oti a passenger, or even to lend ;i istnnco to the inhabitants, he,'' There are probably few Treaties or Statutes the literal enforcement ot which might not, in certain circumstance^-, produce conseciuences worthy ol being described as preposterous. At most, this argument can o:ily suggest that, in regard to this Treaty, as in regard to every enactment, its entorcemcnt should not be insisted on where accidental hardships or " preposterous conse(|ueiices " are likely to ensue. Kcpiity, and a natural sense of justice, would doubtless lead the (Government with '.sliich the Treaty was made to abstain from it^ rigid enforcement for inadvertent otl'ences, altbouub the right so to enforce it might be beyond (|ueslioii. It is lor this reason that, inasmuch as the enforce- ment of this Treaty, to sonic extent, devolves on the Goveriiniunt of Canada, the Parliament of the Dominion has in one of tlie sections already (piotcd of the Statute relating to tisbing by foreign vessels (;il Vict., cap. 01, sec. 19) intrusted the Executive with power to mitigate the severity of those provisions when an appeal to executive interference can be justified. In i elation to every law of a jieiial eiiaracter the same power for the same purpose is vested in the Executive. .Mr. Phelps will find it difficult, however, to discover any authority among the jurists of his own country or of Great Hrivain, or among the writers on international law, for 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 miL'lit fairly lie urged against his argument that the Convention of 1818 is less open to a,, attempt to change its plain meaning than even a Statute would be. The Utter is a dedaraliou of its will by the supreme authority of the State, the former was 171 I put an niatomed notice to tiovcrn- Cutiiidn, r than on reported ,te, in hiH a 8imilur vernincnt II ti'^liing- eflbrt to duty and iftain and operty or sation for letter on vessel is jwiiis his so fur us rial to the ic hiirden the vessel gone. is to be L'l engaged wlitttever, ; only tlie iblish this s of the attiicli a ght ensue instructii)n telpgrani, in case ot CO to the icii miglit tciibed as in regard hardships 1 sense of made to ^ht so to \i' cnt'orce- mada, tlic le Statute Executive executive ractcr the will find Lintry or of against the obviate all wer before ?18 is less be. The "ormer was i eompnct deliberately and Holeiiiidy made by two purlieu, eiteh of wliotii expressed whiit he wuH willinn to concede, and by what terme ho was uillin:; lo lie bouiu!. If tiio purpoies for wlicli the United States desired tliiit their li'*l'in'.>vesseiH chonld have tin? right to enter Uritish Atnerieaii waters ineluiied iiliicr thnii thosi- expiessid, tlu-ir desire cannot uvad thent now, uuv \n\ h pn tixt h)r a Np.rial intcrpn talum aft'r tliev assented to the words, "and for no other purpone whatever." If it was " prepoHterous " that their fishermen sluadd In pivelnded from enliiiii:!; proviiiei;il wiitern " to post a letter," or for any other ( '" the pur|)oseH wnieh Mr. l•ilelp^ mentions, they wonid prolmbly never have assentt-d to a Treaty framed as this was. llavinu; done so, they caimot now urge that their language was "preposterous," and that it." ell'cet must be destroyci liy resort to '* interpretation. " But that which Mr. I'lielps calls " literal inlevinetation " is by no means so preposterous as he suggests, when the purpose nnd iljeet of the Treaty eomc to be considered. While it was not desired to interfere with ordinniy eominercial intercourse between the people of the two countries, the (lelilienifc and deel.ired purp- se existed on the part of Great. Mritain, ami the wilhngness txiHic i on tl\e p.iii nl tlie IJiiiteil StiiUs, to secure ahsolutcly, and free from tlic pos>iliihty of enenmetnuent, the fi'-herics (.f tiie British possessic'us in America to the people of tliose posses-ions, excepting as to ceitiiin localities, in respect of which special provisions were matle, To ellect this it was merely necessary that there should be a joint declariition of the right whieli was to he i t.il>li-l)((l, but that means should be taken to prescrM' that nglit. I'\ir this purpose a distuiction was necessarily drawn between the Uinti-d Slates' vessels engaged in commerce and tliose t iigaged in (i.siiing. While the former had free access lo our eo\sts, the latter were placed under a strict prohiliition. The pur|)osc was to prevent the fisheries from heimi; jxiarlied on. and to preserve them to "the subjects of llis Britannic Mi\jcsty in N(M'th .\mericu, not only for the pursuit of fishiiiK within the waters adjacent to the coast (which can under the law of nations be done by any country), but ns a ImHis of supplies for the pursuit of tishing ill the deep se.i. For this purpose it was neee>s;uy to keep out I'oieign ri.shinif-vesscls, exce|)ting in cases of dire necessity, no mailer uiidi'r whit pretext they miglit. tlesire to come in. The lislierics could not be preserved to our pi-ople if every one of the United States' fishing-vessels that were accustomed to swarm alon;i our coasts could claim the right to enter our hiirhours "to jiost a leitcr, or «eml a telegram, i>r buy a newspaper, to obtain a physican in case of illness, or a .-.iii^eou in e.ise ol i\(( id. nt. to land or hiini; oil' a passenger, or even to lend assistance to ihu inliabitimls in tire. Hood, or pestilence," or lo " buy medicine" or to " purchase a new rope." The !.liu;htest aei|uaiiranee willi the negotiations which led to the Treaty (»f In IS, aitd wiih the state ot the Fishery question preccihng it, induces the beliel that if llie liiiited Stiiti's' negotiators had suggested these os purposes for which their vessels sliould be allowed to eater our waters, the proposal woulil have beiii rejected as " preposterous," to quote Mr. I'iielps' own words. Hut Mr. Phelps appears to have overln.iKed an iinporlant pait of the case when he suggested that it i.wi '* prejio-terous " lonstruetion of the Treaty, wl>iel>. would lead to the purchase of bait beini,' proluliited. So lir from such a construction Ining against "its spirit and plain intent," no other meamii- would accord with tiiat spirit and intent. If we adopt one of the methods contendeil for by Air. Phelps of urrivinu: at the true meaning of the Treaty, namely, having reference to the " atteieling circumstimces." &c., we find that so tar I'rom its being considered by the Iramers of the Tieaiy that a prohibilion of the right to obtain 'ait would he a " preposterous" and an extreme instance, a proposition was made by ilu United Suites' negotiators that the proviso should read thus: " Fid vided, however, that American lishennen shall be periniltfcl lo enter such bays and harbours tor the purposes only of oOtaiuiiig shelter, wood, watrr, and bait,'" and the insertion of the word " bait " was resisted by thi' Hrilish net;ori.itors and struck out. Alter this, how can it he contonded that any rule of interpretation would be sound which would give to United Siiles* lishennen the very permis.Mon whieii was sought for on their behalf clurini- the nenolialions, sueeessl'nily resist d by the Dritish Rei)reseniatives, and deliberately rejected by the trainers of the C'onveniiou? It is a well-known fact that the negotiations preceding lln' 'I'rcaty hal reference very largelv to the deep-sea fisheries, and that the right to |nirelmse bait in the harhours of the British possessions for the deep-sea fishing was one which the United States' fishermen were intentionally excluded from. Referring to the ihiiieullies whicii subseqnenlly arose from an enforcement of the Treaty, an American author says :— •' It will be seen that most of those ditliculties arose tVoni a ehangc in the character of the fisheries, cod being caught on the bunks, wcio seldom pursued wiljiin the 3-mile [84] ^ A IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I ■ so "^ 1^ ■fi IM 112.2 Site "^ 2.0 US Li 1.8 IL25 IIIIII.4 III 1.6 V] c^l %%^y /: ? o ///. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. >4580 (716) 872-4503 178 limit, and yet it was to cod, and perhaps halibut, that all the early n^tiations had referred. " The mackerel fishing had now sprung up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and had proveH extremely profitable This was at that time an inshore fishery." ("Schuyler's Amet. ^n Diplomacy," p. 41 1 .) 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 1 4th June ultimo. While believing, however, that Mr. Phelps cannot, by resort tu any such matters, successfully establish a different construction for the Treaty from that which its words present, the Undersigned submits that Mr. Phelps is mistaken as to the right to resort to any matters outside 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 Sives way to the intent, or rather is only used to ascertain the intent, and the whole ocument will be taken together, and will be considered in connection with the attending circumstances, the situation of the parties, and the object in view, and thus tlie literal meaning of an isolated clause is oflen shown not to be the meaning really understood or intended." It may he readily admitted that such rules of interpretation exist, but wiien are they to be applied ? Only when interpretation is necessary — when the words are plain in their ordinary meaning the task of interpretation does not begin. Vattel says in reference to the " Interpretation of Treaties" : — " The first general maxim of interpretation is, that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. VVhen 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 refusing to admit the meaning which such dc ed naturally presents. To go elsewhere in search of conjectures in order to restrict or extend it, is but an al tempt to elude it. " 'I'liose cavillers who dispute the sense of a clear and determined article are accustomed to seek their frivolous subterfuges in the pretended intentions aiul views which they attribute to its autlior. It vould be very often dangerous to enter with theni into the discussion of these siipposcvi views that are pointed out in the piece itself. The following rule is uetter calculated to foil such cavillers, and will at once cut short all chicanery : If he who could and ought to have explained himself clearly and fully has not done it, it is the worse for him; he cannot he allowed to introduce suhsequent restrictions which he has not expressed. This is a maxim of the Roman law : ' Pactionem ohseuram us nocere in quorum luit potestate legem apertius conscribere.' The equity of this rule is glaringly oljvious, and its necessity is uot le^s evident." (Vattel's " Interpietation of TreatieJ," Lib. II, chap. 17). Sedgewicl<, the American writer on the " Construction of Statutes" (and Treaties are constructed by much the same rules as Statutes), says, at p. 194 : "The rule is, as we shall constantly see, cardinal and universal, but if the Statute is ])lain and un.iiiiUiguous, there is no room fur construction or interpretation. The I-figislaiure has spoken ; their interpretation is free from doubt, and their will must be obeyed." " It may he proper," it has been said in Kentucky, " in giving a construction to a Statute, to look l) the effe(t> and consequences when its provisions are ambiguous or the legislative iiit>'i»tiou is di'i btful. But when the law is clear and explicit, and its provisions arc aust'ej)tible of but one intcr|)retation, evil can only he avoided by a change of the law its.'ll, lo be effected by legislative and rot judicial action." "So too," it is said by the Supveme Court of the United States, " wliere a Law is plain and unanihiguout;, whelnci it be expressed in general or limited terms, the Legislature should be intended to nuau what they have plainly expicssed, and consequently no room is left for construction." At the Trihunul of Arbitration at Geneva, held under the Washingtuu JVcaly ia 18^2, a similar (pieslion arose. Counse. for Her Majesty's Government pnsented a supplenii ntal argument, in which the ordinary rules for the inter|)retation of in-aties were invoked. Mr. Evarts, one of the counsel for the United States, and altuiwards Secret iry of State, made a supplemental reply in which the following passa;;e o. cu. s ; "At tiie close of the special argument we fincl a general presentation of canuis fur the construction of Treaties, and some j,'eneral observations as to the lia;lit or the controlling reason under which these rules of the Treaty should he construed. These suggestions may he briefly dismissed. It certainly would be a very great reproach to m ktions had !, and had Schuyler's I the views I May last, jproved on h matters, 1 its words t to resort s expresses with those thoiit such letter often the whole e attending the literal derstood or en iire they ain in their enoe to the 'erpret tvhat ernis, when reason tor Uewlicre in 2 it. article are ami viewh enter with piece itself. ut siioit all ally liiis not rcstiictions ) obscurain this rule is iictation of Treaties are le is, us we hii^uous, i/;ui what i'rraly in )ii.stMited a f iVi-aties aflorwasds ;^0 O. CU. 8 : ijMs t'ur the lit or the d. i'hese cproach 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 interpre- tation 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 learned counsel has omitted to bring to your notice the first and most general rule of Vattel, which, being once understood, would, as we think, dispense with any considera- tion of these subordinate canons which Vattel has introduced to be 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. iii, pp. 446, 447.) In a letter of Mr. Hamilton Fish to the United States' Minister in England on the same subject, dated the 16th April, 1872, the following view was set forth: — "Further than this, it appears to me 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 intent outside the instrument itself. It might be a |)ainful trial on which to enter in seeking the opinions and recollections of parties, to bring into conflict the differing expectations of those who were engaged in the negotiation of an instrument." (Washington Treaty Papers, vol. ii, p. 473.) But even at this barrier the difficulty in iToUowin}? Mr. Pholps' argument, by which he seeks to reach the interpretation he desires, does not end. After taking a view of the Treaty which all authorities thus forbid, he says, "Tlius regarded, it appears to me clear that the words, 'for no other purpose whatever,' as cni|)loyed in the Treaty, mean for no other purpose inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty." Taken in that sense, the words would have no meaning, for no other purpose would be consistent with the Treaty excepting; those mentioned. He proceeds, " or prejudicial to the interests of the provinces or tiieir inliabitants." 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 tnost prejudicial to their interests that United States' fishermen should be peiniitted to come into their harbours on any pretext, and it is fatal to their rishery interests that these lisliernjcn, with whom they have to compete at such a disadvantage in the markets of the United States, should be allowed to enter for supplies and bait, even for the pursuit of the deep sea fisheries. Before con- cluding his remarks on this subject, the Undersiijiud would refer to a passage in the answer on behalf of the United States to the (^ase of Her Majesty's Government as presented to the Halifax Fisheries Commission in 1877: "The various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the Treaty, such as the privileges of trattic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are not the subject of compensation, because the 'Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of tlie United State.--, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing Laws or the re-enactment of former oppressive Statutes." Mr. Phelps has made a lengthy citation from the Imperial Act 5l> Geo. Ill, cap. 38, for the purpose of establishing — 1. That the penalty of forfeiture was not incurred by any entry into British ports, unless accompanied by fishing, or preparing to fish, within the proiiibited limits. 2. 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 (juotation which Mr. Phelps has made. The Act permits fishermen of the United States to enter into 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 oH'ences, provides a penalty of 200/. against any persons otherwise offending against the Act. It cannot, therefore, be successfully contended that Parliament 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 point, it is to be observed that tlie penalty of forfeiture was expressly pronounced as applicable to the offence of fishing or preparing fish. It may be that forfeiture is incurred by other illegal entry, contrary to the Treaty, and contrary to the Statute. It may also be contended that preuaring, within the prohibited limits, to fish in any place is the ofiencc at which the penalty is aimed, or it may be that the preparing within these waters to fish is evidence of preparing to fish withiu the prohibited waters, [84] 2 A 2 18(^ undor the Imperial Statute, and especially under the Canadian Statute, whioh plaoeet th4 burden of proof on the defendant. Tt>c Undersigned does not propose nt this time to enter into any elaborate argument to show 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 hat been referred in the very casa under consideration. The decision in the cuse of the " David J. Adams " will be soon pronounced, and as the (lovc-i'iiment of Canada will he hound by the ultimate judgment of competent authority on tins question, and cannot be expected to acquiesce in the view of the United States! Government without such a judgment, any argument of the case in diplomatic form would be premature and futile. In order, however, to show that Mr. Phelps is in error when he assumes that the practical construction hitherto given to the Treaty is in accordance with his views, it is as well to state that in the year I81d the Commander of one of His Majesty's ships of war seized four United States' fishing-vessels (see S.ibiue on Fisheries) ; and again, in 1817, the Imperial Government acted on the view thut they hud the right to seize foreign vessels encroaching on the tishing-grounds. Instructions were issued by Great Britain to seize foreign vessels fishing or at anchor in uny of the harbours or creeks in the British North American possessions, or within their maritime jurisdiction, and send them to Halifax for adjudication. Several vessels wen; 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 vessels fishing or at anchor in any of the harbours or creeks in His Majesty's North American Provinces, or within our maritime jurisdiction, you will seize and send such vessel so trespassing to Halifax for adjudication, unless it should clearly appear that they havo been obliged io 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 Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.' Under these instructions eleven or twelve American fishitiu'-vessels were f izod in Nova Scotia on the 8th June, 1817, in consequence ot tlieir frequenting some of the harbours of that province. In 1818 the fishing-vessels " Mabby " and "Washington" were seized and con- demned for entering and harbouring in British American waters. In 1839 the "Java,"' Independence," "Magnolia," and "Hart" were sei/od and confiscated, the principal charge being that they were within British American waters without legal cause. In 1840 the "Papineau " and " Mary " were seized and sold for purchasing hait. In the spring ot !HI9 a United States' tishing-vessel named the "Charles" was seized and coudeinned in the Vice-Admiralty Court in New Brunswick for having resorted to a harbour uf that |)rovince, after warning, and without necessity. In the year 1871 the United States' fishing-vebuel "J. H. Nickerson " was seized for having purciiased bait within .3 marine miles of the Nova Scotian shore, and i-ou- demned by the .ludgmvnt of Sir William Young, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, and Judge of the Court of Vice-Admiralty. The following is a passage Irom his Judgment: — "The vessel went in, not to obtain water or men, as the allegation says, but to purchase or procure bait (which, as 1 take it, is a preparing to fi&h), and it was eon- tended that they had a right to do so, and that no forteitiire accrued on such entering. The answer is, that if a privilege to enter our harbours lor bait was to he conceded to American fishermen it ought to have been in the Treaty, and it is too important u matter to have been accidentally overlooked. We knew indeed trom the StaU» Papers that it waa not overlooked, that it was suggested, and declined. But the Court, as I have already intimated, does uot msist upon that as a reason for it.: Judgment. What may he 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 declaies that no such other ()ur|)Ose shall be received to juslii'y an entry. It uppeurH to me an iiuvitahie conclusion that ihe 'J. H. Nickerson,' in entering the Bay ol Ingonish tor the purpose' of procuring bait while there, heeauic liable to forfeiture, and upon tlietrua construction of the Treaty and Acts of Parliament was legally seized." (yiile Halifax- Commission, vol. iii, pp. 3398, Washington edition ) In view ot these seizures and of this decision it is difficult to understand the following passages in the letter of .VI r. Phelps ; — "The practical cunslruction given to the Treaty down to the present time has been in entire accord with the conclusions thus deduced from the Act of Parliament. The plBMii th4 arguiiieat it queatiun loa it hiki ed, and M autltorilv led States! irm would 8 that the W8, it is as ) ships of again, in it to seize by Great r creeks in and send wiia fullv neinbered, led: "On trbours or irisdiction, , unless it quence of rticular, to i izod in ine of the and con- ei/eii and an wtttors init. les " was at resorted as sei'/eii luui con- uid Judge ys, but to was eon- entering, needed to a matter lut it wau e uht'ady be fairly — slielter, he Treiity t appears ln;;')niHli tlie true Halifax ti)ll()vviug las been ■nt. The 181 British Government has repeatedly refused to allow interference with American fishing, yessels, unless for illegal fishing, and has given explicit orders to the contrary." " Judicial authority ui>on the question is to the same effect. That the purchase of bait by American fishermen in the provincial ports has been a common practice is well known, hut in no case, so far as I can ascertain, has the seizure of an American vessel ever been enforced on the ground of the purchase of bait or of any other supplies. On the hearing before the Halifax Fishery Commission in 1877-78, this question was discussed, and no case could be produced of any such condemnation. V'essels shown to have been condemned were in all cases adjudged guilty either of fishing or preparing to fish within the prohibited limits." Although Mr. Phelps is under the impression that •' in the hearing before the Halifax Fishery Commission in 1877 this (juestion was discussed, and no case could be produced of any such condetnnation," the fact appears in the records of that Commission, as published by the Government of the United States, that on a discussion which there arose, the instances above mentioned were nearly all cited, and the Judgment of Sir Willianj Young in the case of the "J. H. Nickerson " was presented in full, and it now appears among the papers of that Commission (see vol. iii, Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission, p. 3398, Washington edition). The 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 cases referred to by Mr. Phelps. Whether that decision should be reaffirmed or not is a question more suitable for judicial determination than for discussion here. Right of the Dominion Parliament to make FwAerj/ Enactments. Mr. Phelps deems it unnecessary to point out that it is not in the pow«r of the Canadian Parliament to alter or enlarge the provisions of the Act of the Imperial Parliament, or to give to the Treaty either a construction or a legal effect not warranted by that Act. No attempt has ever boon 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 the right of the Parliament of Canada, with the Royal Assent given in the manner provided in the Constitution, to pass an Act on this subject to give that Treaty effect, or to protect the 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, has as much the force of law in Canada, and binds as fully offenders who may come v.ithin 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 J ears, and in every instance have been set at naught by the Imperial authorities and by t Injudicial Tribunals. In May 1S70 this vain contention was completely abandoned; a Circular was issued by 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 of the Dominion of Canada had resolved to terminate the system of granting fishing licences to forcijin vessels. The Circular proceeds to state the terms of the Treaty of 1818, in order that United States' fishermen might he informed of Hie limitation thereby placed on their privileges. It |)roceeds further to set out at larire the Canadiiii Act of 1868, relating to fishing by foreign vessels, which has been hereinbefore referred to. The fishermen of the United States were by that Circular expressly warned of the nature of the Canadian Statute, which it is now once more pretended is without force, but no inti- mation was given to those fishermen that these provisions were nugatory and would be resisted by the United States' Government. Lest there should he any misiipprehension on that subject, however, on the 9th June of the same year, less than a month after that Circular, another Circular was issued from the same Department, stating again the terms ol' the Treaty of 1818, and then containing the followinii paragraoii : " Fishermen of the I'nited States are bound to respect the British Laws for the regulation and preservation of the tisheries to the same extent to which they are applicable to British and Canadian fishermen." The same Circular, noticing the change made in the Canadian Fishery Act of 18f)8 by the amend- ment of 1870, makes this observation : -'It will he observed that the warning formerly given is not required under the amended Act, but that vessels trespassing are liable to seizure. without such warning." IM Tke Cmadian StaMt of 1886. Mr. Fhelpi is urain under an erroneous impression with regard to the Statute- introduced at the last Session of the Dominion Parliament. He is informed that "since the seizure " the Canadian authorities have pressed, or are pressmg, through the Canadian Parliament, in much haste, an Act which is designed, for the first time in the history of the Legislature, under this Treaty, to make the facts upon which the American vessels have been seized illegal, and to authorize proceedings agamst 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 passed with haste. It was passed through the two Houses in the usual manner, and with tlie observance of all the usual forms. Its passage occupied probably more time than was occupied in the passage through the Congress of the United States of a measure which possesses much the same character, and which will be referred to hereafter. 2. The 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 offences which were already prohibited. It may be observed in reference to the charges of " undue haste," and of " legislating for the first time in the history of the legislation under the Treaty," that before the Statute referred to had become law the United States' Congress passed a Statute containing the follor.'ing section : — " That whenever any foreign country whose vessels have been placed on the same footing in the ports of the 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, the President, on receiving satisfactory informtttion of the continuance of such discriminations against any vessels of the United States, is hereby authorized to issue his Proclamation, excluding, on and after such time as he may indicate, from the exercise of such commercial privileges in the ports of the United States as are denied to American vessels in *^^he ports of each 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 I'rocla- mation for it to take effect, if the master, officer, or agent of any vessel of such foreign country excluded by said Proclumntion from tlie 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 be liable to seizure and to forfeiture to the United States ; and any person opposing any officer of the United States in the enforcement of this Act, or aiding and abetting any other pei'son in such opposition, shall forfeit 800 dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, upon conviction, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." — Sec. 17 of Act No. 85 of Congress, 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 Acts without Notice. Mr. Phelps insists 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 stringent restrictions" it was intended to enforce. It has been already 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 expecta- tions 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 instructions 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 Govern- ment. But it is obviously unfair to invoke them now under wholly different circumstances as establishing a " practical construction " of the Treaty, or as affording any ground for cluming thai the indulgence which they extended should be perpetual. 'The Fishery Clauses of the Treaty of Washington were annulled by a notice from the l&l he Statat» pressed, or 8 designed* facts upon ngs against ^r. Phelps' led through Forms. Its iirougb the iraoter, and hat penalty reference to tory of the me law the n the same le excepted'* es accorded J President, ons against , excluding, il privileges )rts of each le vessels of I previously uch I'rocla- pch foreign ileges shall the United -niture, and the United orcement of forfeit 800 liable to f Congress, )e gmatized as id justice" en given of The case of reed during en expecta- ire cited by ander these on in their e at which 's Goveru- cumstances ground for ce from the- Goveminent 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 own people of the consequences which must ensue. This was done in 1870, by the Ciroulan from the Treasury P-jpartment at Washington, and might well have been done at this time. Mr. Phel|)8 bus been pleased to stigmatize " the action of the Canadian authority in •eizing and still detaining the ' David J. Adams ' as not only unfriendly and discourteous but altogether unwarrantable." He proceeds to state that that vessel " had violated no existing law," although his letter cites the Stntute which she had directly and plainly violated ; and he states that she "had incurred no penalty that any known Statute imposed;" while he has directed at large the words which inflict a penalty for the violation of that Statute. He declares it seems impossible for him to escape the conclusion that "this and similar seizures were made by the Canadian authorities for the clelibenite purpose of harasing and embarrassing the Ajnericiin tishiiif^-vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment," and that "the injury is very much aggravated by the motives 'vbich appear to have prompted it." He prol'i'sscs to liuvc (buiul the real source of the difficulty in the " irritation that has taken place amtin;^ a portion of the Canadian people on account of the termination by the United States' Govim iinient of tlio Washington Treaty," and in a desire to drive the United States, "by liiirassin!; and annoying their fishermen, into the adoption of a new Treaty, by which t'aiiacliun fish shall bo admitted free," and he declares that " this scheme is likely to prove ns mistaken in policy as it is unjustifiable in principle." He niij;lit, [ierlia|-s, have more aecuratcly stated the real source of the difficulty had he sui^gcsted thai the United States' authorities have long endeavoured, and are still endeavouring, to ohtaiu that which by their solemn Treaty they deliberately renounced, and to aws which tiiose Fishery Clauses had suspended. i\lr. Hayard, the United States' Secretary of State, has nuuie some recognition of these tacts in a letter whioii he is reported to have written recently to tlie owners of the "David .). Adams." He says : — '* More than one year ago I souglit to protect our citizens engaged in fishing from results which might attend any possible misunderstanding between the Governments of Great IJritain am* I'.ie United States as to the measure of their nu.tual rights and privi- leges in the territorial waters of British North America. After the termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, in June last, it seemed to me then, and it seeujs ft) me now, very hard that diilercnccs of opinion between tiic two Governments sliould cause loss to honest citizens, whose line of obedience might be thus rendered ya-ue and uncertain, and their property he brought into jeopardy. Infiueneed by tiiis feeling, I procured a tem|)or.u'y arrangement whicii secured our fishermen full enjoyment of all Canadian fisheries, free from molestation, during a period whicli would permit discussion of a just international settlement of the whole Fishery question, l)ut other counsels prevailed, and mv efforts further to protect fishermen from such trouble as you now suffer were unavailing.*' _ At the end of the interval of six months the United States authorities concluded to refrain from anv attempt to negotiate for larger fishery rights for their people, and they have continued to enforce their Customs Laws against the fishermen and people of Oaoad&« The least thoy could have been expected to do under these circumstances was to Icave 184 to the people of Canada the full and unquestioaed eojoyment of the rights neoured to them by Treaty. The Government of Canada haR simply insisted upon those rights and hat presented to the legal Tribunals its claim to have tr.em enforced. The insinuations of ulterior motives, the imputations of unfriendly dispositions, and the singularly inaccurate representation of all the leading features ot' the questions under discussion, 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 Memorandum, if approved, bo forwarded to the Secretary of Stute for the Colonies, lor the information of Her Majesty's Government. (8igned) J NO. 8. D. THOMPSON, MinUter of Ju$tice. Ottawa, July 22, 1886. ired to them lits and hw isitions, and itions under . They are h they have iignation or lorandum, if brmation of / Jutliee. I