IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ^A^IIIIM 112,5 in 9 IM 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -« 6" ► v: <^ /}. ^ c%^ VI ^,1 ^^^ <^p ■■>'' ->. (? A ^'^.^ .-' % /^ / ^ / Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 873-4503 A^. %p ^p % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 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. □ D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque D Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleuo ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure m 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 ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliogrephique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur n Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes r~7| Pages restored and/or laminated/ LlJ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ D Pages d^colordes, tachet6es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmeu to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X ~7 » 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X I 3 Itails i du lodifier r une mage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. Alt other original conies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- s'~n, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. IS L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la gdn6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commandant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre 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 apparattra 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 too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. errata to pelure, sn d n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Fisheries Treaty. SPEECH OF HON. GEORGE F. HOAR, OFMASSAC II U SETTS. In the Senate of tiie United States, Tuesday, July 10, 1888. i i The Senate having; under consideration the FlBheries Treaty in open execu- tive sessiou— Mr. HOAR said: Mr. Presidknt: I make no apolojry for enterinc early tipon i'lis discussion. TIum is the oldest que.stion iu our ibroii^n roh'.iious. The question of the rifijhts of her tishermen has r.ungled with the hisiory of Massachusetts iVoui the hegiiiniue!, as tlieir skill aud coiinige have Ijeep from the begiuiting a chief part of her glory and priile. One of the half do/en most faniou'* imssagcs iu English prose is that where, more than a hundred years ago, the greatest of En^ilish orators, in his h>st appeal to save Eiigland iVoin the niudueas of her tyranny, paid his elo(iuent homa;je to lliese husbandmen of the sea. It will never become stale or commonplace 1o A merii'an ears. It is often quoted, but we may well repeat it, Biuce the wit of niau can not mend it. Mr. Edmund IJnrkeeaid: As lotli* wealth wlittih the colonies l)«ve drawn from tlio sen hy thoir t1«her- lea, you luiii all t)y tlienthur parts an 1 loolc at tlie man- ner in wliicii the people of Now Knuland have of !nt\y and I)avit)Stralttf, wliiist we are looking for tlieui bcnoatli tiio Arotic Ciri.le, wc lirur that they have pierced into tiie opposite re|i;io;i of polurcidd; that ttiey are at the anti- pi)d'.»;* and enf;ii;^cd undt't tlio tryy/.vn oirclc of tlie south. F;' Helmut iflmid, wliicli nofniei! loo remote and romantic an object for the j^raHp of national am- bition, is tjul a slajre and rtMlinu plu'c in the p;o^^ros« of tikeir victorious indus- try. Nori?cqnino(!tialhoal uioroili-cotiraKinuto tho.m llian tlica''C'UmuIated wlnler of hotli tiic poles. We Itnow tliat wlill»l noma of them draw the line and strike tlie harpoon on the coast of Al'riea, others run the loii)^itude and pursuo their Kiirautio (fame alonptthc coast of I'.raiil. Xo sea hut what is vexed by their tislieries; no climate that i.s not witness to their toils. Neitliertho per.Meveranee of Holland nor the ai tivity of FnuK.'c nor the dexleroun iind (Irm sa^raciti' of £llKli.^h enterprise ever carried this ujost perilous mode of hard iiidustr#^P.UiB extent to which ithasbeen pushed by this recent people— a people who ai,»*ii 11, «s it were, but in the gristle, Rnd not yet hardened into tlie l)one of tnanliootL WbuQ I contemplato tlieso tblnt;8, when I Ituow that the coloniei jgi general 3 -feij 4 owe liUIt! or nothing to any cnre of ours, and that they are not squeez«d Into- this happy form hy the uoiistraints of watrhlul ami MUMpioious xovcrnnieiit, but that, thniii;ili u wise mid siihnury iienlei't, a K^'nt-roiis nature 'las heeii HutTered t<» take her own way to peilection : when I reflect upon the rtteotM, when I see- how protiiuhlf they have l)ceii to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and all |iresuuipt><'r inHtillinx into tlie minds of our people idctia and expeoUilions alto- jetber iniinicHl to liritish connection. . These men, Mr. President, come here to abide. They are not peons or coolies. Ijhey are not the property of anybody. They are in th« way of nobody. They are not imported .to bring down or to keep down the wanes of other laborers. On the contrary, they enable the calling in which they find employment to be more wiilely extended, and to afibrd occupation for many others, who might not get it withoutthem. The President's shaft is aimed at the wrong mark. Among the best and most valued citizens on the MaKsachuselts coast, in Gloucester, in Marl)lehead, in Pfovincetown, are to be found many of these brave and skillful mariners, whom our policy in regard to our fisheries hfis at- tracted from the British provinces to take their lot under the American flag. There arc threesonrces of inforihation later than the United States cen- sus of IKso from which we can discover the number and the nationality of our fishermen. Mas.'^achusetts took a census in IHS') in which these numbers ai)pear in the schedule of population and also in a special re- port on her fisheries. The United States Fishery Commission have gathered the statistics for 1886. The Massachusetts fishery report gives 14,670 fishermen engaged in the fishing ves.sels of Miis.sachusetts. <)f these, 11,74:5 were residents of Massachusetts; 2.93li were non-residents of Massachu.setts; and of these non-residents 9!)8 were Americans. ' Of the whole 14,676 there were 12,741 either having their homes in Massi^chusetta or American residents in other States. On the other hand the table of population shows a total of 7,080 fishermen, of whom 5.43.1 are native or naturalized Americans. Of the aliens 138 are Irishmen. But 1,158 are natives of England or her dependencies other than Ireland. Professor Baird estimates the number of persons employed in oar fisheries in 1880 as 131.426. Of these 101, 6M4 were Americans. The value of the fisheries of the sea, the great rivers, ant the provoc^itiou we had received from England do not always make sut^cient allowance for the equal in- sult we were receiving from France. The party who opposed the war with Kn^jland were ea'^er enough to bikearins against Frame. They were filled with a morbid horror o'' the power of Napoleon. liut itwasa hor- ror into which no element of cowardice entei 'd. They thought that iu overcoming England we would overcome the liist barrier ag.iiiist his universal empire, and that in attacking P]iig1aid we ranged ourselves on the sideof universal tyranny against the la.sl,hope of constitutional liberty. v We can now see that they were wrong. The American people were inspired by a surer instinct than that of the Feder il leaders. The linal judgment of history must be that the war of iHl'i was a righteous and glorious war. We were compelled to it by the impudent British pre- tension to search American vessels on the high seas, and take from tlieia every man whom a midsli.pman shouhl suspect, or pretend to suspect, of being a British sul)ject. We had scarcely a friend anywhere. The haughty nations of Europe sat at theirgates, scowling at the little Re- public, as the live Norman champions in .Scott's immoital story sat at the doors of their tent-s on ,he held of Ashby de la Zonche. The little country, not thirty years old, hurled her mortiil defiance at the proud- est and strongest of them ai'l, as the young Saxon knight struck the shield of Brian de Bois Guilt.ert with the sharp end of his spear. We began tha war after England ban crushed the navyof every other power thathad contended with her by sea — Holland, Spain, Denmark, Fnnee. England never had a naval war in which she wa.s met, .ship to ship, with a superiority in discipline, iu gunnery, in seamanship, and in suc- cess as by us in the war of iHl'i. .This is fully admitted by .Vfaj. Gen. Sir Howard Uoughus in his treatise on naval gunnery, the standard English authority, j)ublished with the approbation of the Lords Com- missioners of the Admiralty. This book was originally published in 1820, five years after the war ended. I have here the fifth edition, the la.st i)etbre the substitution of steam-vessela and iron-chuls for the old wooden 8hip.s. He says: The fleets of Kurope liad l->een nwept from the fao^ of the ocean by the Kf naval en- ptngements almost wholly from the sea tights witlj the .Auiericaus ia the war of 1812. Look at Ids index: Action. SkvuI: Hulwi-eii tliu ('li«;i«u|ieikkcaiid theMliannoni Iwtweenllie Avon 7 •nd the Wanp; 1^«t^een the Frolic and the Wnnp; between the Oueriiere knd the ConslituUon ; between the ilornet and the Peacock ; between the Java and the Const it iilion: between the Macedonia and Die United Stiile«; between th* Phoebe and the ElHsez ; between the President and the Belvidere. Here are nine naval engagements, the only ones selected by the En- glish author for the instruction of his countrymen. All of ihera were combats between British and American ships. In all but two of them the Araericiins were victorious. In one of these, two British ships at- tacked the American in a neutral port, when she was disabled, , and at anchor, one of her top-mnsts having been carried away in a storm. It is true we made peace without a formal relinquishment by Great Britain of the olmoxious pretension. But it ia also true that it was never heard of again. The nation issued from the war— said John Quincy Adams — with ail ils rijjlUs and liberties unimpaired, preserved as well from the artlflces of diploiiiacy iis from the force of preponderating power upon their element, the seas. The Duke of Wellington has given a testimony still more authori- tative and decisive. I have not seen it cited by American historians. (After the downfall of Napoleon the duke was urged by the Cabinet to take commsuid in America. He replies in a letter to Lord Liverpool of November 9, 1814. He says: I do not promise to myself much success there. If we can not obtain a nayal supremacy on the lakes, I shall go only to sijfii a peace which might as well be signed now. Yon have no right, from the state of the war, to demand any (OonccHsion of territory from America. In her contributions, siicriflces, and achievements in this war, Massa- chusetts may well challenge comparison with any other Americao Stfite. She raised fourteen thousand men in 1814. She paid $2,000,- 000 for bounties. One of her fishing towns, Marblehead, had more than eight hundred men in Dartmoor prison when the war en^ed. She furnished during those three years more men than any other State. The New England States, which opposed the war, sent more men into the field than the Southern States, which brought on the contest. You recollect how sailors' rights were won. Yard locked in yard, hot gun lip kissing gun. No man ever attributed want of patriotism to John Quincy Adams. Hear what he says of the fishertnen: Where were they during the war? They were upon the oceah and upon th« lakes, fighting the battles of their country. Turn back to the records of your Kevolutioii; ask Samuel Tucker, himself one of the number, a living example of the cliHracter common to them all, what were tlieflshtrmen of New Kngland in the tug of war for independence. Appeal tothe heroes of all our naval wars; ask the vBnt to that country in 1^12. the term of service of her orpw hrid expired, and a few days after her arrival they were discharged. Commodore Hull immediately manned his ship by drawing on the llsliurraen of the New Bngland coast, and the merchant seamen of Salem, Newburyport, Boston, and vicinity. The response was prompt, and it is allegt^d that when the Constitution soon after captured the Guerrlere, of her four hundred anil fifty saanien, only sLxty had ever served on board of » mnn-of-wur. Whatever chan^as may l)e made by new methods of intercourse in the relations of uationa with each other, it is still trne, and will still be true, as when Mr. Webster said it in 1824, that — High rank among the nations results more than from anything else from that military power which we can cause to be water-borne, and from that ex- tent of coiuuieroo which we are able to maintain throughout Lhe world. It will also still be true, that if America is to have ships of war, or is ever again to take her former rank in peaceful ocean commerce, she must look to her hardy and adventurous fishermen for a large share of the supply of her seamen. No .Senator v>ho has to deal with this immense interest will venture rashly to disregard the authority of the present head of our Navy. I have lately received this letter irom Admiral Porter: Tokficb op the Admiral, Washing(on, D. C, May i, 18S8. Mt Dear Sib: Thave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commu- nication of May 4 a.«king my opinion of the value of our tisheries as a nursery for seamen for the present Xavy, which is to be built of iron and propelled by steam. I beg leave to say that all our fisheries at the present moment are more valuiv* ble as nurseries for naval seamen than they ever were before, for our commei^ clal marine has been almost obliterated from the ocean. In our last war with Great Britain our Navy was largely recruited from Ma»> sachusetts fishermen, who made the finest mei\-of-war'8 men in the world, which was illustrated by their skill in seamanship and gunnery, which gave us such great success over our opponents. They not only furnished seamen to the Navy, but manned that Immense fleet of privateers that swarmed the ocean, paralyzed the British commerc.;, and caused a large section of the British people, led by that great political writer, William Cobbett, to demand of the Government that peace should be secured on any terms. Notwithstanding the overwhelming nnval power of Great Britain duringthe war, with heavy squadrons in every sea, we were indebted to the New England seamen and the Ijrave ofllocrs who led them for a success unparalleled in history. If we had a war to-morrow we must depend alt^ost altogether upon the flsb- ermen of New Knglnnd to man our navKl vessels. J To show the importance of having trained seanien in tiineof war, I will men- tion the fact that the regiment of Marblehead fishermen under John Glover were employed to carry Washington's forces across the Delaware when he t- ii> prised and captured the Hessians. Without the aid of the fishermen it is doubt* ful if Washington would have undertaken the perilous enterprise, for the fish- ermen were tlie only ones who coufiidered the project feasible. The ships that will hereafter be built for the Navy will require as good and hardy sailors as have ever been required before, and it is to be regretted that we can not obtain the servioesof the fishermen in time of peace. Their present calling is more lucrative than any employment they can obtain in the Navy, and there are no sufficient inducements held out to them to enlist in the Gov- ernment service. In timeof warwith a maritimepowertheoocupationof these fishermen would be gone, and they wo>ild flock to enlist in the Navy, as they did in the civil war, when the Confederate ijrivaieers niuiietheirappearanceoli'oiircoast. The ves- sels of our Navy may be said at the present time to be manned almost entirely by foreigners who have entered the service not from devotion to the fiag. In case war should he suddenly declared against" us our ships abroad would be obliged to return home, discharge their crews, and ship American seamen. In a late Inspection of the United States sh'p Trenton the board of inspection re- ported to me «« follows: "The crew is v fair one, considering their want ot lcnowle".''' niae. but we re<(uire the same irood scamnnship we had in da.vs irmie by. With a sleani-cap.stan and steam-winch twenty men can get a larRC vessel under way. An oHicer on deck, a man at the wheel, and one at the lead, with the above number on ection exists If we can in a week drill a mongrel crew si .t every man knows liisvariona stations on shipljoard. h'^w much easier woulo it V)e for us to ndeavor to olUain it. The statistics I inclose sho ■ at a glance the Immense money valwe of our fisheries and their importance to the country. If it had not been for the ri.sh- eries, New England would ne%'er have been settled, for on the first landing on those stormy shores it is likely the emigrants would have been forced to go elso- ■where but for the quantities of fish, a most fortunafecircutnstance for the Union, to which New Englancihas added so many true and loyal Stales. I have the honor to be, very respectfullv. your obedient servant. DAVID D. POKTEIt, Admiral. Hon. Gkorok F. Hoar, United StoUs Senate. The statistics which were inclosed with the above letter will be found in the appendix to these renuirKs ( D). Nearly every important maritime power of ancient or modern times has owed the foundation of its commercial prosperity and its naval strength to its fisheries. When these flourished, itsstrenyitli increased. When these went to decay, the jiower of the nation had departed. Pro- fessor Huxley tells us, that .Sidon signilies "a fishing place." Tyre was settled hv a colony ol fishermen from Sidon. The power of Carth- age was built up by the fisheries. Venice was founded by fugitives from the north, who betook themselves to the avocation of fishermen. <;enoa, the birthplnce of Columbus, laid the fouiid.ition of her strength t)y usiir^ng the fislieiiesof the Hosphorus. The first what f iu LoudoD 10 was built for the accommodation of tishermen. Arastenlara was orig- inally a village of herring catchers. It was an ancient proverb — Amstenlfiin is foutuleil on liorriii;; Ixmus, and Dutchmen's bodiea are full of (lickled herrings. The naval greatness of England came from the same source. The iiiicicnt rule of the chnrch which forbade the eatin}? of meat on Fri- day i.s said to have been due to a politic purpoaeio encourage fisheries. In 15(33 the British Farliaruent. to encourage the hniUlingupot a naval marine, piu^sed an act extending this prohibition to two more days of the week. The iu;t declares that — As well for the inainteimnce of Hliippinx. the increase of flsliermen and miv- rines, mid the repairing of port towns, as for the nparini; of the (lesh victual of '.he realm, it shiill not l>e lawful to eat meat, on \Vedne8ortiou of a nation that maintain unim- paired their fighting quality during a long peace. Armies become en- ervated on a peace ostabliahment. Hut the daily life of the fisherman is a constant discipline in fe;irle5sness, endurance, and activity. Our fishermen are all we have left on the sea as a resource for a sudden oc- ciision. If anything further were wanting to show the importance of this oc- cupation to national defense ami to national wealth it would be found in British and Canadian testimony. Our free-trade friends talk about the duties on fish. They tell us of the h.nlship of a tax on .so cheap and wholesome a food. Mr. President, we pay $(i()0,UOO a year for West Point and .\nnapolis. Canada exported from the produce of her fisheries in 1887 a value of $6,843,;588. Of this we took nearly a mill- ion and a half. Every dollar of that was a payment to our great rival, to our only possible enemy, towards the support of a naval school to which Annapolis or Greenwich is quite unimportant. The desire of Canada and Great Britain to contrat t within the least possible limits the fishing ground to which America sliall have access, and to possess themselves without obstruction of the calling which "brings to the great American market its supply of fish for food and fish- oils, hits a vastly larger purpose than a mere struggle for a profitable industry, important as that may be. England possesses to-day the great steam fleet of the world. She has, subject to the authority of her Queen, or under her political or com- mercial control, three hundred and fifty millions of people, a third of the population of the world. She controls the commercial dealings of the inhabitants of 12,495.000 sfpiare miles of territory, an area four times AS great ;is that of the Kom lu empire. She has taken possession of all the great routes of commerce. She steps from island to continent, and from continent to i.sland, from fortress to naval station, and from naval station to fortress. Let me repeat a few sentences which I ut- tered here last year: England hiis not only laid her hands on these enormous countries and the men who inhabit them, but the way she has got control of the great higuways, the grea roads of commerce, is more wonderful still. There are (bur great rouds by which the commerce of the world must travel from nition to nation. There are two (dd roads and two new roads. The old roads are down thr()U;ih the South .\tlantic. One 11 tnms eastward by the Cape of Good "Hope into the In m Ocean*. One turns we-tward to the Pacific around Cape Horn. 1 lie two meet at least at Cathay or farthest Itid, ^linlling the globe with their mighty and beneliccnt chain. At every station, at eveiy step, on both, is the power of Eoi^land planted. Half way ddwn the coast of the eastern hemisphere, where Africa juts on t into tho Atlantic, are the Kn<^li8h West Ai'rican settlements and her colonies of Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast. Just below the equator ii Ascension Island, an English colony. Five decrees of lati- tude further we come to St. Helena, an Enj^lish fortress, where the great foe of Enfj;Iund died a prisoner and an e.xile. Tlie cape itself, a cape of "jiood hope" to no commerce but hers, with its excellent har- )k>ts of Cai)e Town and Natal, is one of her most prosperous colonies. Thence, by succe-ssive steps, Mauritiu.s, Seychelles, Chatios, Muldive, Ceylon, all British poaseasious, India is reached. Every other power must pay tribute to her in peace, anil must run the gauntlet of her fortresses and nav;il st.itions in war. Would yon impregnable gateway of the Mediterranean. Half way from Gibraltar to Egypt is her mighty naval station of Malta, which cgnimands both shores of the Mediterranean. Hugging the Asiatic coast is Cypress, her newpos-ses- sion, whose purch;ise was almost the last act of Lord Beaconstield. Suez itself she has taken from the improvident iiands of Fiance, while at the narrow entrance and exit of the Ked Sea she holds Aden and Perira, and beyond, on the way to India, the Island of Socotra. She commands the great eastern pathway of commerce from Europe to In- dia and China almost iif absolutely as the river Thames. Turning to the westward route, our position on the Gulf of Mexico will secure to our three Southern ports convenient accesd to the canal wherever it may be. But all other commerce must pass the line of sentinels which the foresight of p^ugland has already armed and sta- tioned at the entrance to the Gulf. The Bermudas, the Bahamas, the Leeward and Windward Islands, .Tamaica, and Trinidad form a com- plete blockade, while British Honduras lies close to the ciistern mouth of the proposed canal of Nicaragua. Of the forty chief West Indian Islands European powers own all but one, the seat of the black Republic of Hayti and St. Domingo. Eng- land herself owns thirteen beside the Bahamas and the Bermuda."?. If we ever have a contest with her for a canal at Nicaragua or Panama^ 12 Irer island of Jamaica stands guard at the entrance of the Caribbean Sea and the iiay orHondiiias. She is now addinn to all this the land route across Canada. She is addin;^' this last and stron<^est link to the chain which is to bind China and Japan to her chariot, girdling the globe anew in the northern lat- itude where tlie degrees of longitude and the circles become smaller. She is building a strong fortitici\tion at Esquiraalt, where Vancouver Island, which the weakness of President Polk surrendered to her. thrusts itself into our territory, while the guns of Halifax threaten ua on Ihe ©ilSt. At the same time Canada, aided "by British wealth, is developing her railroad system with wonderful liberality and wisdom, so that the blood of commerce, even that which comes from our own veins, may feed her mighty arteries. Ifere are a lew of the enterprises she is just undertaking or accom- plishing, either as a government or by corporations under her control. Kemeinber that all this is in addition to her great interoceanic system of communication which the Senator from Maine so well described the other day. First. An important line of railroad constructed last year, called the Duluth, South Shore aud Atlantic, extending from the Gogetiic iron range of Lake Superior to the Sault Ste. Marie, has, turordiug to re- cent advices, been pur(ha.sed Irjy the Canadian Pacific Ivailway. It will no doubt become an important feeder to that railway. Second. A Canadian company has recently completed a bridge across the Sault St Marie. Third. The Canadian government within the last thirty days has def- initely deciiled upon andarrangementsare made for buildingaship canal between Lake .Superior aud Lake Michigan, on the Canadiiui side of the strait, and in opposition to the canal at that point on the Amer- ican side, built aud owned by the Government of the United State,' . Fdurth. A well-detined project exists for building a combined ship oken ot as a plnre d'nnnes ; but until now tlmtpiace d'nrmes has been inac- cessible except by sea. We shall henceforth be able to bring 8'ii)plies, stores. ^ and material of war by an alternative route, direct, expeditions, and lyin^ for more than half its way over Uritish territory." An astute statesman, the Marquis of I^ansdowne, fully appreciates the Impe- rial iinpi>rtiitieeof the Caiiadim- l^wilic Hail way as a means of keeping open the oornmimiv atious between iCiigland and her dependencies in the east, and of strengthening the defenses of the empire at large. Posies-'ing, hs she docs, the great steam-llcet of the world, and the power of increasing it to still larger pro- portions, she can always maintain a steady and secure coniinnnication with China, .Fapan, .\ustralia, and tvenwith India, and all other countries in which she hiis important interests at stake. From her depots at Halifax, or other places on llit^ .vLiiuiti': coast orthe Dominion, she can in four days reach the shores of the I'aoilicaiid supply a .'loet ordered to protect her interests in the east, should they ever be threatened by Russia or any other power. The fishermen and sail- ors of the Dominion mti.«t prove an element of great strength in theinaintenance- of the lino of cornmunicatio • with England and those countries with which she is politically or commeieially idei.liUcd. Thev can man the vessels necessary to protects our |)orts, and otherwise asrist in the naval defenses of the empire. A thousand stalwart llshermen from Nova Scotia would aid materially in the defense of J'.ritish Columbia or any other seotion of Canada. Looking, then, at the maritime industries of Canada, from an imperial as well as a purely commercial standpoint, we can not fail to see how intimately con- nected they are with the security of the empire. We till know that no country can bo truly great that has not a seaboard and does not follow maritime pur- suits. Spain sank low in the scale of nations as her nniritinie power doilined with the loss of her great colonie.i. The prf>8perity of Italy has increased with the growth of her commerce and shipping, and shu ne -d no longer lament the palmy days of Genoa and Venice. We all know why St. Petersburg was built on a marsh, and the history of this century is replete with the evidence of the desire of Russia to establish her.-elf within the Oolden Horn. France has fed her navy from the hardy Uretons and Normans who haveserved arudeapprenllce- Bl-.ip on the banks Newfountlland. (Canada, as yet with a popiilatipn of about five million souls, already possesses a mariwe greater tlmn that of Uussin, (Jer- many, Italy, or France, Prosperous as may be hereafter her commerce in man- ufactures or in agricultural products, it is on her rich fh 'series must always rest in a large nieas\ire her maritime greet ness. To mtiintaiii the corarnnnicatioiis with the East throttj^h Canada, ta keep o]ien this imperial highway at hoth extremities, tlie sixty thon- eand fishermen of the Dominion must form an altno.stindispensahle ele- ment of greatest strength. They will issue out from Halifax atone extremity of the great continental line, and Irom Vancoiivers Island at the other, forming, in time of war, a perpetual menace to ourcommerce and to ouf- coasts. This is no controversy as to the profit of a few thousand men in their business. They could doubtless find profitable employment elsewnrre. It is a struggle on the part of Great Britain and Canada to increase theirnaval strength and diminish ours; to increase the numbers of a naval school whose graduates will be a constant threat to oar commerce io. time of war, ^th on the Atlantic and the Pacific. 1 14 Now, Mr. President, it w;us to adjust the relations between these two flatioDS in regard to this great interest, so vital to the strength and so important to the well'are of both, that the Administration solicited the negotiation whii-h h;is resulted in the present treaty. It has but one avowed object. That is to promote the convenience and define the rights of American lishermen and protect them against unfriendly in- terference as they pursue their calling. Yet, is it not a little remarka- ble that there is not tabe fonml throughout the length and breadth of the land, so far as I can hear, a single fisherman who does not deem its provisions an outrage? So far as the expressions of their opinions come to me and to ray colleague in our corraspondeuce; so far as we hear from public meetings froui the towns where the men interested in the fisheries dwell; so ftir as we can le^rn from our colleagues who represent those districts in the other House; so far as the associations o! fishermen have taken action ; so far as we get the ut* >rance of the presa or tlie conclusions of men who have had to deal officially or under im- portant responsibility with the matter hovetofore, there is one concur- rent expression of concern, alarm, disapproval, indignation. Here is the action of the city council of Gloucester, now the chief fisliiug port of the country. There is no distinction of party in that city on this-question. (Hee Appendix E. ) ITereare thepreamV)le and resolutions of the Gloucester Mariners' As- sociation, siguod by 144 masters of vessels. You can see something of the political feeling of some of these men from the names they give their vessels. Here is the schooner .Senator Alorgan, and the schooner Senator Saulsbury, side by side, with the schooner .John G. Whittier ami the' schooner George F. Etlmunds. (See Appendix F. ) The New York Board of Trade and Transportation express the views of business men of that city in oppo:iition to negotiation on this subject. (See Appendix G.) The Secretary of State thinks — Tliore is not a.jnstund reiisonable complaint on the part of our A merican ftsh- enuen for which this treaty does not provide a remedy 'ind promise a safeguard in tlie future. How doeA it happen that no single American fisherman haa found it out? Why, Mr, J5ayard, when he wrote that letter to his Boston .sup- porters, must have singularly forgotten that he had adjourned theques? lion of remedy for every one of the complaints whii'h he had over and over again in his diplouiatic correspondenco declared to be just and reasonalde to a remote and uncertain iture. Here, Mr. President, is the resolution of the Gloucester Hoard if Trade. (See Appendix H.) Here are the resolutions of the Anu;rican Fishery Union. (See Ap- pendix !.■) 1 leave to Slenatora from other States to make known the sentiments of their own constituents. J ha^e si'cn somewhere the charge that the oi>positioa to this treaty had its origin in the prejudice of party. Never was a calumny more unfounded. . Tiie earliest and most earnest voices of remonstrance have come from those eminent Democrats who have had occasion to study this question in times past. Mr. Charles Levi WoodhuFy, who bears a name that has been sx synonym for pure and undiluted Hemocracy for generations; Mr. Richard S. SpofTord, the last Demo:oo(l neighborhood and of the commercial intercourse of adjacent oouimunitieH, the qtiestion of the Nortli American fisheries is one of much importunce. Following out tin; information t;i\ in by me wlien llie ex- tensory urranKPment above described waa negotiated, I recommend that tlie Congress provide for tlie appointment of a commiasion in wliicli tlie Govern- ments of tl»e United States and Great Britain sliall be respectively represented, charged witli the consideration and settlement, upon a just, equitable, and hon- orable basis, of the entire question of the fishing rightn of the two GovcrTiments and thoir respective citizens on the coast of the United States and liritisU North America, April 18, 1886, the Senate passed this resolution as a re-ponse to the President's recommendation: JResfilved, Tliat in the opinion of the Senate the appointment of a commission In whicli tne Govcrnmenls of the Uniteii Hiates ami Grent liritain sliall bo rep- represented, charged witli (lie consideration and seltlemint of the fishing rights of the two Qoveriiment-) on tlie oasts of the United States and iirilibh North America, ought not to be provided for by Congress. This was adopted by a^vote of 38 to 1 0, every Republican Senatcn- who voted or was present heinw in (he affirmative and the following Demo- crats: UuovvN, BuTLKli, Fair, GuuM.VN, llAiuas, McPniiiusox, Maxey, MoiuiAN, Payne. But this is not all. The Pre.sident recalled the subject to the atten- tion of Congress in his next annual message, in which he declared that the recomnieudation of his last message had been "met by an adverse vote in the Senate." Congress theieu})0u passed the statute of March 3, 1S87, entitled " An act authoriziug the President of the United States to ])rotect and defend the rights of .Vmcrican tishiug vessels," etc. This p;issed the Senate by au unanimous vote on the yeas and Jiays, save one. The Democratic House proposed a still more stringent measure of re- dress, desiring to cut ofi" intercourse with Canada by land as well asby sea. The report of their Committee on Foreign Alfaiis, as well as the letter of Secretary Manning, which is a)>peii(h'd to it, denounces the conductof Canada as "inliumau," " in violation of tieaty obligation," aud "uncivilized." The debate showed that Dctuuoratic Senators vied with Republican Senators in their expressions of indignation. The Sen- ator from Delaware interposed in the speech of tlu* Senator from Maine a reminder that the Secretary of State liad gone as far tis that Senator himself in expressions of indignation itt the outrages inllicted on our shipping. The declarations of the S( cretary of State in his correspond- ence with our minister at St. .James, and the P)ritish minister here, the able letters of Mr. Piielps. the doctriiu^s laid down by .Mr. Wharton, the present Solicitor of tlie Stale Department, in his Digest of Interna- tional Law; the admirable letter of Secretary Manning to the House ol Representatives; the utterances of Demoviatic Seniitor^, notai)ly the Senator J'rom Alabama, on this (loor, are all in contradiction of the prin- ciples and the policy of this treaty. If, for this lirst lime in nearly seventy years, party lines have been drawn in our foreign relations, it ia done now, at the bidding of the .Administration by a total anol- icy of the present negotiation. They announce the jiolicy of the Dem- otiation, as during that which preceded the Halifax award and that wliich preceded theCJeneva awar , the leading statesmen of Canada were C(mstantly consulted by till- M-presentatives of Great Britain, .\rbitrators proposed by ua were r •i'-i-tcd in deference to Canada's objection. One ot the Briti'^h commt-sKiuera is understood to have repaired to Canada during the diseu -i.iM, which was interinitied for that purpose. Yet neither my collea;Uf nor myself, neither of thedisMnguished Senators from Maine, no npir iiitative of a lishing district in the other Ilonse, no member of this liody. the constitutional adviser of the President and the con- stiiuiion (1 deposit^iry with him o. the treaty making power, is admitted or con 1 N'd in this important matter until the concessions to Canada are al omde and the President and Secretary come t)efore the public with 111' 1 declaration Jbat we have got all by this treaty that we are justly iin I equitably ciuitled to demaiul. Ore ,' !;ritain and Canada were represented on their part by trained dip'" :i-t.s. The British minister at Washington, like his predeces- sor- i 's diplomacy the business of his life, and. as is well known, oc»ii >,- 1 very high place in that profes'sion TheCanadian represent- alP' ' Charles Tupper. has made the lishery interests of Canadatho tuii I liletime. Our coininis,sion, on the other hand, worthy and able ■ the gentleni'i) who eonposid it, was improvised fVirtheoo- C4I • \either ol ih'-m proha'tl v hud nny considerable knowledge of thf in i|uestioii until iiis olVK-ial relation to it began. I do not com if this. It is uniortnnitejv the h ihit of the United State.-? in I lint of our lorei ^n itjtcreourse. But it rendered the refusal oi I iiimstralion to avaM 'i-<'li of the usual means of informatioa an speciiilly uiih ip iv in rsnsiilis \ < N" 10. If the -e ' ■ 1 "iiM M.tssaclinsetts will pennit me, I - '■<*', to iisk hnn, »vli .1 I. iii> . p ii iij of I'lesidbut Angell, whrf w.i i lie comml^Hlon f 17 Mr. HOAR. I do not think it is qnite proper for the Senator to »sk my opiuinn as to Prt'sidftit Ancell, but I am very happy to stiite it. I do not ti ink, however, it is right to ask uiy opinion. The Senator might ask juy opinion of some gentleman whom I do not respect. I respect President Angell very highly, but I am not aware that Presi- dent Angell — to use the graphic expression of anotiier person — ever aaw a mackerel until it came "from the gridiron. A gentleman of Mich- igan _ He was born in New England. Suppose he wns A native of Uhode Island. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. PAYNE. HOAR. PAYNE. HOAR. Suppose he is a native of Rhode Island; there are na- tives of Rhode Island by the hundreds and thousands who have no knowledge of the laws and rights of tisheries. Why did he not coi- sult with gentlemen from Uhode Island who represent tliat inttr est? Why did he not consult some representative of tlie ti.shing in- terests in the other House? Why did he not consult some leading representativ'i of the fishing interests in this body? Mr. PAYNE Associated with the commission on our part was one of the leading lawyers in the country, Mr. Putnam. Mr. HOAR. An eminent lawyer, my personal friend, whom I highly value and esteem; but it shows the utter boy's play and utter igno- rance of the importance of the rights that are at stake when one ot the Senators of the United States, a Democratic member of the Committee on Foreign Relations of this body, when the criticisms are made that when the tishing rights have been surrendered without co nlting the men who knew anything about them, gets up and asks me ^> hat is my opinion of Pre.sident Angell. Mr. PAYNE. I think, if the Senator will permit me, that he has made a very uncharitable and irrational charge upon this commission, Mr. HOAR. I am making uo charge upon the commission. Mr. l^AYNE. Excuse me until I linisli my statement. 1 think it is very unoliaritable to make the remark that the commission knew nothing about the question; that President Angell knew nothing about the matter. The idea that a man born in New England, educated in New England, brought up in New T^ngland, knows nothing about this matter is very singular. Mr. HOAR. Wliat I stateil was that I was not aware that President Angell ever saw a mackerel until it came from the gridiron. Mr. PAYNE. I know Mr. Angell to he pre eminent in science, one of the most distinguishetl men in the United States, the head of the Univervsity of the Stute of Michigan. Mr. HOAR. President Angell is all that and a greatdeal more, but I have never heard that either of the three American commitwioners, the .Secretary of State, the honored head of the University of Michigan, or the honored lender of the Portland oar had had occa.-"m the business of Mr. West to study the question for the last ten years. Mr. GRAY. And what better selection could have been made in this country, wlTere we have no trained school of diplomatists, than was made? Mr. IIOAR. I would sugu'ost that Mr. William P. Frye, of Maine; Mr. W. H. Trescott; (jeneral WiM.r.\.M Cogswell, of Salem, Mass.; , Mr. Fitz J. P.abHon, of Gloncester, or Mr. Charles Levi Woodbury would have saved us from the disgrace and humiliation of this treaty. One otlier matter I ought to advert to. The Committee on Foreign Ji'elations very properly calls attention to the refusal by the President, under the advice of the Secretary ol' State, to communicate to the Sen- ate confidentially the course of the negotiations and discussions, and the various propositions and arguments arising in the negotiation. The committee dcema the refusal contrary to the constitutiouAl relation be- 19 tween the President and tlie Senate, and the reverse of the continuoua practice n smh matters tVoiii the beginning of tlie Government until this time. The Secretary of State alleges as the reason for the rcftisal — That tlie f.rKotiiilion is iiitrusteil to tlie discrelion of tlie Kxecutive, Hiwi that it coulij not liopeftilly bu entered un witliout tlie guariinty of mutual cuiitidence between t)ie agent.s. He implies that his refusal is due to some confidential obligation to the British side of the conference. But Sir Charles Tupper, on the other h;MKl, in liis speech of May 10, expresses his — great surprise that the protoiols as publishod did not give all the proposals wade, and the counter-proposals and the replies on both sides. So it is clear, Mr. President, that this concealment from the Senate of what took place thore as preliminary to the treaty is solely of Mr. Bayard's own seeking, and is contrary to the expectation and to the desiie of the I Jritishcommissioners. The suggestion of thecourtdential character ot this (iommuuicatiou, and that it is essenti.il in order that such proceedings might be hopefully entered upon, tiiids no support in the understanding of the other side. Something t(x)k place there which Sir Charles Tupper desired and expected to make known to Canada, and which the Administration desires and expected to conceal, not only from the .A^ncrican people, but from the Sen ite, to whom the Constitution commits the duty of advising in regard to the transaction. Now, Mr. President, what Wiis the present o(!(ii.sion for a revision of our international relations with Caiiaiia? We had, it is true, long- standing differences, growingout of conflicting claims under the treaty of 1818 and in regard to our rights before that treaty. But tliese claims were not the subject of the present disturbance. The wrongs with which this treaty does not deal are the wrongs which had so excited public indignation. The recent and present subject of American com- plaint is the attempt on the part of Canada to compel a change ip our customs laws, a purely domestic concern, for her benefit, by vexatious and inhospitable treatment of our ve^isels, in violation of the plain laws of international courtesy. To that complaint it was the duty of the Administration to have addressed itself. The grievances recently suf- fered by the American vessels whose names have been furnished us by the President in his communications have, I believe, in no instance grown ont of their having fished in the territory disputed under the treaty of 1818. The'e have been but two American vessels .seized for fishing outside the 3 -mile line since the treaty of 1818. One was the Washington in 1843, seized in the Bay of Fundy, and decided by the umpire to whom the two nations sulnnitled the case to be within our rights under that treaty. The other was the case of the xVrgus. The Administration have pawed by the American grievance, have got neither indemnity for the past nor security for time to come, have done all thatwus in their power to do to put future redress oiit of our reach. They have entered upon a negotiation in regard to mattoi-s not in- Btantly pressing, and in dealing with those have yielded nearly all that was of value in the American claim, what clearly belonged to us, and what we had always enjoyed aa matter of right, without any adequate or important equivalent. The law of March 3, 1887, passed with but one dissenting voice in each House, gives the President authority t<) prohibit the entrance to our ports of the vessels of any foreign power or any port, district, or dependency thereof, or any class of such vessels, when he shall be sat- isfied that our vessels are unjustly vexed or harassed there. But how must he be hampered and restrained in the exercise of that discretion 20 by his own public utterances, and those of the Secretary of State mad* since this tn-uty wu8 proposed, aud by the couce^iona implied in the^ iustrumeiit itself. We claim that the refusal to fishius? voasels of the ordinary rights of hospitality and commercial privilesea is a violation of the law aud usages of nations iw established in modern limes, justifying, not war, but a like rel'nsal in our discretion to any vessel from the olVending port or district. Now, here we have a treaty stipulating for certain restricted and conditional privileges to our fishing vessels, therefore clearly recognizing tfie propriety of withholding them in all other Cijaes. How can the President and Secretary i ver hereafter put in force the provisions of the statute of March 3, 1887 in retaliation for conduct whose propriety they have themselves so admitted? The rights of common humanity to our vessels in distress have been withheld in many flagrant instances. This is a grievance for which the cessation of the intercourse in respect to which the complaint arises furnishes abundant remedy. The treaty provides for removal of this grievance to a limited extent and on strict conditions. ' The President can hardly hereafter make the continuance of these grievances a ground of complaint in the cases he has not provided for. But the important question is the substance of the treaty itself. If I am right — and if I am wrong the ablest statesmen of America in every generation have been wrong — if lam right this is no mereiiues- tion of the investment of a few hundred thousand dollars and the em- ployment of a few thousivnd men; these may be transferred to equal profit elsewhere. It is a (juestiou of the strength of the right arm of this nation. It is a question of its power to ward olF or to return a blow in any future war. It is a question of that naval strength with- out which our commerce aud our coast cities are alike to be at the mercy ot any enemy who may attack them. It enters largely into the qtrestion whether as a maritime power We are to be e<)ual, not to Great Britain, but even to Canada. It is a question, notol the price of tlsh, but of the limits and the efficiency of the Anion an naval school. The pending negotiation has to do with a goo^ many separate ques- tions. They relate to four principal suli;ject*iof uitft-rence: The extent of territory in which the United .States possess rights ot fishery, iiicludina shore rights; The treatment due to our vessels on the coasts and in the ports of the British North American dependencies; The claim for indemnity for past grievances in the treatment of our fishermen; The ai)andonmentof our established protective jolicy for the benefit of J^ritish fishermeu. In regaid to e.ach of these, the Secretary of State set-ms to have dealt with the subject, I will not say in total ignorance, but in total disre- gard of the American position and the Amcric;in rights. He says, in his letter to gentlemen in Boston, that " the sole and difficult question to which the treaty relates is that of the fi'ritish point of view. Mr. Bayard's letter and the utterances of a lew other supporters of the treaty are the first and only stiitemenls of this character ever heard on this side of the At- lantic south of the Canadian border since the continent was settled. We have always held, and there is abundant British authority to sup- port our claim, that we were joint owners of a great o<;eau fishery whiclv our fathei-s had helped to conquer aud to acquire, and which had beeo. 21 panted to Massachusetts )»y her charter, a property where the fishery was the i>rincipal ami the siiore rijjtht the accessory, aud that at the Itevolulion we made a partition of that property; that we did not gain or ac(iuire that ri«ht by the treaty of 1783, but simply retained it and had il acknowiedj^ed, and tliat it rests to day on the same loundatiou as our title to our independence or our title to the soil of the .State of Maine The jurisdiction of shore or adjacent waters had nothing to do with it. If I were to undertake to support this view by niarshal- inj: all the American authorities, I must speak a week; I must cite every American historian, every American writer on public law, every American diplomatist who has dealt with the subject from John Ad- ams down to Mr, Wharton, the present accomplished law adviser of the Department of State. The Continental Congress, as early as 1778, declared the ultimatum on which peace should be made with Enijland — 1. Independence; 2. The reco^^nition of our claim to the fisheries; 3. Free navigation of the Mississippi. They enforced this by the further agreement that every stipulation respectirig tl'.e fisheries must receive the a.ss(nt of ever}' State. John Adams has left it on record that when lie went abroad as our representative in 1778, and again when the treaty of 1783 was nego- tiated, his knowledge of the fisheries and his sense of their importance were what iiwluced him to take the mission. He calls them — Tliat greiit source of wealth, tliat great nursery of seamen, that great means of power. He declared that unless our claims were fully recognized the States would carry on the war alone. He said: His country had ordered liiiii to malce no peace without dear acknowledg- ment of the ritflit to the fishery, and by that declaration he would stand. His letters to William Cranch, to .lames Llovil, to Richard Rush, t« William Tudor, aud William Thomas set forth the whole ground* of our rights as an original part of our national empire. This right was completely acknowledged by the highest English authorities. When the Briti.xh Parliament pixssed the actof Marcli, 1775 — To restrain the trade and commerce of the provinces of MassRehusettB Bay and New Hampsliire and tiie colonies of C^onnecticiit and lihude Island and Providence Plantations; and to proliiiiit such colonies from carrying on any fishery on the banksof Newfoundland, aud other places therein mentioned— «ixteen peers, among them I^ord Camden and Lord Rockingham, pro- tested. Among their reasons they said: Because the people of New ICngland. bes'des tlio natural claim of mankind to the gifts of Priividenop on their coast, are xpecially entitled to tlie fishery by their charters, which have never been declared forfeited. In the debate on t'le articles of peace in the House of Lords, Lord Loughbornugh, the ablest lawyer of his party, said: The fishery on the sliores retained by Britain is in the next article not ceded, but recognized as a right inherent in tlie Americans, \vhich though no longer Britisli subjects, they ar6 to continue to enjoy unmolested. , This was denied nowhere in the debate. John Adams took greater satisfaction in his achievement securing our fisheries in the treaty of 1783 than in any other of the great actsof his life. After the treaty of 1783 he had a seal struck with the figures of the pine tree, the deer, and the fish, emblems of the territory and the fisheries secured in 1783. He had it engraved anew in 1815 with the motto, ** I^aeemur, venemur, ut oiim." I have here an impression i 23 tiiken from the origiuul seal of 1815. Tbid letter from John Qiiiiic; Adams tells its story: QciN'CY, September 3, ixM. My Dkar Son: On ihis day, llic anniversary of the (letinitlve treaty of peMca of 17(<.'{, whereby the iiKlrpt'iKlcii.'e of the United States of America was n-fos;- iiizcd.anil the anniversary of your own niarriaife, I Kive yon aseal.lhe iniprcr^ sion npon wliich was a device of my fatlier. to ooninieinc>rate the sncceMHlnl as- sertion of two nTcat interest* hi the ncKoliation for th(! peace, the liberty ol the ttsherics, and the boundary seourlnjt tlio acunisitionof tlie western hinds. I'he deer, the pine tree, and tlie (Ish are the emblems representinjf those interests. The seal which my father had eiiKravetl in 17N3 was withont the motto. Ilo KHVc it in his lifetime to your deceased brother John, to whose family it be- longs. Tliat which I now i;ive to you I tiad engraved by liis direction at I^ou- don in 1S15, sliortly after the conclusion of tlie treaty of peace at (ilient, on the 24th of December, IHl-l, at the iieBotitition of which the same interests, the flsll- eries, antl the boundary had been deeply involved. Tlie motto, Piscemur, ven- erttur, at olim, is from Horace. I request yuu, should the blessing of ICeaven preserve tlie life of your son Charles Kranc's, and miikc liini worthy of your approbation, to Kive it at your own time to him as a token of remembrance of my father, who guve it to me, And of yours. JOHN QUINCY ADAiMS. My son. CiiARLRa Pkancis Adamji. The negotiation."? of 1815 and 1818 were under the control of as daantles.s and uncompromising a spirit, and one (juite as alive to the value of tho (i.sheries and the di.shoiior of abaudoniug them as that of John Adams himself. II John Quiuey Adams, the senior envoy at Ghent, and the Secretary of State in 1818, had consented to a treaty bearing the construction which is now claimed he never could have gone home to face his father. When the war of 181'5 ended. Great Britain .set up the preposterous claim that the war had abrogated all treaties, and that with the treaty of 178.3 our riglits in the li.sheriea were gone. There was alarm in New England; but it was (juieted by the linovvledge that John Quincy Adams was one of our representatives. It was well said at that time that, as John Adams saved the Asheries once, his son would s second time. When some one expressed a fear that the other commissioners would not stand by his son, the old man wrote in 1814, that — Bayarl, Itus-sell, Clay, or oven Oallatin would cede the fee-simple of the United States as soon aa tliey woulil cede tlie tiaheries. When England made the claim at Ghent that the war had abrogated the treaty of 178^5, and that our tisliery rights both at sea and on sliore came from that treaty and had fallen with it, our coinmis-sioners an- swered that our right to the fisheries stood on the same foundation as our right to our independence or to our territory, and that this right was not affected by the war, and that they were instructed not to bring th .ime into discussion. Mr. .\dains, in his letters in reply to .Tona- thuu Rus.sell, shows that this claim is not only supported by Vattel, but is e-stat)!ished by abundant British authorities. One of the British commi.ssioners has left on record his opinion that the failure by Great Britain to re.ject this claim in the treaty amounts to an assent to it. Mr. Adams distinctly declares that our right Was not the creation of the treaty of 17.s:{, It was the possessory use of the ri>fht at any time theretofore as British sub- Jects, and tlie acknuwledxnienl by (Jreat Britain of its continuance in the peo- pie of the United States after the treaty ot sefHiratiou. The letter of instruction to our commissioners at Ghent says: Information has been received that it is probable that a demand will be mad« to surrender our riijht to the tlsheries. Should it be m;ide, you will, of course, treat 11 as it deserves. If insisted on your nexc tialiuns will ceuiie. 23 Our commissioners notified those of Great Britain that they were not authorized to discuss these rijilitM. The treiity was concluded without menticmin'^ them. Mr. Adams dechvred lour years alter the couvention ofl8H Our tluctrine wim Hound In itself, niid ninintainahle on the tno<9t vnlnrKed, ha- maiio, Hiiil K*3>>eruii!i prmciple.s of inttTuHtioiial liiw. • • • ^inue iltut ttie priiifiple uHserted by llio .Viiuiricnn pU-iiip it«Mitiarie>i iit Ohcnt has been still as- Hcrtcd arid maintained tlirod);)) llie lon< and anlniMii ne^otintion with Oreai Britain, and has pa»'»i«l the ordeal of niin.ls of no inferior ability. It has ter- ruinated in a new and sati.ifaclory aininRCinunlof l lie jjreat intercut connected with It, and in the substantial adniis'^ion of the priiieiple a-<>nt others on the iHland of NewfouiKlluiKi had been secured iu their atead. We hiive gtiiiicU by th«j convention of 1818 — he Says — an atljiiBtiueni of the contest preHervinn oi.r whole principle. The conven- tion re-*trii'tM tlie libcrlifH in Houie siuiill ilcKree, but it enJHrKUH tlieni propubly in a ilexr>"e not lens u-aii'in);datnnKC!), and forobUtin- in« wood a-id wiiter. It bus secured tb« whole participation in the Labrador HHherieH; tlin most important ixirt of the whole, and of which it was at Ghent peciiliaiiy the intention of the liriliah (iovernment at all event'* to deprive ttB. * • • The convention has uIko secure"! tons llie riKhtofdi yiiiKarul eurin>{ the flsh on a purl of the isbuxl of Newfoundland, winch bad not been enjoyed un- der the treaty of 1783; it haa narrowed down the preten«ion>( of exehmive terri- torial JuriHdiction with referenee to those fl^thericH to 3 marinii miles from thi; «horc(t. Upon the wlu)ll^ I consider tliin interest oh secured by the convention of 1818 in n manner as advantaiceousnsit had been by the treaty of 1783.— ^dumc (o Ktissell, page 'Jll. You see, therefore, Mr. President, that the second criticism of the treaty of 181H wholly di>>iippear8. IMslienuen who brave the p« rils ot the .se.'is to 8upi)ly lood tor mankind are the favorites of public law- everywhere. It is a Htrant^e arnumeut that because in 1818 the diplo- macy of America gained for her lishernieu an advantage by which they were excepted from Great Hritaib's tyrannons and barbarous p(dicy of non-intercourse with her colonies, they should have no part in the hu- mHue and liberal policies of later times. The first criticism on the treaty of 1818, if you deal only with the words and phra-nes of asingle clause, has a little more foundation. But it disappears when you look at the whole instrument. The purjiose of the clause wa.s to move back the line of the fisheries 3 milen. When they spoke of drying, and curing fish "in the bays, creeks, or harbors " they were using dilfering phrases to describe the little inlets of the shore. The Gulf of St. Lawrence, then all included in common par- lance in the name "The Bay of Chaleurs," was not iu^.adcd iu the limits where the privilege of drying fish was admitted, but itself in- cluded within its own limits all those parts of the coast exceptiug only that part of Labrador north of the Straits of Belle Jgle. The treaty ex- pressly admits us to the Magdalen Islands, to iflSleoast of Labrador east of Mount Joli, and to the south and west coast of Newfoundland. The British pretension would involve the absurdity that we may, under the treaty, take and dry fish on those coasts, but can not do it in the waters which surround them. Further, the treaty speaks of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks, showing that it was a description of a shore line that it was making. Further, it reserves the right to enter the bays, harbors, etc., where we are excluded (mm fishing, for purposes of shelter. How absurd to suppose that they were thinking of the Hay of Fundy, of the Hay of Chaleurs, of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, when they spoke of an entry for the purpose of shelter. A ship outside of one of these iu a storm would of course keep the open sea. But the historic evidence Ls equally decisive. Mr. Rusl) has left on record his testimony that this clause of renunciation was drawn by him and inserted at the retjuest of the American commissioners, in order that the whole transaction might appear as an a.'-li bay. Tnis doctrine of the headlands is new and lias r'i* ceiveda proper limit in tlie convention betweon I^'rimce and Great Britain of 2d AuRust, IS"'.!, in which " it is agreed lluit the ilistnnceof 3 miles, fixed as thejfen- eral limit for tha exclusive ri^ht of fishery upon the coasts of the two countries, shall, with respect to liays the months of which ilo note.xceed 10 miles in width, be measured from a Htraisiht line drawn from headland to headland." The Hay of I-'undy is from t)5 to "o miles wide, ami 1,'iO to MM miles long; It has several hays on its coa.st; thus the word " bay." as applied to this Krent body of water, has the same meaning as that applied to 'he Hay of Hisoay, the Bay of HenKfil.over which no nation can have the rijflit to assume sovereiifnly. One of the headlands of the Hay of I'-unily Is in the United Slates, and ships bound to I'assamar] noddy must sail tlirou>{h a larne space of it. The islands of Ciirand Menan (H.'itish) and l,ittle Mcnan (American) are situated nearly on a line from hcHdlaiid to hr.idland. These islands, as repiesent(Ml in all peogfrik- phies, are situated it\ thi> Atlantic (Jcean. The conclusion is, therefore, in my mind, irresistible that the Hay of Fundy is not a liritish bay, nor a bay within the meaninK of the word as used in the treaties of 17H3 and 1HI8, The owners of the \V'inliins'ton,or their leijal representatives i.re, tlierefore, entitled to compensation; ami are hereby awarded, not the amount of their claim (whicli is excessive), but the sum of $3,000, duo on the 15th of .lanuary, 1855. I am amazed that so good a lawyer as thfe Senator from Delaware should have worked bini.self into the belief that Jii.s doe.s not decide the whole questiou. Mr. Hatca givtis his detision, and puts it exclu- sively on the ground th;it bayw in H18 mean the Siinie thing as in 17B3, a description of the shore line, and that a veasel " tea mih s trom shore violates no stipulation of the treaty." This is .stated by him a.s the ground of his decision. It seitletl not only the Bay nf I'undy, but the wiiole contention between the two Governments. Then he goes on to speak of some .special arguments of Cireat Britain; first, the head- l.and theory. He rejects ihat Jis new, and having a proper limit in the convention lately made with France. He adds that tlie Hay of F'nudy has one of its headlands American, and is not a bay within the mean- ing of the word as used in the treaties of 17H;?and ISIH. Now, it will be seen that although the fact is mentioned that one of the outer ht,;ad- lands of the Hay of Fundy is in the United State.s, the decision is not put on that ground, but expre.ssly on the ground that the liay of Fundy is nota bay within the meaning of the treaty, that " bay, creek, harbor, and coa.st, " where we were to dry tish by the treaty of ITH.'l, meant the Rhor§ line, and th.at the words had tlie same meaning in 1818. and that a ve.ssel 10 miles from the shore is not within the treaty at all. The same decision is made in the case of the Argu.s. No o]iinion was there given, because the principle of the opinion in the case of the Washington covered it. Mr. GKAV. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me — I do not intend to interject in his sj>eetT] any portion of the debate we had some time ago on tlie occasion of my discu.ssion of this point — but I am tjuite willing, as long as he has recited the whole of the opinion of Ar. Rates, that it should be submitted to the Sbuate for its .judgment as to the ground upon which that decision was made. Notwithstanding the Senator's exegesis and at the risk of his question- ing my ability as a lawyer, I yet can not see why a careful reading of that opinion will not justify the conclusion to which I came originally 7r^ 28 I < I !^ ; with my study of that qaeition, that the ground upon which that opinion is baaed is that the Jiay oC Fundy, so called, is not a bay at all ■within the meaninii of the treaty of 1818, and that the lan^uaue of the umpire, Mr. i ates, in counectin;,' that opinion with th;.t illative conjunction " tUcruiure, " lu y justilies the conclusion at which I have arrived. But if the Senator will pardon me, .vhile I am on my feet I wish to correct what is of course not an intent'onal mistake in the stiitement of the case of the Argus. He speaks of the Argus as having been seized in the Hay of St. Anne. I call his attention to the evidence in the case of the captain and crew, that she w.as seized not within the Bay of St. Anne but upon St. Anne's Bank, which is quite another situation and far outside of the limits of these waters which are properly called the Bay of St. Anne. Mr. HOAR. I had intended to make that correction my.self, but inadvertently as I passed it I said "St. Anne's Bay. " It is unimportant however, as aftectt? the principle. St. Anne's Bank is within a line from headland to headland, but it is outside of the body of what I sjMjke of, which has been named St. Anne's Bay; so 1h it the giving us damages for that was a rejection simply of the IJritish headland theory. We have it then settled by the history of the original transaction, settled by subsequent practice, settled by a fair construction of the whole language oi' the treaty, and especially settled by asolemn adju Jects are adjourned to a futtire time. It is not too much to say that, while this Administration shall exist there will neither be redress nor hope nor expectation of redress for any outrage committed by Great Britain upon an American anywhere. For the insult to our Hag we get no apology from Great Britain. We are informed by the British minister that the Canadian (iovermnent regrets it. But we have no diplomatic or international relations with Canada. She is to as but a bureau or department. The act should either be di.sa vowed and punished by Great Britain, or Great Britain must be held responsible. We get no indemnity for the past Is there any security for the fu- ture? There is nothing in the instrument very difficult of comjirehension. There are nominally sixteen articles in it. There are really but five ii 30 Cbav *pre absoluto. There ia one other that takes effect if we repeal oat duty on fish. Fir»t. It provides new limits for our right of fishing near Canadian shores. The first niue articles deal with this one subject. Second. It provides in two articles for the treatment of American fishin;; vessels entering Canadian hurbors for shelter, repairs, wood, or water. Third It gives to "fishing vessels of Canada and Newfoundland on the Atlantic coast of the United States all the privileges reserved and secured by this treaty to United States vessels in the aforesaid waters of Canada and Newfoundland." Fourth. It agrees that every United States fishing vessel shall con- spicuously exhibit its number on each bow. Fifth. It provides for the trial and punishment of the United States vessels unlawfully fishing or preparin;^ to fish, or otherwise violating the laws of Grejit Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland "relating to the right of fishery in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbors." Sixth. It provides that when we admit t}ieir fish-oil, whale-oil, seal- oil, and fish of all kinds free of duty, we may enter their ports, etc., to purchase provisions and supplies, to ship crews, and transship cargoes. As to each of these matters the treaty leaves us worse than it found us. It does not afibrd redress of grievances. It does not provide against the recurrence of causes of complaiut in future. It concedes valuable rights which ought not to be surrendered. It gains no valuable rights which we do not now possess. It negotiates in regard to matters which, under the special circum- Btances, should not be the subject of negotiation. It I'ails to negotiate and bring into settlement matters which per- em])lorily demand settlement. It gfits much l«;s3 than it is worth for what it proposes to give, and much less than Canada had already shown her willingness to pay. It leaves us in much worse attitude for future negotiation. It shows an utter want of appreciation for the national value of our fisheries and the respects in which they are important. It shows an utter insensibility to the national honor, dignity, and character. The whole tone and temper of the negotiation is feeble, spiritless, ignoble, and timid. I have already spoken of the failure of the Executive to obtain or even to demand redress of grievances and insults. The President and Secretary had committed themselves; they had in their diplomatic cor- respondence committed the nation to tlie assertion that our fishermen and the nation itself had been outraged by these proceedings. Both 1 louses of Congress had uniteil in an expression to the sanjo ed'ect This does not rest on American authority alone. Mr, Davies. of Trince Ed- ward Island, I believe an eminent, I know a very able member of thd Canadian Parliament, who followed Sir Charles Tupper in the recent debate, and who will not be charged with not taking the side of Canada to the extreme, said in that debate: They were not satisfied with putting a construction upon the tronty and then Cftrrying out that conslruolion in a flnu and reasonable way, but they were de- termined tliat the customs laws of tlils country sliould be dnitr.u^od in to harass. to irritate, to worry, and drive to desperation the Amerioan liHherinen, at it did drive them to desperation. Now, what occasion was there to reopen the old dispute as to the 31 W meaning of the word "bays " in the treaty of 1818 ? Tbat had noth- ing to do with the vexations to which our vessels were subjected. We had, as has been seen, two judgments which settled the question in our favor. The matter was aubstautially at rest. There had been a little Canadian talk on the subject, but Great Britain had given it up. This is thoroughly admitted by both sides in the colloquy lately had in the Parliament of Canada between Sir Charles Tupper and the Hon. Peter Mitchell, lately minister of marine and fisheries, under Sir John Macdonald, and the hi^'aest authority in Canada on this subject, anless we except Sir Charles Tupper himself. Sir Chables Tuppeb. I can only say that nobody knows better than my hon- orable friend that Great Britain indaceJ him to recall hia reijulations and in- Btructioiis. after he had is.iued them, and restricted his jurisdiction to within 3 tuilea of the shore, Mr. MiTdiEi.L. And why ? Because Great Britain could control the govern- Dient of thia country, ar.d I had to do it; tbat is wliy. SirOHARLnsTi'ppBE, There was also a dispatch from Lord Granville. Now. under the pressure of this, as my honorable friend hai stated, he changed his instructions in reference to the 10 miles and put in 6 milo^, and forbade bis oftt- cers to interfere with the American tt.slioi'miMt, not as in the first instructions he gave, if they were witliin3 miles of the mouth of the bay, but only if they wore within 3 miles of the shore, and he says : "Until further instructed, therefore, you will not interfere with any Amerl- lean fi-ilierman unlen3 found within 3 mile.'i of the stioro, or within 3 miles of a line diiiwn across tlie mouth of a bay or creek, whioli, thou)j:h in parts more than miles wide is less than 6 geographical miles in width at its mouth. In the case of any other bay, as Bale desChaleurs, for example " — The very bay he ixcluded them from was more than 10 miles wide — "you will not Interfere with any United States fishing vessel, or boat, or any American fishermen, unless they are found within 3 miles of the shore." Mr. MiTc-iiKLi,. Undor positive instructions from England, against my repre- sentations and everything else. Sir CnAUC.Es Tni'i'Kit. 1 thinli I have satisfied my honorable friend that, as far as Her M.vjesty's Governmftut were concerned, while tlioy maintained the abstract right uridei the treaty, the.v were unwilling to raise the question of bays, and the result is, as iny honorable friend knows, that for the List thirty- four years, certainly since 18.il — and 1 will not go further back thati ISS-l — tliero has been no prnctioal interference with Ameri<;an fishing vessels unless they were within 3 miles of the shore, in bays or clsewh,3re. See how completely the-se gentlemeu both admit the practical refu.sal of Gre.at liritaiuforthe liustforty years to countenance this absurd claim. Now, what did you want to open it for ? Bat in one respect these gentlem ;n are wrong. They are wrong in 8tatiugth;it Great Britain maintained a different view (or the first forty years. I have shown from the evidence of Mr. liush that this construc- tion of that treaty was never he.ird of (or the first twenty-five years, from 1818 to 181.% when the Wa.shington was seized. Now, our Aflministration l)egin this treaty l)y nine articles, in whi.;h they give np suiistantially this entire contention. There are, it is true, some trends or bends of tJio coast I'rom which tlte preposterous head- land theory, which Mr. Bates, the umpire, says was never before heard of, might exclude iis. But I do not now recall a single body of water wliich appears on the map to have the name of a bay, except the Bay of Fundj and St. George's Bay, to which we are hereafter to haveadmis- Bin for us and the diplomacy of our fathers" secured for us, can not be palliated by the feeble excuse that they are 33 of little worth. Great Britain makes no contention for trifles. These many thousand square miles of tishing ground have been, are, and will hereafter be of vast importance both to our fisheries and to our naval school, as none know better than the astute men who represented Great Britain and Canada. Note the remarkable assertion of Sir Charles Tnpper in this state- ment, made on his responsibility in the Canadian Parliament, that they were not even asked by the American commissioners to treat with us on the subject which Mr, Bayard declared was the sole and difficult question which existed between the two Governments, and the Acxer- ican lights were all surrendered. Nor can this surrender be justified on the ground that it renounces any cause of contention or makes it easier for the fisherman to know whether he is within the prohibited limits. The present limit is 3 miles frcTu the shore. That can be judged ea'^ily by a practiced e3'e. The judgment is aided by a thousand landmarks d seamarks. But nuder the treaty, with the exception of six of the olve bays thataro named, the line of exclusion is .'J miles seaward from an imaginary line drawn across the water where the bay is 10 miles wide. Who can tell, in the night, in the fog, in the storm, when he is '.i miles from an imag- inary line drawn 10 miles through the water? Do not you think the fishermen wi 1 getover the line sometimes, even innocently, when they are after a school of mackerel ? If you get over the line and are caught fishing or preparing to fish, your vessel, appurtenances, cargo,and sup- plies are gone. Mr. GUAY, The line of exclusion of which the Senator speaks is to exclude American fishi"ng vessels from fishing within Mr. HOAR, Or preparing to fish. Mr. GRAY. Or preparing to fish. I do not know thar. the Sena- tor's elo([uent phrase in regard to vessels being unable to discern that line at midnight or in a storm is very applicable. I do not know that a vessel can undertake to fish at midniglit or in a storm or is very par- ticular about the line where it may be. The line, as I understand it, is to mark the limit of the right of fishing or )»repariiig to fish. I ara speaking of tlie Senator's language about midnight and the s' .rm. Mr. IIOAK. Did the Senator ever hear of a log? Oh, yes, and have seen them. Does the Senator suppose that anybody would fish in But take the case the Senator mentiimed. Take the cjise of a storm at night and the line then Mr. GRAY. Mr. HOAR. a fog? Mr. GRAY. Mr. HOAR, being seen. Take this stipulation in connection with ihe provision of the Cana- dian law, which I shall speak of again, and which hiow stands, and is hereafter to stand, in spite of tliis treaty: Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 94, section 10, of fisliing by f(;reign vtsssels: If a cli»i)ute arisps as to wliether any seizure has or has not lieeii lejfnl'y made, or as to wlietlier the person who seized was or was notanlliorized to seize under this act, oral evidence may be talcen.and tlie bnrden of i>roviny;tlie illegality of the seizure shall lie upon the owner or claimant. Now look at section 15: If, on any Information or .suit hrouijlit to trial undor this act, Jndffmcnt \s (jiven for the claimant, and Iho court or jui; seized, or its vulue, shiill not recover more than 4 ceuUt damages, and shal^. not reeover iiny coats, and tho defendant shall not be fined more than 20 cents. The voyatje may bo l)rok('n ii]>; tho fisherman may be absolutely innocent; the cargo may b« spoiled; the ship maybe lost while in charge of the men who seized it; yet if, on this oral testimony, the man who made the .seizure, on his complaint, can get a judge to certify that he was mi.sled by someliody else, or by mistake of fact or place, so that he bad probable Ciiuso, no suit whatever will lie against him; and if the suit be iirst brought a,gainst him by the owner, there shall be no costs, and 4 cents damages. The testimony is to be oral. Sen.itorg know something of the evidence in admiralty suits even at their best. I am afraid Captain Quiglcy, of the Canadian schooner Terror, will find little diflieulty in persuading his sailors to think and to testify that every American ve,ssel he shall board hereafter is w^ithin the pro- hibited line. Eli ward Everett told me that he was once sitting at midnight on the deck ol' the Scotia as she ]iassed Cape Race, on a stormy and dark night. lie asked Captain .Judkins how near he supposed himself to l>e to Cape liace. The captain answered, " Within 5 orG miles." A little while afterwards Mr. l^verett asked him how near lie could tell his actual position with certainty. The captain answered, "Within 8 or 10 miles." Another section provides that three-qnarters of what the vessel and cargo sell for, which is fishing or prf;i)aring to fish within the limits, may be distributed among the sailors. Oral evidence may be taken. The sailors on board the Canadian ve.s.sel which makes the seizure are bribed, if I may use so gross a term, by three-qnarters of the value ot the thing seized, and the burden of proof is put upon the owner of the vessel Avhidi hsus been seized, and that is a thing which does not seem to have entered Mr. Jiayard's head. Now, Mr. President, everybody is familiar with the evidence which is got in admiralty causes from sailors Mr. GIIAY. I only want to say, if the Senntor from Massnd in setts will indulge me — and I do aot wish to interrupt him unnecessarily — that the provision of the Canadian law which places the burden of proof tipon the vessel seized to disprove Iter contravention of that provision, harsh as it seems, and undoubtedly is, is the counterpart of the laws of the United States in regard to customs seizures, and the laws of the United States are quite as rigorous, and they place in so many Avorda the burden of proof upon the vessel seized to disprove the contraven- tion of customs regulations or laws. Bnt however that may be, I call the attention of tlie Senator from Massachnsetta to the clans'^ in the treaty which, for the first lime in ourdiploma<^,y, undertakes by treaty stipulation to limit the scope of the municipal law of another country in its eflects and operations \ipon our fishermen. Mr. HOAR, We difi'er altogetiier in our point of view. I utterly deny that the customs laws throughout this country contain ai; pro- vi.sious which are like that; but the Senator from Del" ware, if he will give me his attention for one moment, I think will sco the very great difference between the two cases. We- have the right to impose on ves.sela that import merchandise into this country the obligation of showing that when they come in they are in compliance with our law. They are within our jnrisdiction, and, reasonable or unreawnable, they have no cause of complaint. But here 35 ~ is the fisherman of the United States exercising hi.s right on the high Bean, or his riglit where lie is as much witliin the exercise of his own property as tlie Cau.^dian is in his own dwelling. And now to say that a little Canadian vessel may seize an American who is in the exercise of his own public right, secured to hira by the law of nations and by special treaty, a right which he got for Great Britain in the lirst place, and that she shall hold over his head the obligation to have his vessel confiscated — and there is another provision of that law whicli provides tiiat if the Judge says there is probable c^-iuse for the seizure there shall be only 4 (;ents damages and 20 cents costs for the recovery — to say that that should be done when a Canadian court, on the evidence of a lot of sailors who are to have three-tjuarters of the thing in dispute as a bribe, shall certify that there was probable cjiuse for seizure ! I can not believe tiiat, upon reflection, my iionorable and patriotic friend from Delaware will stand here and advocate or justify such a condition of things. Mr. GRAY. I did not attempt, if the .Senator wilhU low me, to ad- vocate or justify anything. I merely wanted to point out the fact that barbarous as it may seem — and 1 think a great tfeal about; our customs laws is barbarous Mr. HOAU. This is no customs law. Mr. GRAY. I know it is not; but it is a law which does undertake to place upon the vessel seized just that bar))arous and unnatural rule that the party seized shall have the burden placed upon him lo disprove the allegation. Mr. HOAR. Does not my honoraVde friend see that we are talking about the condition of an American tishermnu, prosecuting his fishing right on the high seas? Suppose a little Canadian fellow comes along and takes a vessel worth 3i20,OUO or .*30,000aud says, " You were not on the high seas, but you were a rod over 3 miles from this 10-mile line drawn from headland to headland. I take you into Canada. ' ' A nd there thosa sailors are to have three-quarters of that sum distributed among them. To claim that the man was a few rods one way or the other from this line, what has that to do with the American customs laws? Mr. GRAY. Nothing, except that it is a mode of enforcing the law. Mr. HOAR. A man coming to an American port submits himself to American authority and American jurisdiction and American law. I would not speak with disrespect of the Canadian courts. I have known personally some of their jurists. There are others who stand in high and deserved repute among the great lights of jurisprudence. But I do not know what local tribunals may be charged with the ad- ministration and interpretation of this law. Our Canadian friends will pardon mo if I must, in this instance, judge of their jurisprudence by their legislation. The Canadian j'nlge must be expected to interpret their laws in the spirit which inspired them, and to carry out the i)ur- pose for which they were confessedly enacted. That purpose was, a.s Mr. Davies declared in the Parliament of Canada, " that the customs laws of this country shall be dragged in to harass, to irritate, to worry, and drive to de.speration the American fishermen, as it did drive them to desperation." That Mr. Davies is high authority will appear from H sketch of his career, which I take from Appletou's Biograi)hical Dic- tionary and a,ppend to these remarks. (See Appendix J.) Mr. GRAY. Will the Senator allow me to read, while I have th«» book in my hand, five lines from our Revised Statutes, which support the assertion I have made. Mr. HOAR. Yes, sir. 30 Mr. OKAY. I read from section 909 of the Revised Rtatutea, which says: In Hults or inrorraiitioiit bnnislit, where any seiztire is niii
  • pnrHiinnt to anj' act provUliii!:"; for or ref^iilntin^ the coUei'tion of duties on importH or tonnage. If tlie properly is claimed by any person, tlie bnnlenof proof hIiuII lie nponnuclx. clainiiint: I'rovuled, Tliat probable cause is sliown for such proscouliou, to b«» judged of V)y tlio court. Mr. HOAR, That is, the burden of proving the property. Mr. GRAY. But putting the burden of proof on tiie "claimant" the Senator of course knows is quite technical. Mr. HOAR. I can not understiind liow a lawyer of sncit eminence as my lionorable friend, of the patriotic purpose and candor w hich we kiu)w he possesses, should in the zeal of his defense of this extraor- dinary perlormance satisfy himself that there is any resemblance be- tween a United States statute, which says that where a man claims property the burden of proof sliall be on him, and a statute which says that when property in niy possession is seized — it may be on the high seas — the burden of proof is put upim me to prove that that seizure was- illegal. I can not see, myself, any possible resemblance between the- two. Mr. GRAY. If the Senator will pardon me, it is not very relevant, but at the same time it is a question of accuracy. This provision of the Revised Statutes does just that thing, and where there is a seizure made and there is a claimant (which is a tcchiiicul won! for a man who is a defendant in a proceeding in rem), the burden of proof is on him as to everything that is charged, not only as to the ownership of the property, but as to the infraction of the customs laws. Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator mean to say that if I could seize a British vessel in the port of New York I could hold on to that vessel? Mr. GRAY. So far as the charge made was for the infraction of the laws as to customs duties. Mr, HOAJi. J am constrained to say that I do not believe it. Mr. GRAY. The statute says so. 1 do not say so. Mr. HOAR. I do not believe the statute meant any such thing. If it did, there is no possible resemblance between seiziiig the vessel of another nation when it is in its own right, in its own place, and a ve.«i- eel going into the ]«>rt of another country and submitting it Mr. GRAY. It is a barbarous rule of evidence, but it is the rule. Mr. HOA R. There is no possible resemblance between the two cases. These llrstnine articles of the treaty, then, instead of surrcmlering a thiugof no value in the interest of peace, surrender wliat is of great value in the interest of discord. The purpose of Canada to drive our fishermen from the sea and to compel us to opeti our markets to supi)ort theirs, will remain unchanged, or will be stimulated to new ell'orts by this achievement. A bundled seizures, a humlrcd vexations, a hundred (juarrels will arise where one has arisen before. If dishonor to our flag, if vexation, bruialitj', inhospitality, outrage, have produced for her this harvest, what motive will she have for other conduct here- alter? She bus tried already, to her entire satislaction, what virtue there is in stones. She will not be likely to resort to words or gra.S3 hereafter. Within the past three weeks the news comes of the American ship- Bridgewater, a vessel of 1,557 tons, which put int^) Shelburne, Nova Scotia, in distress for repairs, having encountered a heavy gale. SI ©■ had sailed from St. John, New I'.runswick, for laverpool with a carg(»- of deals. The owners of the cargo, foreseeing a long detention, trans- ferred it to another ship. The owner of the vessel offered it at auc- 37 tion to see if he conld sell it, hut pot no bids. On this the Canodiaa ciistoniM oflicer aeiz-'-d it n» jiu impoi tatiun, demanded 2o ptT cent, duty, and held it lor elKhty-oue days. The Government then decided that the Hcizure was illegal. The collector tluiu proposed to relea.se the ship on conditiou.ttiut the owner would withdraw his protest, and re- leawe the olHcer who made the seizure and the Government from all claim lor damages. Tjiis the owner in(li{j;nantly refused. The ship was then released without condition. Tlie minister of justice gave the opinion that the owner had no cl'iim against the seizing officer, and the (tov«>rnment refused to eiit«Ttain his demand for redress. The owner lost his charter-party an*! \>vs vovage, and thinks he was damaged full VH Macow Street, BBOOKLvrr, June 5, 1888. Pkar Mir : I tlmnk you for ^>ur valued fnvor of yesterday's date, Wlii'ii Mr. Rowell, tlie iniuiHter of cuHtomM of Canada, handed lae his letter, whic'li you huv«i in |)riiit, dvoliiiin^ to entortaiu my claira lor compeiiHation, I reuuirkod, after carefully reading it, "Jt 1h unfortunate you confcHS to th« violalicMi of law, but deny tlie reilress. Tlin matter will now go to the Stat* _De|>urtnieiit, il heiiijja jjovfriunental rather than a perHonal matter." Mr. Row- •ell re()li«'d,,witli a pmile, " Vou will m-t nothinif there. Of all the claims which have been lod;je(! thoru agruinst the jroverument, we have not been called upon topaybiie ; we .simply heard uofhirtj^niore about them." At the time I Ihoutfht both tlii^t and T^is letter were intended to fjiyor me with a eompromi-^e, th© iiipliiiiiaut when In- thinks of (j rover Cleveland and Mr. Bayard. The Senator from Alahania told us the other day how he thonfrht the South would look at this husinc&s. He said, if I correctly undor- Btood him, thiit liio m laters of these fishing vessels were holders and importers of slaves. Ho said the fishermen wereasniull per cent, of the population of the country, lie said, too, as I understood him, ' 'lat if the issue were presented to the peopleof the South whether we sliould have free ll.sh or a war with J']nj?iand, they would prefer free llsh. He now says, in reply to the Senator from Maine, that what ho said was this: I admotilMlied that side of tlie ( 'liuinbpr. and I rcspoctfiilly do It a<;uiM. that if you present to the )>eo|)le of tlie Uiiileil Htiiles K"'i>K to war wilh (ireiit liritiiin RKnin!tis se^itis soon to be filled by a Democratic 8UCces.sor. Of that 34, 29 ha. ■) inserted in the ofiicial catalogue of the Senate as their title to honorable remea l)nince, a statement of distin- guished service in an attempt to dentroy their country and bring its proud flag in dishonortothe du.st. They are fond of telling us tluitall that is changed now. They say that if the count ry shall over be in peril again, if the Hag shall be menaced anew, whether it be foreign levy or domestic malice, it shall find noreadier or braver defenders than among the men who stood in arms against it. I, lor one, havt; never ques- tioned their sincerity. I do not (jiK^stion it now. I know, as the people of the North know, that there was courage in thestout hearts which maintained that conflict tor tho.so four long years. I do not believe that the men of the noble Southern stock, who dis- played, even when in the wrong, the courage, the atrcction for homo and State, the aptness for command, the constancry, the capacity lor great affection and generous emotion, the readiness to encounter pov- erty and death and exile, which won the admiratioti of mankind, when the Hag of the country which liius forgiven them and restored them and trusted tliem is insulted and dishonored, will be quite con- tent to take their tone from the Secretary of State or the Senator from Alabama. There is no occa-iion for a note of war. Firmness and strength anil calmness and dignity and understanding and maintaining our own just rights are much more likely to keep peace than the supplicating and yielding diplomacy of the present .Administration. ^li 39 Unt the President expresses hi3 peculiar satisfaction with the ninth artii'le. NolhinK in thlxtrpnty shall interrupt or fifTecl the free navisatioo oftl eStniU of Cunso by the llabiiit; vessela uf the United Stivle:^. He says: Tlio iiitlntrrrii|ited navlffiitio:^ of the Strait of Canso ia expressly and for the first time ulVirincd. The treaty does not pay that. It says: * N(ithin|{ in Ihia treaty ghall interrupt or alTcct the free navigration by flahing' vesHelrt. If 'here he any implication, it is that other vesstls can not go there, if Canada ohjects. JUit this is an ancient way I'roni tiie open sea to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where our right is as nnc^uestioned as't is to the Gulf of Mexico. Who ever denied it? Kir Cliarles Tn )per utterly repudiates the President's notion. He says that was nothing new. Wo provided simply that nothing in tlii.reMent. I'aptains knowing better than any otlier persons can know the condition of tli(!ir vessel, sails, spars, and rigg'ng, and as well able to judge of the weather as are ot hers, esieein themselves the best judges of when to go to sea, and reganl this interference by foreign oftieers as a gross indignity to themselves f.idto the flag under which they sail. In no other country is this outrage perpetrated upon captains of Amevican vessels. This arbitrary in ■ terfereiice with the perogjitlves, responsibilities, and rr»)W harbor of Osemniieque. This hiirbor is also barred b.v a dangerous shoal across its moutli that takes up vessels, especiiilly those of conaitlerable draught, and particularly when the ^ea is running high. After lying there twenty-foiir hours, the commander of t^e ''ruiser Ilowlett entered the harbor and ordered the entire fleetotfiit once, -vl- though the water had somewhat moderated and the wind hal the ivi-isage out. The com- nuinder of the Ilowlett wits respectfully requested to delay the execution of his order, wliieh he peremptorily refused to do. Captain Gnihani, of the schooner .\. R. Cri If enden, of Gloucester, remonstrated protesting that he was in «!hargc of a vauiable vessel and cargo and for which he was responsible; that there was great danger of stranding iiis vessel should he then try to go out, an.l, if permitted to remain, he wouUl sail as soon as the weather would safely i)ern»'!t. To this the Dominion otliccr replied that he i other reason, 1 should be opposed to its rtitifl<'atiou. Very respeclfi:lly, JAlMr.S GIFFORD. This is not a solitary instancci. In the Secretary of State's list of American vessels seized, retained, or warned otf fiDin Cunaditin ports dtnin;; \SS(i tliore are sixteen vesi.ds in a sinj;;!^ year warned off when in port for shelter. Professor Baivd'sfiditional list contains a con.sider- able additional nnnilMr. (See Appendi.x L. ) 1 may as well complete what 1 have to say here of Mr. Secretary Baynrd's sinj^nlar delusion, that if yon ttike the prievanccs complained of, one by one, you will find the treaty provides aKalnst their recur- rence. Here is another most irritatinj? annoyance which ha.'» esoa])ed his attention, for which he has secured for us no renifdy whatever. Pu()VlN(^fryrowN, Mash., ^f^nJ 21. !H88. Dir.AH Sm: Kepresentative U. T. Davis, having Informed mo of your iiitun- tton to address the .Seiiafo on the merits of Iho fisheries treaty, I venture to call yoiir attention to two matters uf importance involved, wliiuh I havo not seen elsewhere discussed. One is the seizure and line of vessels for the landing of one or more of their «rews prior to reporting tlie vessel at the ousiiun-house, and the other is the or- 42 fl'-ring (>urfi«hing vessels to sea, regardloss of the judgment of the master as ta the utiHiiitableiiess of llie w«alli«!r or cr t<'U yoi..s last past; that during that period he has frequently reported and entered the vessels under his com- nuvnd at numerous customs-houses in such ports, but that in no instance has ho been required by a customs otticer therein to make report or etitryof iiis vessel and cargo prior to allowing his ore w to hn\d: tluit it has been his invarial)le practice for his crews to land at any port in I he Dominion of Canasacliinutt>^ aUovy me?^ The PR ICSIDENT pro lvmpov<:. I oca the Senator from Massachusetta yield to the iSeuaior from Delaware? Mr. HOAR. Certiiinly. Mr. GRAY. Let me call the Senators attention to the language of Aiticle XIV of the treaty? I understood the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Tkm.ekJ tosay in hisseattiiat there was no such language in the treaty. lu stipulating what acts may be puuished by the Canadian law, Article XIV says: And for prepariiiR in such waters— That is in Canadian waters — to unlawfully flnli tlierein, penalties bliall bo flxcd Jjjr the court, not to exceed lliuse k>r unlawl'ully fi^hiIlK• That is the language in Article XIV of this treaty, and I submit to the Senator and to the Senate that it does not seem susceptible ol any other construction than that which I have given it. Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I tliink the Senator from Delaware is right as to the words '"and for preparing in such waters to unlawfully (ish therein;" but my point must remain, however, that the offense of prepii ration to fish is still lelt subject to the question of what is prepa- ration to Ilsh. I do not lind in these two articles or anywhere in the treaty any jus- tification for the President's claim that "it is framed in a spirit of lib- eral e(iaity and reciproail benelits," or that "it will he satisfactory to those of our (ishermen engi;"ed in the deep sew' fisheries, " or that it gives the "privilege on all occasions of purchasing such casual and needlnl provisions and supplies as are ordinarily granted to trading vessels." On the ctmtrary, this instrument adopts and recognizes to the fullest extent tho pretension tliat the rights of our fishing vessels are measured by the convention of 18H, unaffected i)y the subsequent changes in the customs of nations or thq, commercial arrangemeuts of 1830. It 45 declares and admits in substance that because tlit-y were favorites il" the law of natioua then they are under its ban now; bei;ause they were better off than all other men then, tiie only Americans not out- lawed in British ports on this continent, they are to be worse oft" than all mankind now. There is nothing in this instrument which permits an American fish- erman to go into a Canadian port, harbor, or bay lor any purpose not set forth in the treaty of 1818. Provided, however — Says that treaty — that the American fishermen shall bo admitted to enter such bays or hnriiors for tlie purpose of slieller and repairing iluinag^s therein, of purcliasiny; wood, and of obtaining water, and for no otlier purpose wliatever. That treaty, realTirmed in this ane by a hundred implications, opens the only narrow and inhospitable doorway by which the American fish- erman can get in. If he has gone in for shelter, under stress of weather or other casualty, he can then and then only — Unload, reload, transship, or sell liis fish, subject to customs reptdntion, ifjt be necessary as an incident to repairs, and may replenish outfit'^, provisions, or Bupplies damaged or lost by disaster. It is then orly that he can get Aicilities in case of death or sicliness, and then only that he can get supplies for his homeward voyage. They talk about the matter of compulsory pilotage and harbor dues. Massachusetts and Maine do not require Canadian fishing ves,sels to tiike a pilot. Their skippers know the coast aa well as any pilot. Tliey have no passengers. Theii cargo is their own property. Can- ada can only maintain the requirement of compulsory pilotage for pur- poses of vexation and not for purposes of public security. She does not require it of her own fishermen. The dollar-and-a-half harbor due i>^ unimportant except an a vexation. Sir Charles Tupper very Irankly says in his speech as to this concession: The fact la that ftlthoufjh there appears to lie a considerable concession in that, it doe« not amount to tuuuti. He had just said substantially the same thing as to pilotage: That the play was not worth the candle. He says also in regard to the concessions of Article XI, on which the President lays such stress, that the transshipment concession was a wise and judicious concessiou to make. He asks what would be thought of Canada if she denied it. He says thatj — Tn making it we were only acting from the dictates of humanity nnd from ft due regard to tlio credit and reputation of our country all over the world. He also clearly implies that he deems the President's notion that the privileges of deep-sea fishermen are ex tended by the last clause of Article XI altogether wrong, and tliut it applies only to vessels coming in under stress of weather and for the homeward voyage. This is also allirmed by the representatives of the government in the debates in the Cana- dian senate. Indeed Article XV shows that until fish is made free ia the United States her vessels can enter only for the purposes specified in the treaty of 1818. As the delimitation articles absolutely surrender what wa.s decided in our favor in the cases of the Washington and the Argns, so Article X and Article XI V surrender what was conceded in the Fortune Kay mat- ter to the spirited diplomacy of Mr. Kvarts. Article X snys our fish- ermen "shall conform to harbor regulations common to tlxm and the fishing vesselsof Canada." Article XlVsays: "Foranyother violation of the laws of Great Britain, Canada, or Newlbundlaud, relating to the m 46 i i:i ^^ \ right of fishery in such bays, creeks, or harbors, penalties shall be fixed by the coart. ' ' They tried once before to subject ua to their Sunday laws and theii laws fixing a close season and their laws regulating the size of nets. This was under the treaty of 1871. Mr. Evarts remonstrated. Lord Kalisbury asserted their right to compel us to submit to their laws, and said the law ofiicers of the Crown had no doubt about it. Mr. Evarta tol 1 them he should treat it iia an abrogation of the trefity, and Presi- dent Hayes sent a message to Congress advising the restoration of the duty on fish. Great Britain instantly yielded and paid $80,1)00 dam- ages. Now you would throw away all this without the slightest eqxiivaleut. jfereafter, under your brilliant diplomacy, Great iiritain and Canada and Newfoundland a- ■' to make the laws under which we are to exercise our treaty rights. Mr. GRAY. With the Senator's indulgence, I want to call his at- tention to a fact that appears in the correspondence, which I can not lay my liands upon now, in regard to the Fortune IJay outrage, so-called, that Great Uritain did not yield the principle lor which she contended, but consented to pay an indemui^^y, because, whatever might be her right to impose those laws upon American fishermen, she conceded that they could not be enlbrced by a mob. Mr. HO4K. That was a distinction without a difference. Great Britain agreed for a consideration that wo might go into her bays to catch fish. We went there to catcli fish, and we violated, as she said, her Sunday law, the law about the close season, and the law about the size of the nets. Mr. Evarts remonstrated, and Lord Salisbury replied that he bud consulted the law officers of the Crown, and he and they were of ojunion that England had granted us the right to lib subject to the rigiit which her dependencies had — the right to make their laws to govern and regulate its exercise. Thereupon Mr. Evarts spoke with some indignation of the doctrine that they could take away by legislation what they had given us by treaty. Then Lord Salisbury said that while that might not be true cf future legislation, at least of the past legislation which existed at the time of the treaty it must be true. Thereupon Mr. Evarts observed that if they had sold us a valuable fishery right without notifying us that it w.as under mortgage or other lienor incumbrance, it was an unusual transaction. Lord Salisbury replied in substance that he did not desire to hear anything more about the subject. Then Mr. Evarta recommended Presitient Hayes to send a message to Congress inviting the revocation of the treaty and treating the English contention as a rejection of the treaty. Then Sir Edward Thornton canje to Mr. Evarts in a day after the thing was done and wanted to know why ho did not give notice of this step. Mr. Evaits said he did not consider himsell bound to doit, and Sir Edward Thornton then inquired of Mr. Evarta if he was willing further to treat it as an open question, England hav- ing said she would not. Mr. Evarts said certainly. Thereupon Eng- landcame in and paid $30,000 damages, and wehavenot heard of that English pretension from that day to this. Mr. GliAY. Upon the ground I have stated. Mr. HOAR. If the Senator thinks that is the ground to be got out of it, all right, that is the story. I will not dwell upon Article XIT, which, literally construed, gives to Canada and Newfoundland the same ownership in common in the waters of our whole Atlantic coast which the valor of our fathers ac- quired, and which were acknowledged in 1783 and in 1818 in the water* of Canada and Xowfoundlainl so far as (luy aro nsirved or secured liy this treaty. Tlie iiritisb arminient is niiieh .stnmjier, in niyjudjinient, for this construction of Article XII t)ian for llie eluiiui to which Mr. Bayard and liis associates have so tamely submitted. Nor will I dwell on the thirteenth article, re^iarded by our fisherineu as so obnoxious and dejj;r5vding. It recjuires every tishing vessel of the United .States, whether ahe means to jfo near Canada or not, (o wear a number conspicuously exhibited on each bow, a requirement not ap- plied to England's own tisheriuen, strongly suggestive of tickets of leave and prison rcuulatious. The lourteenth article is etjually remarkable for what it declares Canada shall not do hereafter, and tor what it impliedly consents Canada may hereafter continue to do. Nobody, 1 suppose, expects that until w^e grant free lish, and free trade to Canadian products, there will be any change in the spirit, temper, ]»olicy, or purpose of Canada. What we have to complain of is that Canada has so framed her customs laws and her fishing laws as to subject our vessels to a series of .seizures, cnnfisc4ition.s, j)onalties, interruption.s, and outrages. This malice she has deliberately enacted into law. Any of twenty olUcials, some of them of the pettiest order, mayseizean American shipand cargo. The burden is put upon the ownerof the vessel toshow that the seizure was illegal. If the .ocal judge shall certify there was probable cause for the seizure, we gt '^ no costs, and only 4 cents damages. This is the ex- isting Canadian law, untouched, uni'epoaled, un.itfected by this treaty. Jilxtracts from the Canadian statute respecting fishing by foreign vessels are given in the appendix to the.se remarks (M). ^t will be seen that by these laws any petty customs or naval officer orjustice of the peace may seize an American shipand cargo, although that ship may be in the exercise of its rights and outside the ;5-milo line; may t;ikc it to any port in Canada; may put it on trial wherever he please to detain it; may compel it to prove its innocence; shall be exempted from paying either damages or costs, if the court certify there was probable cause for seizure; may convict it or establish probable c^use on the evidence of the Canadian sailors, who may receive three- fourths of the sura for which the ship and cargo are ^old, if condemned ; and that the suit by the owner can only be brought one month after notiee left at the lastaud usual i)lace of alxxle of the captor, which may be in Great Ihitaiu ; and can not be brought at all more than three months after the seizure; so that there are only two months in all within which such suit may be brought, even if the owner die, or be sick, or insane, or be at a distance. You have full knowledge of thciie things. You have complained of them. You have declared that tliey were put by Canada on her stat- ute-book to ha'"as3 your fishermen and drive them to madness. You have denounced them as an outrage. And now, when you make your treaty, ^'ou put in it a few of the commonplaces of common right, and leave these outrages to continue.^ Worse than this. Y'ou declare that this treaty contains all that you can reasonably ask. You not only leave this Canadian legislation on her alatute-book, but the Presi- dent and his Se(;retary indorse it, and estop us, so far as they can, from ever complaining of it again. Y''ou have contented yourself with so much. As to the rest, you must forever after hold your peice. This is what you call concili.ition. CoHciliato? It jest means lie kicked. No motter how tliey pliras« an' tone it; It means tliet we're t^set down lit^ked, Thet we're poor »hotes an' tlad to own it. ij: iii n < n 1 li m 48 They have put into Article XIV a few stipxilatiotif for those common decencies of a fair trial, to which all mankind are entitled as of com- mon right. But they accompany even thtise with the provision that the penalty for nulawfnily lishinsi, however innocent or accidental, however the skipper nuiy have mistaken his position, or however donhtful or con- flicting; the evidence, may extend to the forfeiture of the vessel and everytliin^ on boird. The penalty for preparinji; U> tish may he-fixed by the court and shall he no sretiter than (or fishing. The .judnnienb of forfeiture (no lesser judgment) shall be reviewed by the^overnor- general. But if he approve the finding, it is quite doubtful if there b© power vested in him to lesson the penalty. The anrepealed Canadian statute still makes the forfeiture for unlawful fishing alwolute in all cases, lint the second clause of Article XIV provides — That tlie proceedings shall be autnmary and inexpensive as prsic- tivable; The trial shall be at the place of detention (not the place of seizure or near it); Security for costs shall not he required except when hail is ofTered, (They will have in their possession the whole ship and cargo); KeaMonable bail shall be ace 'pted; There shall be proper appeals; These shall be avaiUble to the defense only, (That is, the defend- ant shall not be twice put in Jeopardy). I should like to ask Senators on the other side if there be one of these provisions, which to deny to a foreign sailor in her ports, witliont a treaty, in this close of the nineteenth century, would not make Can- ada a'»itench in the nostrils of mankind. There is not one of them that has been denied in a United States court since the country was settled. If the least of these privileges were denied to a British ship-owner in the courts of Boston we shonld hear from the Britisli foreign olUce; or rather, we should not wait to hear from the British foreign oflice; we should remedy the grievance under the prompt and eager stimulant of our own public opinion. It is quite significant that the British plenipotentiaries did not ask us to put into the treaty any stipulation that we would give them the like'jnstice in our courts. Nobody ever dreamed that it was possible for the United States to refuse to a foreigner in our ports as inexpensive u trial lis practicable, a trial in the vicinage, exemption from security for costs when we hold his property, reasonable bail, and proper ap- peals. Every Senator on the other side of the Chaml)er would deem it a national insult to ask us for a promise in a treaty to observe the commcm decencies of judicial proceedings. Mr. President, iis I wis -saying just now, if we were to treat ten British ships in Boston a^s they have treat* d a hundred in Canada, we should hear an expression of anger from Downing street to which th it which followed the seizure of Mason and Slidell would be tame. .John Ball would not have much to say about postpcniement to some future time of a demand for redress. How long do you think he would submit to the law which gave 4 cents costs and 20 cent^flne as thf remedy for the illegal seizure of a vessel and cargo and put the burdetj of proof on the party whose vessel was taken from him to show that the seizure was illegal ? Hear what Chief-.Tustice Cockburn in his work on Nationality laya down as the law of nations, recognized in Great Britain: In respect of pcrsoiipl rights, the alien, so loiif^ as he remaitu on British soil, (• in the same position as tlxe Queen's suljjcois. The courts of this country 49 »re open to htm as agwinst foreigners in re«ipect of wroiiKB for cauies of action arisiii); within ttie jurisdiolion, tmd in reSDcet of breiicli of contract for causes of action arising, eitltnr in tliis country or »broivut he admits in express terms that the inshore fishery rightn of Canada are of yreat value; that our markets are of greater value Btill; that Great J^ritain had in practice abandoned the claim to exclude us from great bays and headlands; that he was not compelled by Great Britain to yield any claim of Canada, but was wholly responsible fur the treaty himsell; that the provision in regard to the Straits of Canso is nothing new; that the subjecting lishing vessels which did not stay twenty-four hours to report was not entorced against Canadian vessels there or in the United Statt»s; that it ought to l)e abandoned in the interests of good neighborhood; that in the matterof compulsory pilotage the play was not worth the candle; that Canadian fishermen were already exempt fron» it; that in allowing us to transship cargoes they were only doin;; what wius requirei' ' v due regard for the credit and reputtttiriu of their own country all over the world; that the license to buy casual and noedlul supplies was a thing demanded in the interests of good uei>ihborh()od ; that he hiis left the penalty for unlawfully fish- ing where he found it. He further adds that — The I'rosident and the Deinoorallc party from oikI to eridof t\ie United Htate» declare this treiily a fair setlleiiieiil. • * » VV'c occupy tlio vantiiBC Rrouiid of haviuff thene men, out of tlicir own mouths, declare that nothing lias l>eei» wantins: on the part of ihe Government of Her Majesty to place this q'leatioD on a fair and equitable banis. He says they have accomplished this without injuring Cana;ht in the Mills bill. He makes one statement to which 1 hope and believe even some gen- tlemen on the other side will not listen without indignation. That there may be no mistake, I will quote it in his own words: Mr. Bayard told us, the .Vmericftu pluiiipotontiaries told us, that there wa» but one way of obtainiiiij wliat we wislied. " You watit Krcator freem of com- mercial intercourse. You wiiut relaxation iu our tariff arran>;euicut.4 with respect to natural proiiuot.i, in which you are so rich and ahuixiaut. Th.^re i» but one way to ohUiin it. liCt ii.s by common concession, be able to meet on common ground and remove this irrittiting cause of difliculty out of the vvay, •nd you will find that thepolic.vof thisOoverninent, the policy of the President And of the Hou.se of KepreHenlalives, the policy of the yroat Democratic party of the United States, will at once take an onward march in the direction yoiv 63 ipropone, and will Accomplish stoadily tlint which you would rtosire lnth«>oiiljr ■WHy by wliicli it can ever lie altiiiin'il." TIh-mi> were not ttiiiply woriln. Tlio• bearinifs and relations that reach beyond the immediate question under cuuxid- eration. All Mr. Van Buren had done was to call attention to the fact that ihe former attitude of this country had been taken under another ad- miuistraUou; that the part taken l)y the present administration had been dill'erent, and that their views hjvd been submitted to the people; that the old claims had been abandoned and not revivetl. He augirested no distinction between the opinions of the House of Ueprest n talis es and the Senate. He made no promise as to the future conduct of a party as to domestic questions in which (Jreat Britain had an interest. His utterances were in his instructions to our own minister, not in diplo- matic intercourse with an envoy of Great Britain. For this his nomination as minister to Great Britain was rejected. Mr. Calhoun, then Vice-President, gave his custin^ vote for the rejec- tion. Hear what Delawaie had then to siiy on this matter. Mr. Claytoa said: "He waj» directed to Hpealc with confidence of the respective parts taken by those to whom the adiuiuiMtrulion of this Government is n'ilouns. Thinking thus ol the purpose and"ol>ject of these Instructions ' '!an not be of opinion that theirantlior was a proper representative of the United States at that court. Therefore it is that I propose to vote against his n. ' lination. It is the Hrsttime, I believe. In modern diplomacy, it Is certainly the Arst time in our history, in which a minister to a foreign court has sought to make favor for one party at home agaiu.st the other, or hai stooped from being the representative of the whole country to being the representative of a party. And as this is the first instance iu our history of any such transacticm, so I in- tend to doall in my power to make it the last. For one, t set my markr fdisap- probation iqjon it ; i contril>ute my voice and my vote to make it a negative example to be shunned and avoided by all futtire ministers of the Uniteil .Stales. If, in I leliberate an{oiin{ named subjects, and may revoke, qualify, limit, ftn> yield our just rights for the sake of peace. We have little letY to ud even of that rash humor which our mother gave us. But we can never live in peace with Canada if weallow her to think that the methods she has taken for the last three years are the ways to gain concessions from us. Vve can never live in peace with England if wo permit her, with-, out prompt and instant protest, to try once more the experiments on our Ibrbearance which preceded the Kevolution, which preceded the war of 1812, which accompanied the war of the rebellion. The rejec- tion of this treaty is in the interest of a true, thorough, and liistiug peace. We have every motive of kindred, of friendship, and of com- mercial interest to live in amity with the mother country, and with the young power which is rising on our northern boundary, whose frontier ifor more than fifty degrees of longitude marches side by side with our own. We look with no conterapt or dislike upon Canada. We are glad to Mi w 58 s if if! Hi '' m see the spirit of her young nationalit.v stirring in her veins. We be- hold with admiration the growth of hur magnificent railroad system, and the courage and enterprise with which her statesmen are adding these new links to the chain with which England, like a mighty snake, is winding her coils about the globe. Sir Charles Tupperand Sir John Macdonald may well give lessons to l)oth sides of tliis Chamber. She is not afraid to create or to control the greitt railroads that are essential to her commercial prosperity. She does not send away her famous engineers, when they place their genius at her command, humbled and balHed Irom her legislative chamber, to die in sorrow and disappoint- ment. She is not afraid to build a ship-railway or even to create a navy. But when she asks us to abandon our fishermen to her tender mercies, to build up a naval school for her by giving her tishermen our market, she asks what it is neither titting for us to yield nor for her to receive. The American, who reads with pride the civic and military history of his countrj', can feel the same satisfaction when he comos to the chapter which tells of her diplomacy. In the day of our infancy Frank- lin, and Adam«', and Jay encountered the trained diplomatists of F^ng- land and the continent, not merely as e<|ual8 but as masters. The direct, open, sincere, straighttbrward, untiring energy of brave and honest old John Adams, "whose armor was his honest thought, and sintple truth his utmost skill, "alone made possible the treaty with Hol- land. Theconsnmmat«sagacity and personal iutluence of Franklin gave us the French alliance. The courage of Adams, the wisdom of Frank- lin, the austere virtue and steadfast flrniness of Jay united in 1783 to save for us, alike from the*power of our great antaf;;onist and the wiles of jealous and suspicious allies, everything that was essential to greatness and glory by laud and by sea. Later, the foresight and fear- leasufess of Jefferaon gained for us the great Louisiana empire. Monro? and his minister of .-itate won for us the Florida.*. At the close of the war of 1812 .lr>hn Quincy Adams, and Gallatin, and Clay, and the elder Bayard met the representatives of a power that had one-half of the world (or her allies and the other half at her feet. England had just overthrown Napoleon on land, and swept the navies of Europe from the face of the sea. Yet we came from the con- test of war, and of diplomacy, with every right and liberty unim- paired, our honor without a stain, with added glory to our Hag, and the pretension for which England had gone to war with us never to be heard of again. We had another war within our own recent memory. Our foes were of our (iwn hou.sehold. Our ancient enemy and our ancient ally sat at their gates, gazing across the Atlantic, to see if they could discover any pretext tor throwing their weight into the scale of r«bellion. England gave us provocation enough. You remember the sublime patience with which Abraham Lincoln waited until the hour of our strength came. It was the (brtune of another Adams to address to Earl hMissell one quiet sentence, perhaps the most eloquent that ever cam* from an American pen — It Is superfluous to observe to your lordship that this ts war. Foreign oflice and law officer reversed their decisions in an bout and the rams were stopped. Yon know how the French Emperor, victor ol Sebastopol and Holferino, in the height of his military strength, hurried out of Mexico at a word uttered by Mr. Seward. You remember the time when General Grant gave notice that any 69 American citizen who had a claim against Great Britain should bring the evidence to him. That hati^jhty power sent over her commissionei^ to apologize for her wrong, and was lield as a defendant to make codi pensation. You remenjher how the diplomacy of the same grent ad ministration induced nearly every lirst-chuw power in Europe to le- nounce the old doctrine of perpetual allegiance and let our adopted citizens alone. Those were days when the American citizen, native and adopted, held up his hej«d in the pride of his citizenship. Those were das when our ten thousand million of wealth was becoming filty thousand ; better still, when slaves were changi'- into freemen, and freemen into citizens. Those were days when the flag, beautiful aa a flower to those who loved it, terrible as a meteor to those who hated it, tioated everywhere in peaceful seas, and was honored everywhere in friendly ports. No petty Hritish officer hauled it down from an American mast head. No Canadian minister of justice laughed in the face of an i juied American citizen when (Irant waa in the White House. I confess that, uinch meditating on these things, I take little sati- faction when I think of Grover Cleveland. I do not like the poliiy which everywhere robs American citizenship of its glory. I do nut like the methods of fraud and crime which have destroyed popular elections in so many Democratic States. I would have the box where the Ameriean freeman casts his ballot sacred as a sacramental vessel. I do not like this conspiraey between the old slave-holder and the English manufacturer, to strike dowu the wagesof the American work- man and the comfort of the American workman's home. I do not like your refusal'to maintain the American Navy and to fortify and defend the American cotist. And I like no better the present treaty. It leaves the American sailor to be bullied and insulted without redress, and abandons the American right to the fisheries, older than the nation itself which the valor of our fathers won for us and the wisdom of our fathers preserved for us. Appendix. A, Table thnwing number of persons engaged in the fisheries from MnxnaehvuetU and thHr })lnee ofhirth. [Massachusetts State Census of 1385. Taken from population schedules.] Place of birth of foreign-bom. Ireland Canada (English) Canada (French) England Scotland Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island.,., New Brunswick Oermany Foreign-born males. Natural- Not voters. • TotaL Aliens. ized voters. 138 186 179 SOS 2 1 5 » 13 4 2 1» 41 40 1 88 16 12 2 SO 9S0 210 149 1,809 118 85 7 160 10 12 14 81 44 2 W * Ratable polls only or those having no political condition (not inoludlns •li«ns). i <■ f k li ( i ) ; 60 Table thovHng number of perioiu engaged in theftsheries from MassaehxuetU and their place erand nation- ality of men on vessels employed in the cod, maclcorel, hivlil>ut, herring, and other foo(!-flsli (isheries. from the State of Miissiicliusetts, during the year 1886. This table has been compiled from data obtained under the directioii of Mr. R. Edward Karll, my prudece-<8or in charge of the division of flaheries. The facta have been chiefly collected by experts of ihe Fish Commission, but to some ex- tent have been supplied by the masters and owners of the Ashing vessels. There are not available in this otHce any statistics of the number of men em- ployed in the bout flsheriesof 1886, but these have been approximated from th« returns ol>taincd by the censusof 1880, since which time there has probably been comparatively little change. The number of men employedin the whale flshery has been estimated on th» basis of the average crews of vessels in 1880. At that time the vessels averaged a fraction over twenty-four men each, and as there were ninety-six vessels «m- ployed in the whale Msheries from Massachusetts in 1886, it would give us an ap- proximate number of men engaged in that fishery, the lastrmentioned year, of 2,304. It hi)s also been necessary to make an approximation of the numlierof feople employed in the preparation of flshery products in Massachnsotta, and believe it safe to assume that these figures are not very much ditforent from the actual facts at the present time. These statistics for the vessel flsheries have been gathered with much care, as previously stated, by experts thoroughly familiar with the fisheries, and they «re, therefore, believed to be exceptionally accurate and valuable. I hope the table may meet the requirements of Senator IIoab. Yours very respectfully, J. W. COLLINS, Assistant United States Fish Commissioner, In Charge of Division Fi$heri4$, tLon. Marshall McDonald, United States Oommissioner qf Fish and Pishfries, Washington, D. O, 61 Comparative ulnfement of Iheslalii^llea of lh« ft.iherie.1 nf Ua-r^acWteW*, eonxpilrtl frnm the cetviis reJuriM pniiliahed in the reportji nf the " FinherieB hiihmtriet of the Un iled States" try the United S'alet Fisli C')ininisni^>n in 18S0, and the " tXslierie* of Mansa^ ehxuettt, eentufi of 1885," prepared under the direction of Coi. CaiYoU D. Wriyht. 1880. DNITBD STATES FISH C< KEPOKT. Ompital Invested: Vessels and boats. .._...._ Nets and trapa }MMISSION •6,681,980 369,870 1885. Xas PMBBBIES OF MAB8A Capital invested : WorkinK capital, appa- ratus, salt, and ice OHUSKTIA ngs, sh... Real estate, bnlldl machinery, Knd c& 7.051,850 7,282,600 S3. 660. 681 Product* : Food-flsh $4,992.5-il 649,013 2,080,a'?7 120. 6.59 299,200 Products : Kood-flsK - ...... $4,566,679 359.257 Shell-HsU Shell-fish Whale fishery Whale fishery Fish products Miscellaneous • •••• 1,270,543 Fertilizer, etc Miscellaneous ..*•*. 2.50, 1.39 36,074 Total — M, OtAl. ••••■•••«••■•■••• ••• 8.141,750 6,462,692 Vessels and tonnage : Fold fl.shery Menhaden fishery Oyster fishery 799 35 6 161 1 6 42,118.00 1, 269. 70 557.54 36,786.51 84.65 264.00 Vessels and tonnage: Schooners 736 65 3 72 866 47. 767. 28 Whale fishery Seal fishery _... Squid fishery _ Sloops - Steamera Whale fishery Total ....._ 352. 22 159.03 19,932.96 Total 1 ,007 81. 080. 49 68,211.49 Small boats: In vessel fishery In shore fishery.. 8,822 2,927 Small boats : Dories, seine-boa shore-boats, etc tl, Total 6,749 B.SOS Pel sons employed : Vessel fishermen.-... Boat li.sluTiiien .—^ 8,646 4,528 3,991 Persons employed : Resident fishermen Non-resident fisher- men Whale fishermen 11,743 Total _ 17,165 2,952 3,933 759 Shore hands Shore hands Total • •••• Total -« 20,117 15, 435 There has been considerable decrease in the number of ves.sels and men em- ployed in the whale fishery from New England since 1880, chiefly due to the fact that the vessels have been tran-*ferred from New Bugland whaling ports to San Francisco. In 18.H6 there were only ninety-sir vessels employed in the whale flsliery from Massachusetts against one huitdred and sixty-one in 1880, and the decrease in the number of men would bo approximalely l,3tK). This number subtracted from the 17,165 employed in the flslieries of Massachusetts, according to the census of 1880, would leave 15,765, as against 14,676 reporteil by the census of Massachusetts in 1885. It seems, therefore, that these strtlistioal statements corrobo.'ate each other, and that there was a pro>>able decrease of about one thousand employed in the State between 1880 and 1885. The hands employed ashore in preparing boneless fish, fish-glue, etc., all of which were included in the report of 1880, are not taken into acoouut in the Stale census, where they come under the bead of "Manufactures." Il '' rssi 62 Tabu ihowing by customs dMricts the numherx and nationalil]/ of men on VM$tla employed in the end, m^tfkerel, halibut, herring, and other food-fUh fisheritt from UaaiacSiuaetts during the year 1886. Customa diatriota. "2- a> •i u 3 izi Number of British provincials. i s l«3 a S «■ Ji J. 1. « ft r Newburyport 53 5,193 137 255 756 54 2,413 14 25 89 49 3,305 III 251 567 51 940 14 26 64 4 1,102 26 2 106 3 604 92 65 81 98 75 95 39 100 100 72 8 21 19 1 14 5 26 <31oueester 726 14 Salem and Beverly IVIarbiehead 2 83 1 Boston u Ply moil tlk ,« Barnstable 869 86 New Bedford™ 26 28 ToUl 8,989 6,437 1,817 1.705 60.4 20.5 19.1 Note. — In addition to the above there were twenty-five American subjects and one foreigner employed on vessels engaged exclusively in tlie lobster and menhaden tisheriea. These flgrures do not include men fishing in boats and ves-sels under 6 tons burden, nor men fishing on vessels employed in the whale fishery. Approxi- mate figures for tlie.'^e fisheries show 4,528 men in the boat fishery and 2,304 men in the whale fishcvy. No account is here taken of curers, packers, fitters, and factory hands, the ap- proximate number of whom is 2,952. O. Table showing number of fisherman and oysierv^en in New England and their place of birth. FFrom tlie United States Census of 1880.] Number of fishermen and oystermen in Massachusetts 6,103 Number of flji"-«rnien and oystermen in Maine > 4,244 Number of fishermen and oystcrmeu in New Hampshire 220 Total in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massrchusetts 10,673 Number of fisliermen and oystermen in Uliode Island 879 Number of Ushermeu and oystermen in Connecticut 1,260 Total in New England (Vermont excluded) 12,712 DETAIL SHOWING NATIVITY. I ill' Bute*. 1 S a c ct I HI '5 1 o -§1 IK 1 s 8 a \f AinA ......■■•<•■••••••• 4,017 8,529 207 12 492 8 35 24 129 1 1 237 4 162 1,271 9 20 Massachupetts « 410 5 Total Kbode Island 7,753 823 1,198 504 18 15 43 6 8 154 18 12 242 8 6 1,442 12 2 4.35 12 20 Total 9,774 637 56 184 250 1,466 467 63 Bxtraet from the report of Profetiatr Spencer F. Baird, CommUrtoner of FUherUg, /or 18«4. After giving a list of his authori'Jes (Census Report for 1890) Professor Baird continues as follows : " The general results of the investigation, from the statistician's standpoint, may be briefly summarized as follows : "In 1880 the number of persons employed in the fishery Industries of the United States was 131,426, of whom 101,684 were flslieriuen and the remainder were sljoremen. Tlie tithing; fleet consisted of 6,605 vessels (with a tonnage of 208,297.821 and 44,804 boats, and the total amount of capital invested was $37,- »35,,3»y. distributed as follows: Vessels, 89,357,282; boats, 82,465,393; minor ap- paratus and outtlts, $8,145,261; other capital, Includhit; shore property, $17,987,- 413. "The value of tlie fisheries of the sea, the great rivers, and thp great lakes wasplaoed at $^13,(>46,ft'>;i, and tliat of those in minor iuland.waters at $1,5arou8 acts of Canada is justilled and allowed ; and Whereas both treaty and protocol are but the initiatory steps towards th« complete surrender of the markets of the Uniteped and enlarKcd and those of the Uiulcd States de- pleted and dewlroyed: Therefore, Resolved, That this ttssociation, composed of the masters of American fishing- vessels, who know by contact an >e, to define our just rights upon the liiKh seas or in foreign ports, but have appealed to our own Government to maintain the ihtegrity and just interpretation of treaties and legislation, under which our business right* as American citizens are afl'ccted. That we neither use nor desire to use Canadian waters for practical flshinfc but simply ask that our commercial rights therein shall be defined by our own Qovernraent, and when po defined, maintained. That the American ocean fisheries are not dependent upon any favor or privi- lege, to be granted by Canada, but on the contrary the natural resources of our own country and the high seas atlbrd everything necessary for the prosecution of our business. That we will cheerfully conform to whatever construction our own Oovert.- ment shall place upon existing treaties and legislation, and desire no new treaty that shall dictate our national legislation or destroy the small remnant of pro- tection we now have. Kexolved, That we appeal to the honorable Senate of the United States, which has by a most eminent commission thoroughly investigated the subject of our fishery relations with Canada, and whose report has pa8.sed through the legis- lation of both Houses of Congress, been unanimously approved, to sustain tho honor and dignity of the Government of the United States, by maintaining the integrity of their action, 'and the rights of our citizens, by refusing to.acprovo the 'realy, or consent to so complete a surrender of our rights iis a natioi . Resolved, That as the entire fishii'g interest of the United States has not been allowed any representation whatever by tho negotiators of this treaty, whilo • the commission of the Senate visited every location and oVjtained sworn testi- mony from tho operative fishermen of the country, the reason for the difference in results is clearly apparent. Reaolved, That we respectfully ask for prompt and immediate action upon this treaty, by the honorable Senate, in order that our nnt onal honor may be ▼indicated, and the rightsof our citizens assured, in every foreign port and upon the high seas. Capt. Henry B. Thomas, srhooner M. H. Thomas; Capt. Joseph Smith, schooner Lizzie M. Center; Capt. George A. Johnson, scliooner Augusta H. Johnson; Capt. John Chisliolm, schooner • Harry G. French : Capt. Nathaniel P. Smith, schooner Margio Binith; Capt. John P. Aiken, schooner Hartie Pierce: Capt. Thomas II. White, schooner Riipid Transit; Capt. William Mail- man, schooner Alabama ; Capt. Joseph K. Qraham, schooner Star 65 •tor Morsfau; Cnpt. John MoTnnin, schoonor WilUe M. Stevens; Capl. John A. McKlnnon, scliooner Mnyflowei-; (.'nut. (>«-o. H. Murtin, schooner Ethel Maud; Capt. Pins MoDonMld, aoliooner Kditb S. Walen; Capt. John Geary, schooner Delia F. Tarr; Capt. William H. McDonald, schooner Blue Jacket; Capt. Alex- ander McEachern, schooner MiiHCot; Capt. Hylvanus McPhee, Bt'hooner C'anopus; ('apt. Joseph I. Tnpper, noliooiier .Jennie Seaverns; Capt. Solomon A. Howe, schooner \Vn>. 11. Koye; CaDt. Oeo. W. Dixon, schooner Henry W. I.onufclUnv ; Capt. Manuel Kilva, schooner J. \V.(>>llins; Capt. William F. Ilarrin, schooner Col. J. H. French; Capt. EdwHrd Morris, schooner Alv bie F. Morris; Cnpt. Colin Chisholm, schooner John W. (Mmp- bell; Capt. .lohn Collins, schooner Annie M. Jonlan ; Cspt. An- gus McKay, schooner New Eiiurland ; Capt.II. M.Heelye.schooner Arsonant; (^npt. .John 8. Mc(Ju in, schooner Druid; Ca|)t. Alex- ander McNeil, schooner M. A. lUiston ; Capt. John McKinnon, schooner Htarry FIar; ('apt. Sidney Smith, .schooner Fred. P. Frye; Capt. N. A. McKinney, schooner Shiloh; Capt. Kol>ert Smith, schooner Volunteer; Capt. Joseph L. Swim, schooner Edith Uowe; Capt. Levi N. Mcl^ean, schooner Herald of the MnrninK; Cept. U. I. Cunnintrhain, schooner En<>l» C. ; Capt. Charles Lee, schooner 'Orient; (Japt. James MoHlmia, schooner Alert; Capt. Jesse Lewis, schooner Lizzie W. IJannum; Capt. James Fiers, schooner Zenobia; Capt. Co'in Mcintosh, schooner Nellie G.Thurston; Capt. James Cromwell, schooner Halt ie Eve- lyn; Capt. James Simpson, schooner Ralph E. Eaton; Capt.James L. Anderson,. Hclioouer Wm. H. .Jordan ; Cnpt. .Joseph M. Henr>e, schooner Star of the Eiist; Capt. Ko>)ert I'orper, schooner (ihui- stone; Capt. William P. Gray, schooner I^eonu; dipt. Charles Martin, schooner John S. McQuiu; Capl. (Charles J. Liiwson, schooner Herman Babson; Capt. Jolin ^[a^»lmll, Hchooner Land- seer; Capt..Sewall W. Smith, schooner Itatller; Capl. B. A. Will- iams, schooner O. P.Whitman; (Japt. Utissell D. Terry, schooner Ada II. Terry; Capt M B. Murray, schooner M. M. Minray ; Capt. Frank Veator, schooner Alice; Capt. Daniel Mclntyre, schooner Gertie Evelyn; Capt. Harry Gardner, schooner Samuel V.(;olby; Capt. William (Joold, shooner F. W. Honnins; ("apt. Jed. Warren, schooner AliceC. Jordan ; Capt.VVilliiim Dempsey, schooner Muttic l'\ Dyer; Capt. Owen A. Whilten.sohoonerCiirr o W. Biiljson; Capt. William llerriric, schooner (ieorKe F. Kceiie; Capt. John W. McFarland, schooner Kmnui W. Brown; Capt. William H. Greenleat', .schooner Porter .S. Hohcrts; Capt. Jtihn Dowdell,. schooner Matthew Keany ; Capt. F. H.Vautifr, schooner Thetis; Capl. John Caniptiell, schooner (Jra'-'^ !,. I'l.ars; ('apt. William H. Collins, si'hooner Lucy K Fricinl; Cspt. John A. Griilin. schooner Lizzie Gritllt\; Capt, William N. Wells, schoon r Bessie N. Wells; Capt. Tlionias Bohlin, schooner .John G. Whit- tier, Capt. Thomas Jones, schooner Alice .'^. liiiwkes; Cnpt. William T. Lee, schooner Sarah E Lee; Capl. Ili'iiry F. Brown, schooner Eilith Conley ; ('apt. Amos N. Km klifl'e, schooner Frank A. Itacklifl'e; Capt. Stephen B. Cole, schooner Lelia Nor- ■wood; ('apt. Nathaniel tirecnlcaf, schooner Lizeie J. Greenleaf; Capl. O. B. Fitch, pchnoner i>!ivy (^-ocketl; (^npt Marian Eaton, schooner Electa A. ICalon ; (^ipt. SVdsonCaiioon, schooner Flora Dllloway ; ('apt. Frank H. Hall, schooner Fannie Bell; Capt. Wm. H. Thomas, schooner My.stic; (Jnpt. Edward Stujileton, schooner Cham[)ion; Capt. Dan'el .McKinnon, schooner Minne« BOta; Capt. John A. McDonald, schooner \V. \V. Kice; Capt. Thomas Lewis, schooner Win^jed Arrow; Capt. Peter McAuley, schooner A. E. Whyland ; Capt. ThonmsGood win, schooner Lot- tie P. Morton; Capt. (Jliver Collins, scliooner Robert J. ICdwards ; Capt. Pius McPhee, huhooner David A. Story ; Capt. D. S. Nicker- son, schooner William H. WellinKton; Capl. Hanson Joyce, sU*amer Novelty; Capt. Edward W. Hull, schooner !\Iartlia A. Bradley; Capt. D. E. Collins, schoonerGrampus; Capt. Wdli«m Grant, schooner David Low; (Japt. Sttli S. Nickerson, schooner Sarah P. Ayer; Capt. .John E. Siifsworth, schooner Anne and Mary; Capt. Maurice Whalen, schooner Fannie W. Freeman; Capt. Frank WriBht, schooner Magnolia; Capt. Otto Johnson, schooner Loring B. Haskell: Capt. Osborne Maguire; Capt. Al- bert Henrdick.son, schoomT Brunhilde; Capt. T. F. Hodgdon, schooner Ralph F. Hodsrdon; Capt. .lames A. McKlnnon, schoonet Ada M. Hall ; Oapt. Charles Niite, schooner Fernwood ; Capl. Ml ilii Hi BOAR- m w John PaRo, sohooiicr Concord ; Oapt. Jerome B. McDonald, Hcooner Monitor; ('apt. Adkiis (/ainpbell, soliooner AiiKUstu E. Ilerric'k; Capl. Andrew McKenzie. »i;liooii«'r Senator Hau'sbiiry ; f'lipt. Oeorgt- M. Mijoner I. J. Alcrritt, jr.; Cni>t. LoringK. NaiisH, Helionnet Uclle A. Nauss ; Cnpt. Frank (varrotl, Hchooncr Warren J. (Irosby; Ciipt. AuKUstii^' Hall, schooner Anna K. Cannon ; ('apt. AU-xunder Trench, schooner Marion Grimes; Capt. Franlt KoMtcr, schooner Knmli Foster; Capt. Kdward Trevoy, ncliooner Edward Trevoy; Capt. Joseph Ifyan, scliooner A. 1). Story; Capt. Willioin Mi*, guiro, Mchoert^. schooner Vesta; Cupt. John (4. Oetchell. schooner Vinnie M. Oetchell; Capt. John Tavener, schooner Afattie Winship; ("apt. Zeniis Urown.scliooner Morrill Boy; ('apt. Thomas Thompson, schooner Edward Ever- ett; Capt. John Coney, schooner Lizzie; Capt. A. J. Burnhara, schooner Kobin Hood; Capt. Kdward CoSKrove, schooner Alert; Capt. Willard G. Pool, schooner George F. Edmunds; Capt. AVilliam Kiff, schooner Fleetwinpr; Capt. B. F. Payson, schooner S. F. Afaker : Capt. Charles B«irchart, schooner William M.i^aff- ney; Capt. Kdward Groves, schooner Edward P. Boynton ; Capt. Colin Chisholni, schooner J. W. Campbell ; Capt. CharlesSmith, schooner Fmance ; Capt. John McDonald, schooner Farmer R. Walker; Capt. John McDonnell, schooner Scud. G. Resolntlons adopted by the New York Board of Trade and Transportation, at the monthly mectini;, March 14, 1S8M. v. THE FISHKBT TREATY. Whereas Canada, under a forced interpretation of the treaty of 1818, (which was .luperceded by tho^e of !,s;W and 1871,) has sought by unjust seizures of American fi.shing ves.sela to compel the United States to admit salt llsli free of duty ; and f Whereas the United States Commissioners appointed to negotiate a just and equitable treaty for the settlement of the llshcrie.-^ciucstion have reported a form of treaty which is unjust and inenuitable, iiiHsmuch as it deities to Americans (unless purcha.sed bymaklnB flsh free of duty) the same rights which wel conddent that If thU treaty in thna considered it will not receive the approval of the Senate, the c<>-(>rdi)\nlel>ranoh of the treaty-makinR power. Reaolctd, That if the Canitd Ian Government should persi.st in nnjust treatment of Amerieiin lishinK veHsels, it eaii only have the crt'eet U> iiilerfere with and do- lav the closer commercial relations l>etween the United -'lates and Canada wni(^h HO many persons ii> both countries would be k\».A to siha uon-iutninated, and If continueil will incviiibly result in a (freuter or less deiroe of nun-inter- course for which our laHt t/onjfress unanimously conferred authority upon the President. lirsolcfd. That copies of these resolutions be transntitted to the President and Beiiate and to such other person;! oa the executive committee nttiy direct. H. [Resolution of Gloucester Board of Trade.] OL00CK8TER, Mxas., April 26, 18811. To Hon. Geobqb F. Hoar: At a meeting of the Gloucester Board of Trade held this raorninR, .Joseph O. Proctor, president, presiding, the fiillowlni; resolution was presented by Charles H. Pew, esi|.. and unanimously adopted : liftolved, Tliat the proposed Chamberlain treaty is detrimental to the interests of the United States as a people, and injurious to its honor and dignity as a na- tion, and outfht not to be ratitied. CYRUS STORY, Stcretary. [Resolutions of the American Fishery Union.] Whereas the present national interest in the matter of the American tlsheriea has oftentimes been subjected to unfavorable criticism by reason of the facts being misunderstood, the American Fishery Union desires to place upon record tneir position in the following resolution: Kenotved, Thai, in common with other producing industries of the country, we ask of the General Government neither subsidy nor bounty, but simply equal protection. Resolved, That we have neither asked nor sought the intervention of any com- mission, mixed or otherwise, to detine our just rights on the high peas or in for- eign ports, but have appealed to our own Government to maintain the integ- rity aiir>rts and markets afforded Canadian ves- sel.s is in marked contrast to that afforded American vessels in (Canadian ports when sailing under papers issued by the United Slate,.s Government, conferring all rights and privileges upon them, and that a refusal on the part of the (.-ana- dian Government to reeournize such papers bearing the .seal of the United States is an act of non-intercourse, and justifies retaliation. J. [Notice of Louis Henry Davies, extracted from Appleton's Biographical Dic- tionary.] Davies, Louis Henry, Canadian statesman, born in Charlottetown, Princo Edward Island, May 4, 184i>. lie was educaleil at the Central Academy and Prince of Wales College, Charlottetown, and was admitted to the bar in 186(5. He was solicitor-general of his native province in IHO'.l, and again in 1872-'73; was the leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly until September, 1875, when he became premier and attorney-genera', which portfolios he retained till 1879, when his administration resigned. He was elected to the local legis- lature in 1872, and re-elected from time to time till 1879, when he was defeated. In 1882 he was elected to represent Queens County, Prince Edward island, In the Dominion Parliament, and still (issfi) repre.sentsthat constituency. Ho was counsel for the tenantry of Prince Edward Island before the land com- mission, which sat in lS7&-'76 when the estates of all proprietors in the Island ii| u A i fc j 68 ilfilii!! were exproprinted by ^he yrovlnce. He w i» also one of the counsel represent" Ing Qruat Britiviii before the internationi.l fishery commission which sat at Halifax, Nova St^otia, in 1S77, under arliulc» t>f the Washington treaty. He la • Liberal. K.- [Articles X and XI of the proposed fisheries treaty.] Akticle X. United States fishing^ vessels enterinsi the buys or harbors referred to in Arti- cle I uf this treaty, shall conform to harbor regrulaMons common to them and to fishing; vessels of Canada or of Newfoundland. They need not report, enter, or clear, when piittintj into such bays or harbors for shelter or repairing diiinatfes, nor when piittirijjf into the same, outside tho limits of established port-s of entry, for the purpose of purchasing; wood or of ol)- taininit water ; except tliat any such vessel reniainin); more tliim twenty-four hours, exclusive of Sundays and lej^al holidays, within any such port, or oom- municatiiiK with the shore therein, may be retiinred to report, enter, or clear; and no vessel shall be excused hereby from giving due information tobDardinjf officers. They shall not be liable inany sueh bays or harbors for compulsory pilotage; nor. when therein lor tlio purpose of slielter, of repairiiijj damages, of pun'lias- Ing wgo(K; or of obtaining water, sliail they t)e liable for harbor ilues, tonnage dues, bu(^ dues, liglit dues, or other similar dues ; but tliis enumeration shall not permit oth'ir charges ineonsihtent wilh the enjoyment of the liberties re- served or secured by tlie convenlion of October 20, 1818. Article XI. United States fishing vessels entering the ports, bays, and harbors of the easlern and northeastern coasts ol Canada or of the coast.s of Newfoundland under jitrosM of weather «)r other casualty may unload, reU)ad, Iranssliip, or sell, subject to iiisloms laws and regulations, all fish on l)oard, when such untoalien as are ordinarily sold to trading vessels shall l^e granted to United States fishing vessels in such porU4, promptly upon application a>id witiiout charge, and such vessels, having obtained licenses in the manner aforcaid, shall also be accorded upon all occasions such facilities for the purchase of casual i>r needful provisions nnd supplies as are ordinarily granted to the trading vessels; but such provisions or supplies shall not be obtained by bar- ter nor purchased for resale or tradle. A list of American vessels seized, detained, or warned off from the Canadian ports during the last year. 1. Sarah B. I'utnam. — Beverly, iVIass.; t'haries Randolph, master. Driven from harbor of I'ubnico in storm Marcii 22. ISStj. 2. .Joseph Story, -(iloiiceslcr, Mass. Detained by oustorasotticers at Baddeck, Nova Scotia, in Ao.il, 188fi, for alleged violations of the customs laws. Ueleased after lw, for alleged violation of customs laws. Suit was instituted in vire-admiralty court at Halifax, Nova Scotia, but was subserpiiMitly abandoned, and vessel released June 21i, I88(>. 8. .lennie and Julia.— Kustpiu-t. .Me.; V>'. II. Travis, master. Warned off at Digl»y, NovaSeotia, by cusl<.ins olUcers. May Is, 188t). l». Lui'v Ann. — (iloucester, Mass.; .loseph H, Smitli, master. Warned off st Yarmouth, Nova tScotia, May 29, 188fi. 69 10. Mkitthew Keany. — Gloucester, Mass. Detained atSourla, Prince Edward Island, one day for alleged violation (.fciistonis laws, about May 31, 18s6. 11. .lanicM .\. Oarfield. — liloiioestfr. Mar>.s. Tlireiitened, about June 1, 1886, ■with seizure for havin>{ purchiisef' lit in a Canadian harbor. 12. Martha W. Uradly. — (Jloucc- Ma-*s.; J. K. Ventier, master. Warned off atC'anHu. Nova Scotia," between Jui. I and H. 1KS6. 1.3. Elizii Boynton. — GlouccHler, Mass.; George E. Martin, master. Warned off at (.'anso, NovaHcotia, between June 1 and 9, IS86. Then afterwards detained in inimncr not reported, and released October 25. M8<). 11. Mascot. — (ilonce.ster, Musm. ; Alexander MeKaehern, master. Warned off at I'ort Amherst, Magdalen Islands, .June 10, 18H»). 15. Thomas F. Hayavi I — Gloucester, .Mass, ; Junie-« McDonald, master. Warned od' lit Bonne Hay. Ne.\ 'f-undland, .Tune 12. 18H0. It). .lames O.t'raig. — i^ortlund. Mo. ; Webber. : Mister. Crew refused privilege- of landing for necessaries at Urooklyn, Nova .Seotia, .tune 15 or 16, IHHii. 17. City Point. — I'ortland, Me. ; Keene, muster. Delainedat Hhelburne, Nova Scotia. July 2, 1RS6, for alleged violation of on-lonis laws. Penalty of $i(H) de- nuiiided. Money deposited, under protest, July 12, and in addition $VM costw deposited .Tuly 14. Fine and costs refunded July 21. and vessel released .\ugu.st 2i'>. Harbor dues exacted August 2ti, notwithstanding vessel had been refused all the privileges of entry. M. C. P. Harrington. — Portland, Me.; Prellick, master. Detained at Shel- V^nrne, Nova Scotia, July 3, 1886, for alleged violation of enstums laws; fincii f^oo.Tuly 5; line deposited, under protest,, fuly 12; $120 cost« deposited July 14; refunded July 21, and vessel neleased. 19. Hereward. — Glouccsler. Mass. ; Mol^onald, master. Detained two days nt Can.so, Nova Scotia, about July 3, 18,86, for shipping seamen contrary to port laws. 20. G. W. Cushing. — Portland, Me.: Jewett, ma.ster. Detained July (by an- other report, June) 3, 1886, at iShelburne, Nova Scotia, for alleged violation of the customs laws; fined 8t(X); money deposited with collector at Hulifiix abmit July 12 or 14, and $120 for costs deposited 14th ; costs refunded July 21, and ve.s- sel released. 21. Golden Hind. — Gloucester, Mass.; Uuben Cameron, master. Warned off at Hay of . 24. itettler. — Gloucester, Mass.; A. F. Cunninglvam, master. Warned offal Can.so, Nova Scotia. June. 18,8ii. Detained in port of .Shelb\irne, Nova Scotia, where vessel entered seeking shelter August3, 1886. Kept under guard all night and released on the 4th. 2.">. Caroline Vought. — Booth Bay, Me. ; Charles S. Uecd, master. Warned otT at Paspebiac, New Mrnnswiok, and refused w,.ier, .Vngusl 4 Imsc, 26. Shiloh. — Gloucester, Mass. ; (Jharles Nevit, nnsiei-. Bo.irded at l>iverpool, Nova Scotia. August 0. and subjected to rude surveilhiiice. 27. Julia ICIIen.— Booth Buy, Me.; Bnrncs, mu-'ler l!r)arde line. Suit for forfeiture begun in vice a. Moro Castle. — Olouoestcr. Mas-i. : ICilwin M. Joyoe, iim.ster. Detained at Hawkesbur.v, Nova Si-otia. Septenibcr II, isw(>, on cliiirpre of haviti-r mmiyrpU'il goods into tlhenter. Nova .^cotia, in !KH-l,niKl also nf* violatin^eiistoins laws. A. deposit of 8I,'), on payment, by agreement, of Sl.'K") to Canadian Govern nicnl. 37. William I). Daisley. — (iloufesier, Mass.; .1 lo. Uorman. master. Detained at Honris, Prince ICdward Island, Ontober 4, IHSti, for alleged vioialioa of cn»- totiis law. KIned S-KKl, and relea.sed on payment; frC** of the tine remitted, 3S. Laura Suyw:ird. — (floneester, Ma.ss.; .Merleo liose, uia-iter Kefused priv- ilege of lanrliiig to buy provisions at Shelbiirne Nova Soolia. O tober 5, l.H,SCi 39, Marion (Jrimes. — (iloueest^r. Ma,s.s. Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, Octoljer'.), for viulalion of (lort laws in failing lu repirl at cnstom-lioiise on en-' teriiig. Fined SliK), Money paid under protest and ves,sel released. Vhw re- mitted Dt'cembcr 4, IJiSli. 40, Jennie Seaverns — Gloucester, Mass.; Joseph Tiuiper. master. Refused privilege of landing, and ve.s^sel placed under guard at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, Octobi-r '.'K. l.S.'oner, Decemlier, 18.%. 43. Uoat (name unknown), — Stephen II. IJalcom, master, Ra.stpcrt, Mo. Warned otlal.si. Andrews, New Brunswick, July 'J, 18'<0, with others. 44. T'..'o small boats (unnamed), — (Jlitirles Smith, Pembroke, Me., master. Seized at Ka.st Qimddy, New Brunswick, September 1, IHJiij. for alleged viola- tion of customs laws. 45. Druid (foreign b'dlt). — Gloucester, ivraas. Seized, warned o(f, or molested otherwise at some time prior to September fi, 188G. 46. Abbey A, Snow. — Injury to this vessel has not been reported to the Depart- ment of State. 47. Eliza A.Thomas. — Injury to this vessel has not been reported to the Do- pa •tment of State. 4.i. Wide Awake. — Kastport, Me. ; William Foley, maater. Fined at L'Rtang, Ne'.v Brunswick, tf75 for taking away fish without getting a clearance; again No 'ember 13, 1880, at St. George, New Brunswick, fined $20 for similar olleuse. Itj both eawes he was procec'Hing to obtain clearances. 49. Eliza A. Thonies (schooner). — Portland, Me.; K. S. Bibbs, master. Wrecked on Nova Scotia shore, and unable to obtain assistance. Crew not permitted to land or to save anything until permission was received from captain of cutter. Canadian ollicials placed guard over (ish .saved, and everything saved fri>ui wreck narrowly escaped contl.scation. (From sttUemenis of C. D. Tliomes, owner, Portland, Me.) .'jO. Christian Kllsworth (schooner). — Eastport, Me.: James Ellsworth, master. Entered Port Hastings, Cape Brelon, fiu' wood ; anchored at 10 o'clock, and re- ported at custom-house. At 2 o'clock was Iwardoii by captain of cutter Hector and ordered to sea, be'iig forced to lejive without wood. In every harbor en- tered was refused privilcgeof buying anything. Anchored under lee of land in no harbor, but was compelled toenter at cusiom-house. In no two harbors were the fees alike. (From statements of James Ellsworth, owner and waster, £B«tport, Me.) 51. Mary W. Whorf (schooner). — Wellfleet, Mass.: Sliiion Berrio, master. In July, 1886, lost seine oil' North C^ape, Prince ICdward Island, and not allowed to make any repairs on shore, causing a broken voyage and a long delay, Kan short of provisions, and being denied privilege of buying any on land, had to obtain from another American vessel. (From statements of Freeman A. Snow, own"'. WdlKleet, Mass,) 52. Stowell .Sherman (schooner).— Provineetown, Masi*. ; S. F. Hatch, master. Not allowed to purchase neee.syary supplies, and obliged to rei:M)rt at custom- houses, situated at distant and inconvenient places ; ordered out of harbors in stress of weather, namely, out of t'ascuiiipec Harbor, Prince Edward Island, nineteen hoiirK after entry, a:'d outof Malpeque Harbor. Prince Edward Island, tlfteen hours after entry, wii. then blowing too hard to admit of fishing, l-io- turned liome with bri>ken trip, (From slalenicnta of Samuel T. Hatch, owiier and imisler, Provineetown, Mass.) ^i. Walter L. Rich (sehooner).— WclKleet, Mass.; Obadiah Rich, master. Oi^ dercd out of Malpeqiie, P. E. 1., In unsuitable weather lor fishing, having been In harbor only twelve hours. Denied right to purchase provisions. For<:ed to enter at custom-house at Port Hawkesbury. C. I!., on Sunday, collector fearing^ tbatvewel would leav* before Monday and ho would thereby lose his fee. (From BtAiteiaenta of Obadiah Uicb, owner anu .Daater, WellUeet, Maaa.) M. Bertha P. Nicker^on C«o1innnev). — IJooth Pivy.Mf : V. V.. Niclcpfoii. iiiasler. .)«i-asioii';d <;<>n.~iiierrtble «>X|)t'nHe by Deiug tli-iii^d Oiiiuiiliaii liirlxirn to pvt- cure crew, ami deliiined iM «priiiK while wnitinji f' buying pi«>vini(>iis iti iH)rt.>4 »>ii IJiiy 8l. I^awreni'C, and 111 cniiwe for lioine wiLli liaUa car;.;<>. Made liarbor at Slii'lhiirtie. X<>vn Scolia. In liice dC ^tu;;!i tlie l)a'- rometer wn,« \'ery low and a --torm ininiineiit, ve.ssel was forced to leave. Soon met tlie lieiivy ^rsili'. wliicli split sails, cjiiming con.sideral)le "i»e, Me.; II. .J. Niimin, master. July 20, 1.SS6, entered I'ort Latour, N. H., for shelter and wafer. Whs ordered immediately to sea. (From statements of U.J. Nunan, owner and master, ^ape Porpoise, .\H!.) 57. Nellie M. Snow (schooner). — Wellfleet, Mas.s. ; A. R. Snow, master. Was not allowed to pur<;liasa provisions in any Canadian ports, crto relit and land and ship tish, consequently comiielled to leave for home witii a broken trip. Nut permitted to renniin in ports longer tlian local Canadian oHieials saw fit. (Prom statements of J. C. Young, owner, Wellfleet, Mass.) 58. fiertradeHnmmors(sehooner). — Wellfleet, Mass.; X.S. Snow, master. Re- fused privilege of purcOuvsini; provisions, whicli resulted iu injury to voyage. Found harbor ret;'nlatioiis uncertain. Sometimes could remain in port twj-nty- four hours, again was orderefl out in three hours. (From statements of N. H. Snow, owner and ma.stcr, Wellfleet. Mass.) 59. Charles K Wasliington (schooner) — WcIllteet.Masa.; Je.sseS. Snow, master. Master was informed by collector at Ship Harbor, C. H., that if he lioughl pro. visions, even if actually necessary, he would be subject to a fine of S^tfK) lor each ofTense. Refused periui.ssion by the idf of Ht. I,awr' ice to avoid tine of JjiliHlfor landing two men in the port of Malpecjue, Prince l-Alwanl Isla-ml. Whs denied nil supplies, except ■wood and water, in same port. iFrom statements of N. W. Freeman, owner and master, Provineetown, Mass.) 61. Zephyr (schooner). —I'astport. Me.; Warren Pulk, master, ('lear^d from Eastport May 81, IHHi, under register for West sles. Now lirunswiek, to buy herrmg. Collector refusi i to enter vessel, tell : g captain Hint if lie bought fish which were plenty at the time, tlie vessel wuuld he seize t Returned to Eastport, losing about a week, whieli resulted in considerable loss to owner and crew. (From statements of Guilford Milcliell, own'hi, lOtisiport, Me.) 62. Abdon Keeno (schooner). — Bremen, Jle.; WilliumC. Keene, master. Waa not allowed to ship or land crew at Nova Scotia ports, and owner liad to pay for their iransportation to Maine. (From Hiatenientsof William C. Keene, owner and master, Ibenien, Me.) 63. William Keene (schooner). — Portland, Me. ; Daniel Kimball, master. Not allowed to .suii> a man or to send a man ashore except for water, at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, and ordered to sea as soon as water was obtained. (From state- ments of Henry Trefethen, owner, Peak's Island, Me.) 64. John Nye (schooner). — Swan's Island, Me.; W. h. Joyce, master. After paying entry fees and harbor duel was not iillowed to buy provisions at Mal- pewner and mas- ter, Welllloea, Ma.^H.) 70. OliarlesF. Atwood (scliooner). — Wellfleet, Mass.: Michael Burrows, master. Captain was not porniitted to relit veHset or to buy supplies, and wlion out of fiood lirtd to return home. Found Canadians disposed to harass liitn and put him to many ineonvenienuies. Not Hllmved to laml seine on Canadian sliore for purpose of re|^ni^ill^t same. (From statements of Michael Burrows, owner and master, WelUleet, Ma-ss.) 71. Ciertie May (schooner). — Portland, Me. ; I. Douu'hty, master. Not allowed. tbuuKl> provided with permit to touch and trade, to pureliase fresh bait in Nova Scotia, and driven from harbors. (From slate uients of Charles F. OuptiU, owner, Portland, Me.) 72. Margaret 8. Smith, (schooner). —i'ortland. Me.; I^incohi W. Jewett, mas- ter. Twice compelled to return home from Bay of St. Lawrence witli broken trip, not bein< able to .secure provisions to continue fisninij. Incurred many petty inconveniences in repard to customs regulations. (From statements of A. iM. Smith, owner, Portland, Me.) 73. Elsie M. Suiitli (scluionert.—Portlnnil, Me.; Fnoch Bultjer, master. Came home witli half fare, not beins able to kcI provisions Icj continue fishing. Lost seine in a heavy gale rather than beannoyerl l)y euslonis reffulutions when Beeking shelter. (From statements of A. .VL Smith, I'orlland. Me.) , 74. Fannie A. Si>urling(schooner). — I'ortland.Mc.; (;.tleb Parri-*, master. Sub- ject to many annoyances, and obliged to return lionie with a half fare, not being able to procure provisions. (From statements of .\. .M. Smith, owner, Portland, Me.) 75. Carleton Bell (schooner). — Booth Bay, Me. ; .S.'th W. JCldridge, muster. Occasioned considerable expense by bein^" denied ri^^ht to procure crew in Ca- radinn harbors, and detHiniMJ in spring while wailing for men to oinne from Nova Scotia. (From statements of S. Nickerson & Sons, owners. Booth Bay, Me.) 76. Ahliie M. Oeering (schooner). — Portland, Me. ; Kmory Gott, master Not being able to procure provisions, obi isred to return home with a third q^ a fare of mackerel. (From statements of A. M. Smith, owner, Portland, Me.; 77. Cora Loni.sa (schooner). — Booth Ba.v. Me.; Olied Harris, easter. Could get no provisions in Canadian ports, ancl had to return home before getting f'lll fare offish. (From stall men's of S. Nickerson & ."^ons, owners, B, Ih Bay, Me.) 7H. Eben l>ale (schooner). — North Haven, Me. ; R. O. Rabbid.ge, master. Not perniitU'd I.) bu.v bail, ice, or to trade in any way. Oriven out of harbors, and nnreasiinnble restrictions whenever near the land. (From statements of U. O. Babliidge, owner and master. Pulpit Harbor, Me.) 7!*. (Jbarles Haskell («cho<)ner). — North llavcn, Sle. ; Daniel Thurston, master. Oliligid to leave (< nil" of .St. Lawrence at considerable loss, not being allowed to buy provisions. (From statementsof <'. .S. Staples, owner. North Haven, Me.) H{). Willie Parkman (schooner). — iS'orth Haven, Me. ; William H. Banks, mas- ter. Unable to get sui)plie,s while in <.iul:' of .St. Lawrence, which necessitated returning home at great loss, with h liroken voyage, (.From statements of Willi;im H. Banks, owner and master. North Flavon, Me.) 8L D. I). Geyer (■ichooner). — Portland, Me.; .John K. Craig» master. Jibing re- fused privilege of touching at> a Nova .Scotia port to take on resident crew al- ready engaged, owner whs obliged to provide passage for men to i^ortland, at considerable cost, cjiusiiig great loss of time. (From statements of F. H. .for- dan, owner, Portland, Me.) 82. Good Templar (s(^hooner). — Portland, Me.; EliasTarlton, master. Touched at La Have. Nova Scotia, to take on crew already engaged, but was refused privilege andordered to proceed. The men being indispensable to voyage, had them efore seourlng a full cargo, not being permitted to purchase pro- ▼ifsions in Nova .Suotia. (From atatementa of 8. Nickerson & Sons, owners. Booth Bay, Mo.) 73 Me.) iias- itcd of 86. Naiad (schooner). — Lubeo, Me Walter Kennedy, master. Presented frontier license (heretofore acceptable) on arriving at Ht. George, New Bruns- wick, but collector would not recognize same ; was couijielled to return to East- fiort and clear under register before being allowed to purchaHe herring, thus o.iing one trip. (From statements of Walter Kennedy, uiaster, Lubec, Me.) 87. LouL^a A. Grout (schooner). — Provincetown, Mass. : .losepli flatch, jr., master. Took f)ermit to touch atid trade ; arrived at St. Peter's, Cape llreton, in afternoon of May 19, 1886; enteredandoleared accordingto law; wasobliged to take inexpertencied men at their own prices to completw Ashing crew, to get .to sea hefore the arrival of a seizing oflicer who had started from Straits of Cansoat 5 o'clock same afternoon in search of vessel, having been advised by telegraph of the ahipjiing of men. (From slatements of Joseph Hatch, jr., owner and master, Provincetown, Ma.SuS ) 88. Lottie B.Hopkins (schooner). — Vinal Haven, Me. ; Kmery J. Ho|)k!ns, master. Refused permission to buy any article of food in Canadian ports. OI>- tained shelter in harbors only by entering at custom-house. (From statement of Emery .1. Hopkins, North Haven, Me.) 89. Florine F. Nickerson (schooner). — Cliathiim. Mans.; Nathaniel E. Eldridge, master. Engaged fisliermen for vessel at Liverpool, Nova Scolia, but action of Canadian Goverimient neces.sitated the paying of their trunr4p>ortation to the United States and loss of time to vessel while waiting their arrival ; otherwise would have called for them on way to Hshing grounds. Ueturning, touched at Liverpool, but immediately on anchoring Canadian ot>lcials came al>(>ard and refused permission for men to go ashure. Captain at once signittcd his inten- tion of immediately proceeding on passage, but ottlccr prevented his de)>arture until he had reported at custom-house, vessel being thereby detained two days. (From stalciiienl of Kendrick <$t Hearse, owners, South Harwich, Mass.i SK). B. B. U. (sloop). — lOu.stport, >re.; George W. ("opp, master. Oblige. Ripley Ropes (schooner),— Southport, Me.; C. E. Hare, master. Vessel ready to sail when tehTiram f-om aulhoritlrs nt Ottawa refused |)erniission to tf)uch at Canadian ports to !?hip men; consciiucntly obligid to pay for their transportation to Maine, and vessel orl, Me.) 97. .fennie Armstrong (scliooner). —Sonthport, Me.; .\.0. Webber, master. Ves- sel ready to sail when telegram from authorities of Ottawa refused permission to touch at Canadian ports to ship men ; eonse8. Vanguard (schooner). — Southport, Me, ; C. C. Dyer, master. Vessel ready to sail when telegram from authorities refused permission to touch at Canadian ports to ship men; consequently obliged to pay for their transportation to Maine, and ves.sel detained while awaiting their arrivaL (From statements of Freeman Orne & Hon, owners, Sonthport, Me.) 99. Electric Flash (schooner). — North Haven, Me. ; Aaron Smith, master. TTn- uble to obtain supplies in ('anadian ports and obliycd to return home before obtaining full cargo, (From statements of Aaroa Hinith, master and agent. North Haven, Me.) r 74 100. IJanlel Simmons (scliooner).— Swan's Islnnil, Me.; John A. Gott, master. Compelled to go without necessary outHtwIiile HsliinK i" Gulf of St. Lawrence. (From statements of M. Stinipson, owner, Swan'.H lslaneingin the waters of Canada for the purpose of altordint; protection to ller Majesty's subjects euKUt^ed in the flsli- eries, or any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's navy, fishery officer, or stipendiary maK!s*rate on board of any ves.sel belonging to or in the service of thegovernment of Canada and emplo.vedln the service of protecting the fislier- ies, or any officer of the customs of Canada, sherilf, justice of tlie peace, or other per.son duly commissioned for that purpose, may go on hoard of any ship, vessel, or boat within any Iiarlmr iu Canada or hovering in British waters within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts. Imys, creeks, or iiarliors in Canada, and stay on board so long as she remains witliin such harbor cr distance. 3. Any one of the officers or persons liereinbefore mentioned may bring any ship, vessel, or boat, being witliin any harbor in Canada, Or hovering in British waters witliin 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors in Canada, into port and search her cargo, and may also examine tlie master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and if the master or person in command does not truly answer the questions put to him in sucli exumination. he shall Incur a penalty of S40(»; and if such ship, vessel, or boat is foreign, or not navi- gated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Cuiiuda, and (a) lias been foiind iisiiing, or preparing to tisli,orto liavebeen Hshingin British waters within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or hnrlwrs of Canada, not included within the hbove-nientioned limits, without a license, or after the expiration of tlie term named in the last license granted to such sliip, vessel, or boat under the first section of this act, or{b) lias entered sucli waters lor any pur- pose not permitted by treaty or convention, or by any law of the United King- dom or of Canada for the time-being in force, such sliip, vessel, or boat, andtha tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof sltall be forteited. 4. All goods, ships, vessels, and boats, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furni- ture, stores, and cargo liable to forfeiture under this act may be sei/^ed and se- cured by any officers or persons mentioned in the second section of this act ; and every person opposing any officer or person in tlie execution of liia duty under thisoct, or aidingor al)ettinK any other person in any such opposiliajH, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to a fine of S- lie auction, by direction of tlie officer who lias the custody tliere«)f under the provisions of the next preceding section of this act, and under reguliitions made, from time to time, l>y the governor in council; and the proceeds of every such sale shall be subject to the control of the minister of rimrine and fisheries, who shall first pay thereout all necessary costs and expenses of custody and sale, and the governor in council mny,fi'oiii lime to tinic,apportiui> tlaec-('ourth.s,or less, of the net remainder among the officer.s and ercw of any of Her Majesty's ships or Canadian Government vessel from on hoard of which the seizure was made. Bis he thinks right— reserving to the Crown and paying over to the minister or finance and receiver-gencnl at least one-fourth of such net remainder, to form part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada; but the governor in council may nevertheless direct that any good vessel or boat, and the tackle, rintint, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo, seized and forfeited shall be destroyeu or be reserved for the public service. « « • « • « « 10. If a dispute arises as to whether any seizure has or has not been legally roade, or as to whether the person who seized was or was not authorized to hi'ize under this act, oral evidence may be taken, and the burden of proving tlie i li'gality of ihe seizure shall lie upon the owner or claimant. It. Xo eluim to anything seized under this act and returned into any court of VH'.e-admirally for adjudication shall be admitted unless the claim is entered ii...l