IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A/. 1.0 ll I.I i.25 IM 2.2 1.4 1.6 vg <^ /2 ^l. w C^ Photogmphic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ iV ^ o^ W., CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series, CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1 ^ ^ m TecKnical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meillsur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode norniale de fiima^se sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de coaleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^a □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicui6e □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul§es D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I y Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 1 \A Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes j yShowthrough/ ' ^ Transparence □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'imi: ipression □ Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire I y] Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion UlI along interior margin/ n La retiure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 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 ajoutdes lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsr,ue ceia dtait possible, ces pages n'ont oas 6t6 filmdes. n Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon i obtenir la meilleura image possible. n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldrrientaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux dti reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 29X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iteeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film^, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginnipg with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. Ail other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated irptes- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film^s en commencant 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 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporto une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► 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 ripht and top to bottodi, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate t^e 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 clich6. il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, on prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illus'.ent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Congress SOth 1st iSession. '\ SENATTi:. Ex. Doc. No. 113. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TUAN8M1TT1XG A letter of the Secretary of State^ with the correspondence relative to the proposed Jisheries treaty. "■ iN EXKCUTIVE ;SE88I0N, Senate ov the United States, March 5, 18.S8. Rcsolvid, That the mespage of the Presuleut of the «lato of March 5, lt<88, transniit- tiny the pro- lesfc enjoy- cuistomary ired in the It prior to latiou, and dministra- ly allusion u» and as tiust their tly should pplied by f the first by both II secure lid secure that in- American 8b North <1 ■ .' y ■ Hilt ■ M-- 'V. ■■.!',•;'■■,,. ■* ■ n<\' •' ■ ,■■ ' ■ biii i IftRT I P*>1 ' ■Vr;\ i :,7 •« Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. No. 458.] Department of State, Washington, November 12, 1886. Sru : • * * I liavo already written you askinj? whether from the Britisii foreign oflice you could obtain a copy of the report first madi^ by the ollicer in command of the Canadian vessel by whom the schooner David J. Adams was seized, and you will perceive from the reply of Mr. Graham, who represents the Canadian Uovornment in the suit in the vice-admiralty coui't at Ualifax, tluit he declines to promise to pro- duce the reports made by these ollicers.at the time of the seizure, in which the causes for such action would naturally be set forth. In the course of your correspondence or conversation witli Lord Id- dlesleiftii it might be well to draw his attention to the difficulties thrown in tJje way of tlie American fisherman in not being permitted to learn the nature anears that this method of Canadian procedure is belittling the important principles iivolved in the internation.il questi(m now under consideration between the Uuited (States and Great Britain. I am, utc.| T. F. Bayaed. No. 298. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps, No. 459.] Department of State, ' Washington, November 15, 188G. Sir: The season for taking mackerel has now closed, and I under- stand the marine police force of the territorial waters in British North America has been withdrawn, so that no further occasion for the ad- ministration of a strained aiul vexatious constrnction of tlie convention of 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, is likely for sev- eral months at least. During this period of comi)arativo serenity, I earnestly hope that such measures will be adopted by those charged with the administra- tion of the respective Governments as will prevent the renewal of the proceedings wittu'ssed during the jiasb fishing season in the ports and harbors of Nova Scotia, and at other points in the maritime ])rovinces of the Dominion, by which citizeuij of the United States engaged in THE riSHERlKS QUl'^STION. ft open sou flshinfj were subjected to mnch unjust and nn friendly treat- uuMit by the bxial autliorities in those regions, and thereby not ojily KutTcred serious loss in their lejjitiinato i)ursnit, but, by the fear of an- noyanee, whicii was conveyed to others liliewise employed, the general business of open-sea fishing by citizens of the United States was im- portantly injured. My instructions to you during the period of these occurrences have from time to time set forth their regrettable character, and they have also been brought ])romptly to the notice of .the representative of Her Majesty's Government at this capital. These representations, candidly and fully made, have not produced those results of checking the unwarranted interference (frequently ac- co;npanied by rudeness and an unnecessary demonstration of force) with the rights of our fishermen guarantied by express treaty stii)ulation8, and secured to them — as I confidently believe — by llie ))ublic conuner- cial laws and regulations of the two countries, and wliicli are demanded by the laws of hospitality to which all friendly civilized nations owe allegiance. Again I beg that you will invite Her Majesty's coui-^solors gravely to consider tlie necessity of preventing the repetition of con- duct on the part of the Canadian officials which may endanger the peace of two kindred and friendly nations. To this end, and to insure to the inhabitants of the Dominion the ef- ficient jirotection of the exclusive rights to their inshore fisheries, as provided by the convention of 1818, as well as to prevent any abuse of the privileges reserved and guarantied by that instrument forever to the citizens of the rjnited States engaged in fishing, and responding to tlie suggestion made to you by the Earl of Iddesleigh, in the month of September last, that a modus vivendi should be agreed upon between the two countries to prevent encroachment by American fishermen upon the Canadian inshore fisheries, and equally to secure them from all mo- lestation when exercising oidy their jnst and ancient rights, I now in- close the draft of a memorandum which you may propose to Lord Id- desleigh, and which, I trust, will be found to contain a satisfactory ba- sis for the solution of existing difliculties, and assist in securing an as- sured, just, honorable, and, therefore, mutually satisfactory settlement of the long- vexed question of the North Atlantic fisheries. I am encouraged in the expectation that the projiositions embodied in the memorandum referred to will be acceptable to Her Majesty's Gov- ernment, because, in the month of April, 18G0, Mr. Seward, then Sec- retary of State, sent forward to Mr. Adams, at that time United States minister in London, the draft of a protocol which in substance coincides with the first article of the proposal now sent to you, as you will see by reference to Vol. 1 of the U. S. Diplomatic Corresjiondence for 1806, p. 98 et seq. I find that, in a iiublished instruction to Sir F. Bruce, then Her Maj- esty's minister in the United States, under date of May IJ, 1866, the Earl of Clarendon, at that time Her Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, approved them, but declined to accept the final propo- sition of Mr. Seward's protocol, which is not contained in the memoran- dum now forwarded. Your attention is drawn to the great value of these three propositions, as containing a well defined and practical interpretation of Article 1 of the convention of 1818, the enforcement of which co-operatively by the two Governments, it may reasonably be hoped, will eflBciently remove those causes of irritation of which variant constructions hitherto have been so unhappily fruitful. ^ THE FISHERIES QUESTION. In propoRini^ the adoption of a width of ten miles at the month as ft nropci' delinitiun of tho ba.\'H in which, exc(>i>t on certain specitiud coaata. he tiHberuien of the United StatcH are not to take fi^h, I have followed /ue exauiplti fnriiiMhed by France and Great Britain in their convention bigned at Paris, on the 2d of Augnst, 1.S30. This definition was re- feired to and apjiroved by Mr. Bates, tho umpire of thecouiinission un- der the treaty of 1853, iu thecaseofthe United States fishing schooner Washington, and has since been notably approved and adopted in the convention signed at The Hague, in 1882, and subsequently ratified, in relation to fishing in the North Sea, between Germany, Belgium, Den- mark, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. The present memorandum also contains provisions for the usual com- mercial facilities allowed everywhere for the promotion of legitimate trade, and nowhere more fully than in British ports and under the com- mercial policies of that nation. Such facilities can not with any show of reason be denied to American fishing-vessels when plying their vocations in deep sea fishing grounds in the localities open to them equally with other nationalities. The convention of 1818 inhibits the "taking, drying,or curing fish" by American fishermen in certain waters and on certain coasts, and when these objects aie effected, the inhibi- tory features are exhausted. Everything that may presumably guard against an infraction of these i)rovision8 will be recognized and obeyed by the Government of the United States, but should not be pressed beyond its natural force. By its verj terms and necessary intendment, the same treaty rec- ognizes the continuance permanently of the accustomed rights of Anier- ican fishermen, in those ])laces not embraced in the renunciation of the treaty, to jjrosecute the business as freely as did their forefathers. No construction of the convention of 1818 that strikes at or impedes the open-sea fishing by citizens of the United States can be accepted, nor should a treaty of friendship be tortured into a means of such oflense, nor should such an end be accomplished by indirection. There- fore, by causing the same port regulations and commercial rights to be applied to vessels engaged therein as are enforced relative to other tiading craft, we propose to prevent a ban from being put upon the lawful and regular business of open-sea fishing. Arrangements now exist between the Governments of Great Britain and France, and Great Britain and Germany, for the submission in the first instance of all cases of seizure to the joint examination and decis- ion of two discreet and able commanding officers of the uavy of the re- spective countries, whose vessels are to be sent on duty to cruise in the waters to be guarded against encroachment. Copies of these agree- meuts are herewith inclosed for reference. The iulditional feature of an umpire in case of a difference of opinion is borrowed from the terms of Article 1 of the treaty of June 5, 1854, between the United States and Great Britain. This same treaty of 1854 contains in its first article provision for a ioint commission for marking the fishing limits, and i& therefore a nre- cedent for the present proposition. The season of lS8t> for inshore fishing on the Canadian coasts has come to an end, and assuredly no lack of vigilauce or promptitude iu making seizures ciin be ascribed to the vessels or the maiiue police of the Dominion. The record of their operations discloses but a single American vessel found violating the inhibitions of the conveution of 1818, by fishing withia three marine miles of the coast. The numerous seizures made h&ve been of vessels quietly at anchor in established THE FI9HEUIKS QUESTION. 7 ports of entry, nnder cb cges wbich, up to this day, liftvo not been par- tieularizeil 8nf!lciently to allow of an intelligent defense. Not one lias been condemned after trial and bearln{r, but many have been lined without hearing or judgment, for technical viofations of alleged com- mercial regulations, although all commercial privileges have been sim- ultaneously denied to them. lu no instance has any resistance been offered to Canadian authority, even when exercised with useless and irritating provocation. It is trusted that the agreement now proposed may be readily ac- cepted by Her Majesty's ministry. Should the Earl of Iddesleigh express a desire to possess the text of this dispatch, in view of its intimate relation to the subject-mat- ter of the niemorandum and as evidencing the sincere and cordial dis- position which prompts this proposal, you will give his lordship a copy. I am, sir, your obedieut servant, T. F. Bayaed. (Inolosnre 1 In No. 450.] Propoialtfor scttlemeni of all giie»(»on« in dispute in relation to the fiiheriei on the north' eOBtern coasts of British Xorth A vierica. Whereas in the first article of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, concluded and signed in London on the 20th of October, 1818, it was aj^reed between the high contracting partiis "that the inhabitants of tlie said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of tue southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cat'® Rny to the Raniean Islands, on the western and northern const of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Kay to the Qiiirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador to and through the StIbJts of Belleisle ; and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fl.sh in any of the unsettled bays, har- bors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, hero above de- scribed, and of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall nut be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or euro fish at such portion so settled without previous a^^reement for such picpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground;" and was declared that "the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, drv, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or haruors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits: Provided, hoirever, That the American fishermen shall be admitted to eirter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, and of re- pairing damages therein, of purcha.siug wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restriction as niiiy be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them ; " and whereas diflferenoes have arisen in regard to the extent of tlie above-mentioned renunciation, the Government of the ITnited States and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, being equally desirous of avoiding further misunderstanding, agree to appoint a mixed commission for the fol- lowing purposes, namely : (1) To agree upon and establish by a series of lines the limits which shall separate the exclusive from the common right of fishing on the coasts and in the adjacent waters of the British North American colonies, in conformity with the first article of the convention of 1818, except that the bays and harbors from which American iish- ermen are in the future to be excluded, save for the purposes for which entrance into bays and harbors is permitted by saiil article, are hereby agreed to be taken to be such bays and harbors as are iO or less than 10 miles in width, and the distance of 3 marine miles from such bays and harbors shall be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay or harbor, in the part nearest the entrance, at the first point where the width does not exceed 10 miles; the said lines to be regularly numbered, duly described, and also clearly marked on charts prepared in duplicate for the pur- pose. THE FISIIKRIKH QUKSTION. (2) To agrvei npnu miil nntnltliNli mu;)\ roguliitioiiH at n:r>..v bo iiouuHHnry ami iiropor to H«curo to the liHlioriiinn uf tliu Uiiitiul Mtiitcn tlio i)rivileKO <>f oiiteriiiK I>ii)'h iinil bnrbors for tho piirpoHO of shultiT uiul of rcixtiriiig ({itin(if{ioii iinil 4herrii()ii of tho United 8tatoH. (.1) To ngr*>o upon and rocoinniund thn ponalticH to bo adjiidfrod, and nnch procood- Ui^iH and jiirif'diction im may bo neceiwary to H«onro a Hpeedy trial and jndKniont with an litlh) (■xi)onN'> an ]ioHHiblo, for the violatorH of riKhtH and tho tranHgrt-HmtrH of thu liniitH and I'^HtriotioiiM which niav bo hereby adopted : Provided, .'lowover, that tho litiiitu, reBtrictions, and roffulatlons whjch may be aKreed upon by tho naid coininirtHion Hhall not be iiual, nor nave any ettoct until ho Jointly confirmed and declared by the United Utatea and llor MajoHty th.e Queeu of Great Uritaiu, either by treaty or by laws mutually ackuowledgod. Article II. ' < •' Pending a doflnitive arrangement on the flubject, Her Rritannio Majesty's Oovorn- ment agree to instrnct the proper colonial and other British otflcerii to abstain from Hoizing or moloHting (iHhing voshcIs of tho United States uuIdhh thoy are found within thn-o marine miles of any of th'. coadts, baj's, creeks, and liarbors of Ilor Britannic Majesty's dominions iu America, there tlshing, or to have boon llshing, or preparing to li.th within thuse limits, not inclu;■ Tlio niuU!rHij?netl commisRionorHdolnnfttod by tlioQovornmontnof Frnnoo nnil Oront Hrilaiii, !<> tlio cinl of Hottkiii^ — iijnirt from tlie trvatit^ti now in forctt \vlii(;li tliry aru iiof iiutlioi'i/.i'rl eitlier to nioilify orlo inturpri't — tin* inoann of pnivoiitinn ami Hnttliiij; • lillVn'nt'f'H ri'lativo to tlx) mho ol \\w lihliiwiei «):i tho coiistH of Nowfoundliiiiil, liavo drawn uji by uonnnon uvcord, nn ii.ciiiisud pvopcitlus, tbe wood ueo- eaaary for their dryiug-stages, cabins, aud fishiiig-vesseld. AUTICLE V. Tbe surveillance and police of the tishbrie.-) shall bo exercised by vusscls of the mil*- tary marine of the two countries, under the conditions hereiuui'ter laid down — the commanders of tbe crnisers having, under tbese conditions, soio authority and com- petence in all matters concerning the fisheries and the operations pertaining thereto. Article VI. The French and English fistiing vessels or boats shall be registered according to the administrative regulations of the country to whicl they belong, aud shall plainly carry distinctive murks permitting their identity to be ascertained from a distance. The captains, mastei's, or skippers Ipatrona'] shall carry papers to prove the nation- ality of their vessels or boats. Article VII. The commanders of the crnisers of e&ch nation shall mutnaily give information of infractions of the rales established by the foregoing article, which may be ammitted by the vessels or boats of the other nation. Article VIII. The crnising vei^ wis of the two countries shall be competent to ascertain an infrac- tions of existing treaties, parti(^alarly of the declr ration of 178^}, by the terms whereof the British sulvjects shall not "interrupt in any manner, by their competition, the fishery of the French during the temporary exercise of it which is granted to them, upon the coasts o the island of Newfoundland." : i!' . ,) Abticlb IX. Upon the < jmplaint of the French fiahermf^n, or upon their applloatirn for tno en- joyment o'' voeir fishing right, the comnianderIiij(>s- ty's cruising vessels, and in their absence by the comniandeis of the French crr.isers. In this latter case, the stat^^ment shall be admissible a.i evidence before the com manders of Her Britannic Majesty's cruiseis, in their capacity as magistrates in Administering Justice. 2 Article XI. , If an odTense is committed, or an injury caused, the commanders of the cruising vessels of the delinquent's nationality, and in their absence the commanders of the cruising vessels oi the plaiiikitTs nationality, shall estimate the gravity of the facts brought to their co(^ni2auc>^ aud assess the tlainage sutTered by tbe party aggrieved. They shall draw up, in the due cane, and accortling to the forms usual in their conn- try, statements in evidence of tho facts such as they shall appear, whether from the dfiolarations of the interested parties or from the teptimouy collected. THE FISHERIES QUESTION. mpetitiou, the tited to them, T^e statAmnnt sball be admisaible as evidence before the comtnanders of the cruis- ers f.f the delinquent's nationality, within the limits of their competence. If the case seem t« him aulHoiently grave to justify such a step, the commander of the cruising vewel of the plaintiff's uation>i» boat, in order to deliver them up to the coiu- oumdiers af ti>e «ruisiug vessels of their nationality. Article XU. The commanders of the English and French crnising vessels shall, within the limit of their competence, administer justice summarily Ifaire droit d'Hrgence} upon tbo complaints bront^bt biUore them, whether preferred (lirectly by the interested party or through the medinm of the commandu.'s of the cruioers of the other nation. Akticle XIII. Resistance to the orders or injunctions of the commanders of the crnising vessels charged with the police of the tisheries, or of persons acting under their orders, shall, without reference to the nationality of the cruiser, be deemed resistance to the competent authority to the end of repressing the act charged. Article XIV. When the act charged is not grave, but, nevertheless, shall hrvo occasioned dam* age, the commanders o.. the cruising vessels may adjust the dispute ^_ooneilUr'] be- tween the iuterestfad parties, and lix the indemnity to be paid, with the consent of the parties. Article XV. rhe French Qove~Qment renounces, for its citizens, the .salmon fishery in rnnning waters, and does not reserve tbe fishery for this fish, save at sea and in the mv?uths of rivers OS far as salt-wuter extends; but it is forbidden to set fixed barriers which may impede iuterual navigation or the free passage of fish. Article XVI. French fishermen shall be exempt from any tax upon the introduction into that part of the island of Newfoundland comprised between Cape St. JoLn and Cape Ray and to the northward of thoite capes, of all objects, materials, provisions, etc., neo- CHsnry to their industry, their subsistence, and their temporary establishment upon the coast of that Britannic possession. They shall, likewise, be exempt in that same part of the island, from all light- iiuutte, port, or other navigation dues. Abtic;-3 XVII. The French fishermen shall have the right to buy bait, herring and caplin, on land or tit sea, in tbe harbors of Newfonndland, without tax or impediment of any kind» after tbe 5th day of April of each year, and until the end of the fishing seacon! Article XVIII. The employment of French subjects, at the rate of one guardian, with his family, for each liarbor, is authorized iu order to guard tbe French establishments during the f Newfoundland, or'to erect any buildings there, besiiies stages nuule of boards and huts necessary and usual for drying of lisli, or to resort to the said island beyond the time necessary for fishing and drying of fish. But it shall be allowed to the subjcjcts of France to catch lish and to «lry them ori land, iu that part only, and in no otlier besid<'s that, of the said island of Newfound- land, which stretches from the j)liice called Cape Bonavista to tho northern jiiiint of •the said island, and from thence running down by the wester') side, reaches as far as the plaio called Point liicho. But tho island called 0a])0 Brotou as also all others. Loth iu the mouth of tho river of St. Lawrence and in the Guelj)!! of the same nnme, shall hereafter belong of right to the French ; and tho most Christian King shall have all manner of liberty to foriifv any place or places there. Done at UtrccUt, Slbt March (Uili April), 1713. ■ [l. 8.] John Bristol, C. P. S. [L. 8 J Strafford. [L. S.] * IIlIXELLES. [l. 8.] V Mesnagek. (2) Definitive treaty of peace between Great Britain and France. Signed at Paris, 'iOlh Feb- ruary, 17(53. i:' [Extract.— TratsLition.] V. Tho subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and drying, on a part of th«i coasts of the island of Newfoundlaud, such as it is spicified in Article 13 of tho treaty of Utrecht; which article is renewed and cunlirnu-d by the present treaty (except what relates to tho isliind of Cape Bretcui, as well as tho other islands and c(>asts in the mouth and iu the Crulpli of St. l>awreni;e). And his Britannic Majesty consents to leave to tin* subjects of tlm Most Christinu King tho liberty of fishing iu the (iMl)ih St. Lawrniceoii ci>nr the Continent as those of tho islands situat<;d iu thosaiFoun, C. r. S. [i,. 8.] C'iioi.ski;l, Duo dv Pranlin. [L. s.] El Makq. db Gkimaldi. PFOUNDLAND H MAY, IdH. th April, 1713. rom tins time ml fortress of lession of the change of tho Ciiiy, to those ly himself to the privy council of that king l>y whose governors or jr.dges the sentence has been given against him; but it js always to ho uiKlerstood that the liberty of navigation ought in no inunuer to be disturbed whero nothing id committed against the guuuiue auuse of thia treaty. 925G r E 87 28 fl' THE FISHEBIE8 QUESTION. ezeontion thereof with his luscnstomed good faitb. and panotoAlitj, bat will besidea give on his part all possible effioacy to the principles which shall prerent eren th« least foundation of diapnte for the future. To thia end, and in order that the fisherman of the two nations may not giro ot^nso fur daily qnarrels, HisBritannio Msijest^ will take the moat positive measnres for nr^ Tentine his subjects fi-om intermpting in any manner, by tneir competition, the fish- ery of the French during the temporary exercise of it wnioh is stanted to them upon the coasts of the island of Newfonndland; and he wilt, for this imrpoae, caose the fixed settlements which shall be found thereto be removed. His Britannic Majesty will give orders that the French fishermen be not incommoded in cuttii>g the wood necessary for the repair of their scafifolds, hnts, and fishing vessels. The thirteenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, and tho method of carrying on the fishery, which has at all times been acknowledged, shall be the plan upon waioh the fishery shall be carried on there ; it shall not bo deviated from by either party ; the French fishermen building only their scaffolds, confining themselves to the repair of their fishing vessels, and not wintering there; the subjects of His Britannic M^esty, on their part, not molesting, in any manner, the French fishermen during their fish- iug, nor injuring their scaffolds during their absence. The King of Great Britain, in ceding the islands of St. Pierre and Mi(|nelon to France, regards them as ceded for the purpose of serving as a real shelter to the French fishermen, and in full confidence that these possessions will not become an object of jealousy between the two nations ; and that the fishery between the said islands and that of Newfoundland shall be limited to the middle of the channel. Given at YeraaiJlea the 3d of September, 1783. [L. s.] Hanchestkr. (^ttNex2.) French counter-deolaration. Signed at Feraaillet 2d September, 1783. [EztrMt.] TIiH principles which have gnided the King, in the whole coarse of the negotiations which preceded the re-establi^ment of peace, must have convinced the King of Great Britain that His Majesty has had bo other design than to render it solid and lasting, b V piruveuting is much as possible, in the foar quarters of the world, every subject of discussion and quarrel. The King of Groat Britain undoubtedly places too mucli con- fidence in the uprightness of His Mi^esty's intentions not to rely upon his constant attention to prevent the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon from becoming an object of jealousy between the two nations. As to the fishery on the coasts of Newfoundland, which has been the object of the new arrangemeuts settled by the two sovereigns upon this matter, it is suffloiently ascertained by the fifth article of the treaty of peace signed this day and by the declara- tion likewise delivered to-day by His Britannio M^est^'s ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary ; and His Majesty declares that ne is fully satisfied on this head. In reganl to the fishery between the island of Newfoundland and those of St. Pierre Iknd Miquelon, it is not to be carried on by either party but to the middle of the channel. His Miijesty will give the most positive orders that the French fishermen shall not go beyond this line. His Majestv is firmly persuaded that the King of Great Britain will give like orders to the Enfflish fishermen. Given at Veraailles the 3d of September, 17S3. [L. S.] GRA.VIBB DS VSBOENMXS. ■i.'i \. [Inolosnre 4 in No. 450.) Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, No. 1737.] Depautmbnt OS StaTB, Washington, Jpril 10, . biR : I send yon a copy of a very suggestive letter firom Mr. Riehud D. Cutts, who, pcrhapa, you are aware, was employed as surveyor for marking, on the partof th« United Btates, the fisherv limita under the reciprocity treaty. Mr. Cutts's long familiarity with that subject praotically and tLeoreticafly entitles his auttgeations to respect. It is desirable to avoid any collision or misunderstanding with Great I^ritain on the snliject growing out of the termination of the reciprocity treaty. With thia view 1 incloae a d ranght oft* protocol, which yon may propose to Lord Clarendon for a tempo- rary regulutiou of the matt«r. If he shooild agree to it, it may be signed. Whsn THE FISIIEKIE8 QUESTION. 15 rlll besidea b oren th« girs ounie ires for nr*- >n, the tiAh- » them upon S caase the Die Hajegtf ig the wood y'mg on the wlii Q wMioh th« party; the he repair of lio M^esty, ; their fish- Mi(iaelon to lelter to the I become an lea the said iiannel. rCRKSTEB. b«r, 1783. i6|bttatIofii Ing of Great ^nd lasting, subject of muou con- liis conntant ig an object bjeot of the ufiBoientJjr the deolara- traordinary this head. )f at. Pierre ddla of the fishermen og of Great EiaBN»K9. rATK, 10, 1866. [7ntt8, who, part of the utts's long gestionii to I^Htain oil b this view nr a tempo- ed. When Hiirned it is desirable that the instructions referred to in the concluding paragraph slionld at once bn dispatclied by the Hritisli Governojont. As tlie fishing seiitiou is at band, the collisions which might be apprehended luay occur wlitui lliul season advances. 1 am, sir, your obedient ttorvaut, WiLUAM II. Sewaro. JIfr. Cuttt to Mr. Seward.. Washinoton, April 7, 1865. m. Sir; For a full understanding of the differences which now exist in regard to the rights which belong to American fishermen in the seas bordering the British North American colonies it is necessary to refer to the treaties and negotiations which pre- ceded the convention of 181l!), so far as they relate to the fisheries. - ,1 DEFINITIVK TREATY OF PEACE, 1783. Article 3. " It is ogreed that the people of the United States shall contlnne to en- joy, unmolested, the right to take fish of any kind on the Grand Hank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland ; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea wlioro the inhabitants of both countries used at any timo heretofore to fish; and, nlHO, that they shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, but not to dry or cure the same on that island ; and also on the coasts, bays, aud creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America." In the treaty of Ghent, terminating the last war with Great Britain, no allusion was made to the subject of the fisheries. lu July, 1815, complaint was made that American fishing vessels, engaged in the ood-fishery off the coast of Nova Scotia, hud been ordered away by a British sloop-of- war, aud this act, while it was declared to be totally unauthoriited by His Majesty's Government, led to a correspondence between our minister at London (John Quiuoy Adams) and Lord Bathurst, in which the United States adhered to the right and liberty of fishing as s'^cured by the treaty of 1783, on the ground that those rights and liberties were not grunts from the King, but the permanent results of a partition of rights at the time of the separation of the two countries, and contended, there- fore, that they could not be impaired by a state of war. On the other si^le it was asserted that while the right described in the treaty may not have been impaired, the "libertirs" were a concession dependent on the treaty, aud as the treaty was abro- gated by the war, so also were the " liberties." CONVENTION OF 1818. At the third conference held between the American and British plenipotentiaries — Messrs. Gallatin and Rush on the jtart of the United States, and Messrs. Robinson and Gold burn on the part <^ Great Britain — the former iiresented a proposition in regard to the fisheries in almost the identical language of the first article of the convention afterwards adopted, with the understanding that the liberty of fishing therein de- scribed should be considered as a permanent right, and not to be abrogated bg the mere fact of a war between the two parties. At the fifth conference a counter project was submitted by the British plenipoten- tiaries not materially differing from the above, except that the renunciatory clause was omitted, and the following paragraph added > "And in order the more effectually to guard against smuggling, it shall not be law- ful for vessels of the United States engaged in the said fishery to have on board any goods, wares, or merchandise whatever, except such as may be necessary for the prosecution of the fishery, a support of the fisherman while engaged thereiu or in the pro.secution of their voyages to and from the said fishing grounds. And any vessel of the United States which shall contravene this regulation may be seized, condemned, aud confiscated, together with her cargo." In regard to this paragraph, and to another referring to fishing at the months of rivers, Messrs. Gallatin anil Rush presented the following remarks: " Whatever extent of fishing ground may be secured to American fishermen, the American plenipotentiaries are not prepared to aonept it on a tenure, or on conditions different from those on which the whole has been heretofore held. Their instructions dill not anticipate that any new terms or restrictions should be annexed, as none were Mi^uested in the proposals ihade by Mr. BagQt to the American Goveroment. The clause;) forbidding the spreading of nets, and making Tessels liable to ooafisoatloa, in 16 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. ease an;/ arliohB not wanted for carryivij on the fisherif should he found on board, are of that d(8Gription, and would txpoao the fishermrn to endlexa vvxalionH," At tins Hcvoiith coateronco, hold on the KJth October, 1818, tho British plojiipoten- tiiuioH Kiibmitted a second counter project, conforming with the views and free from tho obligations presented by Messrs. Gallatin nud Kiish, and this project, being agreed t/O, eonstitnted tho lirst article of tho convention, as follows: "Whereas difl'erences have arisen respecting tho liberty claimed by tho United States for the inhahitaats thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed he- tweeu the high coutractiug parties that the inhabitants of said United States shall have forever, in commou with tho snVyects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the sonthern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Capo iiay to the liamea Islands, on tho western and northern coast of Kewfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Rauiea Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland from the said Cape Fay to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Goly, on the southern coast of Lahrador, and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly, indefinitely, along tho coast, without jjrejudice, how- ever, to any of tho exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company ; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of tho unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of tho coast of Newfoundland, hereabove described, and of tho coast of Labrador. But, bo soon as the same or any portion thereof shall bo settled it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at any such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of tho ground; and tho United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish, or witliin 3 marine miles of any of tho coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits: Provided, hotcerer, That the Aniericau fisheruien shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of re- pairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may bo neces- sary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any wanner what- ever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them," Tho dift'erencos which have heretofore arisen between the United States and Great Britain, touching the exercise of the rights and liberties secured to American fisher- men, may be classed under two principal heads: 1. As to tho construction of the renunciatory clause of tho convention. Under this clause Great Britain has contended that no American fisherman haa the right to fish within 3 marine miles of tho entrance to any " bay," which " from its geographical position may bo properly considered as included within the British possessions," and that the entrance to such bay must bo designated by a line drawn from headland to heartland. In support of this construction it has been urged that "if the convention was intended to stipulate simply that American fishermen should not take fish within 3 miles of the coast, there was no occasion for using the word bay at all, but the proviso at the end of the article shows that the word 'bay' was used designedly, for it is expressly stated in that proviso that, under certain circum- stances, the American fishormeu can enter baya, by which is evidently meaut that they niav, under these circumstantjes, pass the sea lino which forms tho entrance to the bay." According to this construction, so undefined and indefinite, the bays of Fundy and Cluileur, or any exteut of tho sea lying between distant headlands, may be reserved under the name of bay, for the exclusive use of British fishermen. The United States are firmly opposed to such a construction, believing it to be totally unauthorized by tho language or intention of tho convention, or by the right acquired by usage. In the opinion of this Government, repeatedly announced at ditterent periods, the American fishermen ha^ e a clear right to the use of tho fishing grounds lying off the provincial coasts, whether in the main ocean or in the inland seas, pro- vided they do not approach withia 3 marine miles of such coasts ov of the entrance to any bay, creek, or harbor not more than 6 miles in width; and to such bays only does tho renunciatory clause in the first article apply. They object to the British construction on tho ground that, if such arms of tho sea as tho bays of Fundy and Chaleur, or such curves in the coast as the bay ot Miramichi, or such part of the Boa included between headlands as the wide indentation on the coast of Capo Breton, lying between Cape North and Cape Percy, were the " bays" renounced, there would bo an inconsistency, if not a clear contradiction, in the very next sentence of tho arti- cle, which authorizes AraericaM fishermen " to enter such baya for the purpose of shel- ter and of repairing damages." It can hardly be couteiuled that "shelter" can be obtained in the bay of Fundy, an arm of the sea 40 miles wide and 100 in length, or that either shelter, wood, or water can he obtained, or damages repaired, in the THfi FISHERIES QUESTION. 17 curve of the connt between the headlandB of St. Eacnmonao and niacklaiul Point, (icniL'iisited on the chart aH the bay of Miraniichi. It is objoc.ted to, alw), for the rea- son that it would permit the drawing of lines anywhere in the gulf or on tlio coaHt from licatUaiid to headland, any one of which conld be made to embrace, at.one8w.e|), niaiiv bays, crooks, and harbors, besides a portion of the high seas, and frvmi which the American fishermen could ho kept an indefinite distance, and be thereby driven from the fishing grounds. Moreover, it is believed that while the British constmction isnot necessary to Kccnro to the people of the provinces the inshore fisheries, or to protect their rights of prop- erly or their territorial jurisdiction, all of which are amply secured by the. 3 ina- rine'miles restriction, it wouhl materially restrict the full enjoyment of the right which wo possesaed before the Revolution, which was acknowledged in the definitive treaty of peace, which wa8 not aff'ected by the treaty of Ghent, and which, a<;(M)rdiiig to the decision of Great Britain, expressed in the correspondence whicli preceded I ho convention, was not abrogated by the war of 1812. That right is "to take fish" of any kind "in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea when> tho inhaltitauts of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish." No construction liable to such indefinite extension or applic..tion c^n be coi-rect or bo allowed. In I'fli* Her Majesty's Government receded from the above position, so far as tho bay of Fiindy is concusmed, and from that date our right of fishery in that bay has not been a matter of dispute. It is now open to American fishermen, to be used in the same nmnner as the more open sea; provided, however, that they do not take fish within 3 marine miles of the coasts or of the entrance to any bay, creek, or harbor of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, between which two provinces that arm of tho sea extends. 2. As to the restrictions imposed by the colonies to prevent the privileges of shelter, etc., from being abused b.\ American fishermen. The fishermen of the United States are frequently compelled by rough weather, or by injuries to their vessels received in a gale, or in consequence of collision or other accident, to seek tho nearest port for shelter and repairs. And it is also necessary at stated intervals, while they are engaged during the summer and fall in following their avocation, that they. should take on board a resupply of wood and water; and for either of these purposes they have the light, so long as the convention continues in force, to resort to the bays and harbors of the diflferent provinces. Some of the colonial- laws, especially those of Nova Scotia, enacted to prevent tho abuse of these privileges, are of sucli a stringent character as to almost annul the right, or make it at least hazardous for American fishermen to attempt to enjoy it. Seizures are made on the slightest suspicion, or on false pretenses or charges; heavy bonds are required before suit can be instituted to recover; the owner of the vessel unist bring the charges, and if unsuccessful, he is mulcted in treble costs, bdsides the loss of vessel and cargo. In this connection it miist be borne in mind that a proposition was made to intro- duce into the convention a stipulation that " it shall not be lawful for the vesscds of the Uuited States, engaged in the said fishery, to have on board any goods, wares, or iiuTchauilise whatever, except such an may be neces8»^ry for the prosecution of the fishery or 8upi)ort of the fisliermen," etc.. and that this proposed stipulation having bicn objected to by Messfs. Gallatin and Rush, on the ground that it " would expose our fishermen to endless vexations," it was withdrawn by the British plenipoten- tiaries. Such was the condition of tho controversy between the United States and Great Ihitain as to the limits of our right of fishery on tho provincial coasts, and such the severe restrictions, amounting almost to prohibition, on the privilege of entering bays and harbors for shelter, wood, or water, previous to 1^54, the date of the late re- ciprocity treaty with Great Britain. That treaty having expired on tho 17th of March last, the American fishermen must fall buck on their rights, as thus explained and as heretofore enjoyed. 1 have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Richard D. Cutts. [protocol.] Whereas in tho first article of the convention between the United States and Great Hritain, concluded and signed in London on tho 20th of October, 1H18, it was declared lliat "the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or withiii 3 ma- riuo miles of any of the coasts, bay's, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within certain limits heretofore mentioned ; " and wherecs dilferences have arisen in regard to the extent of the above-mentioned re< 3. Ex. 113 2 18 THE FISHEEIES QUESTION. !i]i nnnciation, tho Qovornment of tbe United States and Her Majesty the Quoen of Great Britain, boinjj equally dosirous of avoiding further luisundorataudinjj, liavo n);rced to appoint, and do hereby authorize the appointment of a mixed couiniission for the following purposes, namely: 1. To agree upon and define by a series of linos the limits which shall soparntn the exclusive from the common right of tishing on the coasts and in tho seas adjacunt of tho British North American colonies, in conformity with the first urticio of the conven- tion of 1818 ; the said lines to be regularly numbered, duly described, and also clearly niiirkcd on charts prepared in duplicate for the purpose. "-i. To agree upon aud establish such regulations as may be necessary and proper to Becure to the fishermen of the United States the privilege of entering bays anil bar. bors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of jinrchaslng wood, and of obtaining water, and to agree upon and establish such restrict inns as may bo necessary to prevent the abuse of tho privilege reserved by said convention to the fishermen of tho United States. IJ. To agree upon and recommend the penalties to be adjudged, and such proceed- ings and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a speedy trial and judgmcMit with as little expense as possible, for the violators of rights and the transgressors of the limits and restrictions which may be hereby adopted. Provided, however, That tho limits, restrictions, and regulations which may be agreed upon by the said commission shall not be final, nor have any efltu^t, until so jointly confirmed and declared by the United States and Her Majesty the Quecm of Great Britain, either by treaty or by laws, mutually acknowledged and accepted by the President of the United States, by aud with the consent of the Senate, aud by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. Pending a definitive arrangement on the subject, the United States Governmeut engages to give all proper orders to ofiicers iu its employment, and Her Britannic Majesty's Government engages to instruct the proper colonial or other Brit isii oflicers to abstain from hostile acts against British aud United States fishermen respectively. (Foreign Kelatious, 1866, vol. l,p.98.) ■, • ' ' , . . -^ • [InclosureSlnNo. 450.— Tranalfttion.] ! ■ ' '^ Convention between Her JiritannioMaje8!y,the Ge^-man Emperor, King of Prmma, the King of ihe Belgians, the King of Denmark, the PresidcHt of the French Uepuhlic, and the King of the Netherlands, for regulating the police of the North iSea fisheries. " " (Signed at The Hague, May 6, 1882.) Her Maje.sty tho Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ; His Mnj''8ty tho German Emperor, King of Prussia : His Majesty the King of the Belgians ; His Majesty tho King of Denmark; the President of the French Republic; and His Majesty the King of tlie Netherlands, having recognized the necessity of regulating the police of the fisheries in tho North Sea, outside torritoi>ial waters, have resolved to conclude for this purpose a convention, and have named their pleni^totentiaries as follows : Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the honorable William Stuart, companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, etc., her envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague ; Charles Mal- colm Kennedy, esq., companion of tho Most Honorable Order of the Bath, etc., head of the commercial department of tho foreign office ; aud Charles Cecil Trevor, esquiie, barrister at law, assistant secretary to tho Board of Trade, etc.; His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, Veit Richard von Schmidthals, knight of the Order of the Red Eagle of the third class, and of the Order of St. John, etc., councilor of legation, his charg6 d'affaires at The Hague; and Peter Christian Kiuch Donner, knight of the Order of the Red Eagle of the fourth class with the sword, and of the crown of the fourth class, etc., his councilor of state, captain in the navy, on the reserve ? His Majesty the King of tho Belgians, the Baron d'Anethan, commander of the Order of Leopold, etc., his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at The Hague; and M. L<$opold Orban, commander of the Order of Leopold, etc., his en- voy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, director-general of the political de- partment in the ministry of foreign affairs ; His Majesty the King of Denmark, Carl Adolpb Bruun, knight of the Order of tho Danebrog, etc., captain in the navy ; The President of the French Rejiublic. theCount Leffebvre de Bchaine, commander 9I the national order of the Legion of Honor, etc., envoy extraordinary aud minister THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 19 on of Great o 0)1; recti to sioii fur the oparnt« tlio udjiiciitit of tlio eoiivcH- uIho cleurly (1 proper to \H and Imr- isiii<>' wooil, H as may lift tiou to the ell proceed- i^iueiit with MHors of the ich uiay be •vt, until 8o 10 Qiicen of accepted by lato, tiud by Glovernmciit in' Britiiiiuio itisli oilieers cspcctively. sia, the King blic, and the iea. reland ; His 10 Belgians; ic ; and Ilia rej^nlating i,ve resolved beiitiaricH as [reland, the Bath, etc., tharles Mal- |i,etc., head ^or, csquiie, chniidthals, Jrder of St. and Peter [fourth class lor of state, Lder of the [iary at The Itc., his en- l)oliticalde- Irder of the cnmniauder id miaU(«p plenipotentiary of the French Republic at The Hapfne; and M. Gnptavo fimile Man- cel olfleerof the national order of the Legion of Honor, etc., coniniisaary of marine; His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, the Jonkheer Willeui Frederik Rochussen, coniiiiauder of the Order of the Lion of the Netherlands, etc., his minister of foreign aifairs, and Edaard Nicolaas Rabusen, knight of the Order of the Lion of the Nether- ianf the Orkney Islands; (5) By a straight line joining North Ronaldshay light-house (Orkney Islands) and SuinUurgh Head light-house (Shetland Islands) ; (0) By the eastern coasts of the Shetland Islands ; (7) By the meridian of North Unst light-house (Shetland Islands) as far as the parallel of the Olst degree of latitude. Article V. The fishing boats of the high contracting parties shall he registered in accordance with the administrative regulations of eacn country. For each port there shall be a consecutive series of numbers, preceded by one or more initial letters, which shall he specified by the superior competent authority. Each Government shall draw up a list showing these initial letters. This list, together with all modifications which may sabsequoutly be made in it, shall bo notified to the other contracting powers. Article VI. Fishing boats shall bear the initial letter or letters of the port to which they belong, and the registry number in the series of numbers for that port. 20 THE FISHEUIES QUESTION. i 1^^ AUTICLIO VII. Tho naino of each llshing bonf, ami tliat of Urn port to wliicli nho holongH, shall be paiiitoil in wliito nil color ou u black ground on the Ntcrii of the boat, in lotlera which Hhall be at least 8 ccntimuterH iu height auil I'i niilllinoterH In breadth. * Article VIII. The letter or letters and ininibers shall bo placed on each bow of the boat, 8 or 10 centimeters below the gunwale, and so as tu bo clearly visible. They shall be puiuted iu white oU color on a black gronnd. The distance above mentioned shall not, however, bo obligatory for boats of small burden, which may not have snfllcient space below the gunwale. For boats of 15 tons burden and upwards the dimensions of the letters atul numbers almll be 4.5 certimoters in height and G centimeters in breadth. For boats of less than 15 tons burden the dimensions shall be 25 centimeters in height and 4 oentlnieters in breadth. The same letter or letters and numbers shall also bo painted on each side of the maiiisail of the boat, immediately above the close reef, iu black color ou white or tanned sails, and in whito oil color ou black sails. The letter or lotters and numbers ou the uaila shall bo one-third larger in every way than those placed ou the bows of the boat. Article IX. Fishing boats may not have, either on their outside or on their sails, any names, letters, or numbers other -thau those prescribed by Articles VI, VII, and VllI of the present couventioa. ^ . Article X. The names, letters, and numbers placed on the boats and on tlteir sails shall not be effaced, altered, m&de illegible, covered, or concealed iu auy manner whatsoever. Article XI. All tho'flmall boats, bnoys, principal floats, trawla, grapnels, anchors, and generally all fishing implements, shall be marked with the letter or letters and numbers of the boars to which they belong. These letters and numbers shall be large enough to bo easily distinguished. The O'^'ner of the uets or other fishing implements may furtbor distiuguish them by any private marks they thiuk proper. Article XII. • The master of eacfi boat must, have with him an ofBcial document, .ssned by the proi^er authority in bis owu country, for the purpose of enabling him to establish the nationality of the boat. This document must stlways give the letter or letters and number of the boat, as well as her description and the name or names of the owner or the name of the firm or association to which she belongs. Article XIII. The nationality of a boat must not be concealed in any manner whatsoever. Article XIV No fishing boat shall anchor, between sunset ana sunrise, ou grounds where drift- 1 net fishing is actually going on. This prohibition shall not, however, apply to anchor! ngs which may take place in consequence of accidents or any other compulsory circumstances. Article XV. Boats arrived on the fishing grounds shall not either place themselves or shoot their nets in such a way as to injure each other, or as to interfere with fishermen who haV9 1 f^lready commenced their operatiouQ, ia every way THE FISUERIKS tiUKsTlON. AinicLE XVI. 21 Whcnpver, with a view of drift-not flsJiinji, decked boats and imdnckod boata com- ni'Mio^ HliontiiiK their iietH iit the hiuiiu time, tiie miduckud bouts Hhull Hliuot tbuir uuts to windwiird (il'tlio decked l)oal8. The decked boatB, on their part, shall sboot their ucts to leeward of the uudecked Asa rule, if decked oats sboot their nets to windward of nndecked boats which have be;;iin lisliiii;!;, or . uudecked boats whoot tlieir nets to leeward of decked lumts which l7ave bcjjuii lishinj}, the respouNibility as regards any damages to uets which uiav r>suit wliall re^t with the boats which last hegau lishiujj, unless they can pnive that titey were under stress of coniiiiilsory circuuistauces, or that the duuiu^*) '•vf or to tlicir representativis, a.^ soon as such articles are claimed and tlie interests of the suIvoih Lave been properly guarantied. Tlie administrative or Judicial authorities, according us the laws of the diiTertMit .J countries may provide, shall (ix the amount which the owners shall pay to the salv- ors. It is, however, agreed that this pro\ ision shall not in any way ]>rf.)udice such con- ventions respecting this mutter as are already in force, and tliut tint hi)rh <'()ntractin)r parties rest^rve the right of regulating, by special arrangements between themselves, the amount of salvage at a fixed rate per net salved. Fishing implomeats of any kind found unmarked shall be treated as wreck. Akticle XXVI. The snperintendence of the fisheries shall be exercised by vessels belonging to the national navies of the high contracting ])arties. In the caseof lielgium, such vessclo may be vessels belonging to the State, commanded by captains who hold commissiouH. AUTICLK XXVII. The execution of the regulationS respectinpr the document establishing nationality, the marking and numbering of boats, etc., and of fishing iin)>li'mentN, as w«dl as tl.u presence on board of instruments which ure forbicuinenl establishing her nation- ality. The fact of such document having been exhibited shall then be indorsed npou it immediately. The comm.tnders of cruisers shall not pursue further their visit or search on board a fishing boat which is not of their own nationality, uiih'ss it should be necessary for the purpose of obtaining proof of an offense or of a contra vontiou of regulations re- specting the police of the fisheries. Article XXX. The commanders of the cruisers of the signatory powers shall exercise thtir judg- ment as to th I gravity of facts brought to their knowledge, and of which they are I empowered tt take cognizance, and shall verify the damage, from whatever cause | arising, which may be sustained by fishing boats of the nationalities of the high con- tracting parties. They shall draw up, if there is occasion for it, a formal statement of the verification I of the facts as elicited both from the declarations of the parties interested and from | the testimony of those present. The commander of the cruiser may, if the case appears to him sufficiently serious to I justify the step, take the offendin.?; boat into a port of the nation to which the fisher- r man belongs. He may even take on board the cruiser a part of the crow of the Wish- ing boat in order to hand them over to the authorities of her nation. Article XXXI. The formal statement referred to in the preceding article shall be drawn up in tb«| language of the commander of the cruiser, and according to the forms in use ^a bii| oooutry. THE KtHtlKRlKS QHR8TI0N. 23 Tlio acciiHfld and tho wltneiwOH Hliall bo entitled to luld, or to liiivo nddcd, to Hiich BtatoiiHMit, ill their own lanRuoKo, any observations or ovidonoo which thoy may think Buitubh*. Such declarations luiiHt bo duly nigued. AUTICLK XXXII. RpfliRtanco to tho diroctions of coininandom of crniaorR cborgcd with tbo polipo of the llsiierioH, or of tlioso who not under tlieir orders, shall, without taking inti) ac- count tiie nationality of tho cruiser, bo cousidered as rosistaucc to tho authority of the nation of tho iishiug boat. Articlk XXXIII. Wlien tho act alleged is not of a serinuH character, but has novertlielesii cansod damage to any lishurniun, tho commanders of cruisers shall be at liberty, should the parties concerned agree to it, to arbitrate at sea between them, and to llx tho compen- sation to be paid. Where one of tho parties is not in a position to settle the matter at once, tho com- manders shall cause the parties concerned to sign in duplicate a formal documeut specifying the com]>enHution to be ])aid. One copy of this document shall ronutin on board the cruiser, and tho other shall bo handed to the master of the boat to which tho compensation is duo, in order that ho may, if nocessary, )»e able to make use of it before the courts of the country to which the debtor belongs. Whore, on the contrary, tbo parties do not consent to arbitration, the commanders shall act iu accordance with tho provisions of Ar£lclo XXX. AnxiCLK XXXIV. Tho prosecutions for offenses against, or contraventions of, tho present convon* tioD shall be instituted by, or iu the name of, tho state. Article XXXV. The high contracting parties engage to propose to tteir respective legislatures tlio jietchsary ineasuies for iusuring tne execution of the present convention, aud i)iirtic- uiail.v lor the x>unishmont, by either lino or imprisonment, or by both, of persous who may coutravono tho provisions of Articles VI to XXIII iuclusive. AllTICtE XXXVI. Ill all cases of assault committed, or of willful damage or loss inflicted, by fishermen of one of the contracting countries upon fishermen of another nationality, tlie courts of tho country to which tho boats of tho offeudera belong shall bo empowered to try thtitn. The same rule shall apply with rogaru to offenses against, and contraventions of, the present convention. AUTICLK XXXVII. The proceedings and trial in cases of infraction of the provisions of the present couventiou shall take place as summarily as the laws aud regulations in force will permit. Article XXXVIII. The present convention shall be ratified, the Hague as soou aa possible. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Article XXXIX. Tho present convention shall bo brougli', into force from and after a day to be agreed upon by the high contracting parties. Tlio convention shall continue iu operation for five years from tho above d. 8. [f' S. u. 8. L. 8. L. 8. .1" S. tTrandation.] Tho nndersigned, envoys extraordinary and ministerfl plenipotentiary of His Maj- esty tho Gorman Emperor, King of Prnxsia, His Majesty the King of tho Belgians, the Fren-jh Kopublic, and Her Majesty the Quoon of tho United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emxness of India, and tho uudorsigued, miuister for foreign affairs of THE PISHKKlES QfJESTlON. 25 iventioD, and S B£UAINB. ttls Mnjosty tlio Kin^ of the NotliorlandH, who is also authorized to rcprosont the Govern iiKMit of tho King of Deiimurlv on this occasion, liaving met together at the nttleo oi'tlie niiniHier Cor forcif^n jirt'airsat tho Ha;;ue <»ii 'Jio 15tli March, 18-1, fortlio imrposo e convention sij^ncd at tlio Ha"uo tl)<> »'l: Miiv, \>i&2. liavinjj ibr its object tlie n-jinlation of tlie jjolico of tha lislurles in tlio Noiili Sea outside territorial wateis, ami in orderto Bi. (lloceived December 14.) Siu : Rofcrrinjr to your several iiistriKitions on the subject of the Caniuliiin lisln-i-ies, imiiii)i.'nMl, resiioctivcly, 4oL', 458, and 451), 4 have the honor to iiil'oiiii yon thut on tho U'tii isoveniber I addressoil a note to Lord Iddesl«'if vensel, either by Captain Scott, the seizing officer, or by the collector of customs at Digby, in order that it might be known to tho defendant and be shown on trial what the charges are on which the tttE i^^ISHERIES QUESTION. 21 States. xber 'i7, 1886. ruction, uurtet of tbe United ion Grime*, am autliorized idd nothing to lion to the case, American iinb- J. Phelps. Fj-'ATES, emlii law. That a ission of an of- to be innocent 1 which the ad- se to carry the not only prove Iso of all other rd brought for- ;an have effect sael was origi- prima facie ey\- 3 applied to the to the Govern- Captain Scott, hat it might be e on which the seiznro was grounded, and which the defendant is required to disprove. This most reasonable reqnest has been refused by the prosecuting offlccrs. lliider those circumstances I am instructed by my Government to re(|ue8t of Her Mfiji'sty's Government that the solicitors for the owners of the Darid J. Adams in the suit pending in ll.alifax may be furnished, for tho purposes of the trial thereof, with coniis of the reports above mentioned. And I l)eg to remind your lordshin that there is no time to be lost in giving tho proper dtrectiou if it is to bo in season for the trial, wbieli, its I iini informed, is being pressed. I have, etc., E. J. FiiKLra. [Inclorare 3 in Ko. 303.] The Earl of Iddesleigh to Mr. Phelp$. Foreign Office, November 30, 1886. Sm: I have given my careful consideration to the contents of the note of the Uth Seiitenilur last, which you were good enough to address to me in reply to mine of tho Iwt of the same month, on the subject of the North American fisheries. The (jnestion, as you ire aware, lias for some tune i)ast engaged the serious atten- tion of Her Majesty's Government and the notes which have been addressed to yon in relation to it. both by my predecessor and by myself, have amply evinced the eiirucst desire of Her Majesty's Government to arrive at some equitable settlement of tho controversy. It is, therefore, with feelings of disappointment that they do not lind in your note under reply any iiidicatio.i of a wish on the part of your Govennnont to enter upon negotiations based on the principle of mutual concessions, but rather asHiIiiestion that some ad interim couMtrnction of the terms of tho existing treaty slionld, if possible, be reached, which might for the present remove tho chance of dis- putes; in fact, that Her Mnjesty's Government, in order to allay the differences which liavo arisen, should temporarily abandon the exercise of the treaty rights which they claim and which they con«eive to be indisputable. For Her Majesty's Government an* unable to perceive any ambiguity in the terms of Article 1 of the convention of 1418, nor have they as yet been informed in what respects the construction placed upon that instrument by the Government of the United States differs from ther own. They would, therefore, be glad to learn in tho first place whether the Government of the United States contest that by Article 1 of the convention United States fishermen are prohibited from entering British North American bays or harbors on those parts of tho coast referred to in the second part of tho article in question for any purposes save those of shelter, repairing damages, purchasing wood, and obtaining leater. Before proceeding to niaiie some observations upon tho other points dealt with in yonr note, I have the honor to state that i do not ])ropose in tho present coinmunica- tioii to refer to the cases of the schooners Thomas F. Bayard and Mascot, to which you allude. The privileges miniifestly secured to United States fishermen by the convention of 1818 in Newfoundland, Labrador, and the Magdalen Islands are not contested by Her Mnjesty's Government, who, whilst determined to uphold the rights of Her Majesty's North American lubjects, as defined in tho convention, are no less anxious and re- solved ♦'» maintain in their fnll integrity the facilities for prosecuting the fishing in- dustry on i,<^rtain 1 lited portions of tho coast which are expressly granted to citizens of the United Sta <•». The communications on tho subject of these two schoinns, which 1 have requested Her Majesty's minister at Washington to address to Mr. Bay- ard, can not, I think, have failed to aft'ord to your Government satisfactory assurances in this respect. llevcrting now to your note under- reply, I beg to offer tho following observations on its contents: In tho first place, you take exception to my predecessor having declined to discuss the case of the David J. Adatiis, on tho ground that it was still subjudiue, and you state that your Government are unable to accodo to the proposition contained in my note of tho 1st of September last, to the effect that "it i« clearly right, according to praciico and precedent, that such diplomatic action should be suspended pending the completion of tho judicial inquiry." In regard to this point, it is to be remembered that thero are three questions calling for investigation in the case of the David J. Adams: (1) What were tno acts committed which led to the seizure of tho vessel t (2) Was her seizure for such acts warranted by any existing laws f I'.i) If so, iiro those laws in dengatiou of the treaty rights of tho United States t It is evident that the first two questions must be the subject t>f inquiry before the third can bo profitably discussed, and that thoso two questions can ouly be satisfoo- 28 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. torily dispnsod of by a judicial inquiry. Far from claiuiins tliaf, tlio Unitcid States Government would bo bound by tlio construction wliich Briti.sb tribiinalH uiijjbt iiliice on tlie treaty, I stated in my note of the 1st Sopienibertbat if that decision Hhonld bo adverse to the views of your Government it would iioc juecludo furtlier discunHJou b( tween the two Goverumc;!t8 and the adjustment of the (juestiou by diplomatic ac- tion. I may further remark that the very proposition advanced in my note of the Ist of September last, and to which exception is taken in your reply, lias ou a [trevioui^ oc- casion been distinctly asserted by the Government of the United States under pre- cisely similar circumstan scs, that is to say, in 1870, in relation to the seizure of Amer- ican fishing vessels in Cau.idiau waters for alleged violation of the convention of 1818. In a dispatch of the 29th of October, 1870, to Mr. W. A. Dart, United States consul- general at Montreal (which is printed at page 431 of the volume for that year of the Foreign Relations of the United States, and which formed part of the correspondence referred to by Mr. Bayard in his note to Sir L. We ' of theiiOlh of Maj last), Mr. Fish expressed himself as follows: " It is the duty of the ow ners of the ressels to defend their interests before the courts at their own expense, and without special assistance from the Government at this stage of affairs. It is for those tribunals to construe the statutes under which they act. If the construction they adopt shall appear to be iu contravention of our treat- ies with Great Britain, or to be (w^hicu can not be anticipated) plainly erroneous in a case admitting of no reasonable doubt, it will then become Hie duty of the Govern- ment— a duty which it will not be slow to discharge — to avail itflf of all necessary means for obtaining redress." Her Majesty's Government, therefore, still adhere to their view that any diplomatic discussion as to the legality of the seizure of the David J. Adams would be premature until the case has been judicially decided. It is further stated in your note that "the absence of any statute authorizing pro- ceedings or providing a penalty against American fishing vessels for purchasing bait or supplies in a Canadian port to be used in lawful fishing " affoids " the most satis- factory evidence that up to the time of the present controversy no such construction has been given to the treaty by the British or by the colonial parliament as is now sought to be maintained." Her Majesty's Government are quite nnable to accede to this view, and I must ex- press my regret that no reply has yet been received from your Government to the arguments on this and all the other points in controversy, which are contained in the able and elaborate report (as you courteously describe it) of the Canadian min- ister of marine and fisheries, of which my predecessor communicated to you a copy. In that report reference is made to the argument of Mr. Bayard, drawn from the fact that the proposal of the British negotiators of the convention of 1818, to the eflect that American fishing vessels should carry no merchandise, was rejected by the Amer- ican negotiators; and it is shown that the above proposal had no application to American vessels resorting to the Canadian coasts, but only to those exercising the right of inshore fishing and of landftjg for the drying and curiug of fish on parts of the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. The report, on the other baud, shows that the United States negotiators proposed that the right of " procuring bait" should bo added to the enumeration of the four objects for which the United States fishing vessels might be allowed toenter Canadian waters; and that such proposal ^.'as rejected'by the British negotiators, thus showing that there could be no doubt in the minds of either party at the time that the " pro- curing of b.ait" was prohibited by the terms of the article. The report, moreover, recalls the important fact that the United States Government admitted, in the case submitted by them befpre the Halifax Commission in 1877, that neither the conven- tion of 1818 nor the treaty of Wa8hin,';ton conferred any rijjht or i)rivilege of trading on American fishermen; that the "various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are not the subject of compensation, because the tri^aty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of tho United States, who now enJ9y them merely by sutlerauc" and who can at any time be deprived of them." This view was confirmed by the ruling of the commissioners. Whilst I have felt my- self bound to place tho preceding observations before you in reply to tho arguments con- tained in your note, I beg leave to say that Her Majesty's Government would williiigly have left such points of technical detail and construe^.! ju for the consideration >ieii made by the Canadian Goverumout to promote a liiciidlv negotiation and to obviate tho ditienmcos which have now arisen. Indeed, it, 18 hardly necessary to remind you that, for six mouths following tho denunciatiovi liy your Government of the lishery articles of tho t-eaty of Washington, the worth American fisheries wore thrown open to citizens of the United States without any Kiiiivalent, in the expectation that the American Government would show their wilU iii'riiesH to treat, tho question in a similar spirit of amiiy and good will. TlurMajesy'rt Government can not but express a hope that tho whole corrospond- ciico may be laid immediately before Congress, as they believe that its perusal would inOiienee public opinion in the United S' tes in favor of negotiatiuf;, before tho com- iii(iict!mentof tho next fishing season, an arrangement based on mutual concessions, and which would therefore (to use tho language of your note) "counist with tho dig- iiitV, the int'rests, and tho friendly relations of the two countries." lier Majesty's Government can iiotnri)08('s of the dtfcnse, I would jioint out that in the report of tlio Canadian niinistir of murine anatly regret that incidents of tho description allud(Ml to should occur, and tliey can otdy renew tho assnrancM) conveyed to jou in my note of tlie ;M)th ultimo, that whilst lirmly resolved to n|)hold the undoubted treaty rif^lits of Her Majesty's >forth American subjects in regard to tho ilsheries, they will alwi er|n:iily maintain the undoubted rights of United States flshermou to obtain shtdter in (Jaiiadi.in pcnts, under such restrictions as may bo necessary to prevent their abusiiig the privileges reserved to them by treaty. I noti(;otliat in Mr. Bayard's note to j'ou of tho fith ultimo, concerning the cas(\ (if ! the Marion (IrimrH, and also in his note to Sir L. West of the IDth October last, rtln- tive to tho Cilso of tho Everett Steele, an old discussion is revived which Her Miijesty's Government had hoped was (inally disposed of by the correspondence which took pliiiu Oh tho subject in 181.'') and 181(!. I alludo to the argument that a right to tho common enjoyment of tlie fisheries hy Great IJritain and the United States, after tho separation of thelatt;lits , tlicy will uIhii )l)tiiin Blieltcriii it their abuHiiij! ninK the caHo of | •toiler last, rela- li Ilcr Majesty's yrhich took iiliicii "the (islierieH liy from the molliiT it' tliat rijjht wiM i iiliservo that lip' iiKulified in any 815, to Mr. Joliii Iddesleigii. nitary 14, 1887. iilier last, I have | inister of justicn Washinijtoa for JNCEI'OTE, tary of state.) States, uary 'JG, 1887. n earlier reply I Jjorth Ameriean more immediate | before the com- eached between] be course to Le ark, in the note y's Government aced upon that | r own." cesser in office, nade in my note] failed to appre- States Govern- ed. I have nnn\n resiiectfiiUy to refer yonr lordship to my note to Lord Iloschpry of June ~, l^'U, for a very full and, 1 hope, clear exposition of the jrrouiHl taken by the United States (jovurument uu thut point. It is uunecitssary to repeat it, tind I c:a uiialile to add to it. In reply to the observations in my note to f^ord Iddesl<(i>;h ;s in res|ieet to theiu sluitild lie made kiuiwn.a jiropo* sition to whiih, as 1 stated in that note, tho United States (Jovernment is unablit to , ,.,in, his lordshi]) cite ; in support of it some lanj^najje of Mr. Fish, when Secretary (if State of the iniit(^d States, address(Ml to the United Stjites consul piMU'al ait Montreal in May, IM7I). From the view tlnui expressed by Mr. Fish the Unit(!d States (iitvernnient has n(Mlher (liK)iosil ion nor occasion to dissent, lint it can not regard it as in any way applieabh^ to the present case. It is liMut li(\voi'd (|nestion that when a jirivato vessel is seized for an alleged infrac- tion of the laws of Un< country in which tht< seizure takes jdace, and the fact of tho infraction, or the exact lei;al construction of the local statute claimed to b(( traits- jrressiMl, is in dispute, and is in i»ro(!ess of d(?lerniination by tin? jiroper tribunal, tho (iov(M-nnient t() which the vess(!i bcloufjs wiH not usually interfeie in advance of such ditteiniination and before ac<|nirin;{ the intormatioi' on which it depends. And especially when it is not yet informiid whether the eondnct of the ollicer making the seizure will not be repudiated by ih() (Jovernnuint under which he acts, so Ihatintcr- fircnce will be unnecessary. This is all, in etl'ect, that was said by Mr. Fish on that occasion. In lan;;na};e immediately following that (jnoted by Lord Id(l(!slci;rh ho remarks as follows (italics beinij; mine): •''flic present emliarrassment is tliiit while wo liavo rrpor/» of several seizures upon {jriMintls na Htalcd hfi llio iiilenntcd purlicH, which »cem to he in contraventi«n of interna- tional law and spe(;ial treaties relating to the (isherles, these aUeged causes of seizure are regarded as pretensions of ov(!r zealous oflicers of tht< Ih'itish navy and the colo- ni.il vessels which will, as we hope and are bound in courtesy to expect, be repudi- ated by the courts, before which our vessels are to be brought for udjndication. Hut in the present case the facts constituting the alleged infraction by the vessel sei/.i'd are not in dispute, except some circumstances of alh^ged aggravation not niattrial to the validity of the seizure. Tho original ground of the seizure was tiio purchase by the master of the vessel of a small (|uantity of bait from an inhabitant of Nova Scotia, to ho used in lawful fishing. This purchase is not denied by tho owners of the vessel, and the United S? tea Government insists, firnt, that such au act is not in violation of the treaty of 181M, and second, that no tlum existing statute in great Britain or Canada authorized any proceedings against the vessel for such an act, even if it could be regarded as in violation of the terms of the treaty, and uo 8n(^li statute has been as yet produced. In respect to the charge subsequently brought against the Adams, and upon which many other vessels have been seized, that of a technical violation of the customs act, in omitting to report at tho custom-house, though having no business at the port (and in some instances where the vessel seized was not within several miles of the lauding), the United Stat(!8 Government claim, while not admitting that the omission to report was even a technical transgression of the act, that even if it wore, no harm having been done or intended, the proceedings agaiustthe vessels for an inadvertence (if that sort were in a high degree harsh, unreasonable, and unfriendly, especially as for many years no such etl'ect has been given to the act in respect to tho tishing vessels, and no previous notice of a change in its construction has been promulgated. It seems apparent, therefore, that the cases in ciuestion, as they are to be consid- ered between the two Governments, present no ))ointsui)on which the decision of the courts of Nova Scotia need be awaited or would bo material. Nor is it any longer open to the United States Government to anticipate that tho •acts complained of will (as said by Mr. Fish in the dispatch above quoted) be repu- diated as the '* pretensions of over-zealous otTicers of the * * • colonial vessels," because they have been so many times repeated as to constitnto a regular system of procedure, have been directed and approved by the Canadian Government, and have been in no wi.se disajiproved or restrained by Her Majesty's Government, though re- peatedly and earnestly protested against on the part of the United States. It is therefore to Her Majesty's Government alone that the United States Govern. ment can look for consideration and redre.ss. It can not consent to become, directly or indirectly, a party to the proceedings complained of, nor to await their termina- tion before the questions involved between the two Governments shall be dealt with. Those questions appear to the United States Govornmeut to stand upon higher (jroKuds, and to be determined, in large part, at leasv, upon very ditferent considera- tions from those upon which the courts of Nova Scotia must proceed in tho pending litigation. Lord Iddesleigh, in the note above referred to, proceeds to express regret that no reply has yet been received from the United States Government to the arguments on »©w Tin: KlvSIIKKlEH QIIKSTION. r 1 m WJ all tlio poIntH in controvony cnntainod in tho report of tliH Canailian uiliiiHtor of uiiiriiKt ami lUlicriuM, of whicli Lord KoHobery linHuse r3gulatiou8| I visit. If they jterapt to screeul is that existiuR toroed with a se- liarm was done, fsselsbave been inable construe- le fisliermeu had beconw accustomed, was changed without any notice given. And that o very oppor- tunity i>t" unneceHMary interlerenee with tho Anierieun fishing vesh.ls, to tho preju- (lieo iinl ilestriiction of their biisiuesH, has been availed ol. Wlutiier in any of I tlieHU cuHen, V- technical violation of some requirement of law had, upon <'1ono and se- Jvere construction, taken place, it is not easy to detormiiic. l!ut if siieli ruleM wcro Igeiieriilly eiilbrcecl in Hticha manner jn tho ports of the world, no vesHei could sail I iij safety without carrying a 8(dicitor versed in the intricacies of nsvenne and port regulations. It is uiinooossary to specify tho varioi:* oases referred to, as tho facts iu many of theiu have been already lai(f before Her Majesty's Oovornmeut. Since thereoeipt of Lord Iddesleigh'snoto the United States Govornnient has learned with grave regret that Ilor Majesty's assent has been given to tho net of the I'iuiiu- I iiieiit of Canada, passed at its late session, eutiMed "An ai;t further to aiinnd the act Irt'speeting llshing by foreign vessels," which has been tho subjoct of observation in 1 the previous correspondence jH tho subject botwoen tho Governments of th(! United I states mid of Great liritaiu. lly the itrovisiouK of this act any foreign ship, vessel, or boat (whether engaged in lisliing or not) found within any harbor in Canada, or within '.i inarino miles of " iuiy [of tho coasts, bays, or creeks of Canada," may Do brought into port by any of tho lotllcers or persons mentioned in the act, hor cargo searched, and her iiiustor examined {upon oath touching tho cargo and voyage nnd()r a heavy penalty if tho quoHtions jn.sKed are not truly answered; ond if such ship has entered such waters "/"or (ivy ||)Hi7)0«« not permitted by treaiy or convention or by law of tho United Ivingilom or ■of Canaila, for tho time being in force, siici. ship, vessel, or Ixiat ainl the taelde, rig- Igiug, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof shall bo forfoited." I It has been pointed out in my note to Lord Iddesleigh, above mentioned, that tho Is-inilo limit referred to in this act is claimed by the Canadian (ioverniuent to include Icoiisiderable portions of tiio high seas, such as tho Bay of Fundy, the IJay of Clia- lleiir, and similar waters, by drawing tho lino from headland to headland, and that lAinerican tishormon had been excluded from those waters accordingly. It lias been aeon also that the term "any purpose not permitted by treaty " is held Ihy that Government to comprehend every possible act of human iutorcourse, except lonly the four purposes named in tho tre.kty — shelter, repairs, wood, and water. I ifiuler tho provisions of tho recent act, therefore, and tho Canadian interpretation lof the treaty, any American fishing vessel that may venture into a Canadian harbor, lor niiiv have occasion to pass through tho very extensive waters thus comprehended, [iii.'vy bo seized at the discretion of any one of numerous subordinate otHcers, carried [into port, subjected to search and the examination of hor master upon oath, her voy- lago broken up, and tho vessel and cargo confiscated, if it shall bo determined by the llooal authorities that she has ever even posted or received a letter or landed a pas- iK'nger in any part of Her Majesty's dominions iu America. I And it is jmblicly announced in Canada that a larger fleet of cruisory is being pre- Iparcd by tho authorities, and that greater vigilance will bo exerted oh their part in the next fishing season than in tho last. It is in the act to which tho one above referred to is an amendment that is fo ind Ithe provision to which I drew attention iu a note to Lord Iddesloij'h of Docembe; 2, |l886, by which it is enacted that in case a dispute arises as to whether any seizure \haa or has not been legally made, the burden of proving tho illegality of tho seizure shall bo upon the owner or claimant. In his reply to that note of January 11, 1887, his lordship intimates that this pro- vision is intended only to impose upon a person claiming a license tho burden of proving it. But a reference to the act shows that such is by no means tho restriction of the enactment. It refers iu the broadest and clearest tonus to any seizure that is Jinauo under tho provisions of tho act, which covers tho whole subject of protoetioa jogainst illegal fishing; md it applies not only to tho proof of a license to fish, but to all (piestions of fact whatever, necessary to a determination as to the lo^tality of a peiziue or the authority of tho person making it. It is quite unnecessary to point out what grave embarrassments may ariso in the iclatious between the United States and Great Britain under such admini.stration as lis reasonably to be expected of the extraordinary provisions of this act and its amond- |uicnt, upon which it is not important at this time further to coiniuent. It will be for Her Majesty's Government to doterniino how far its sanctioa and sup- port will be given to further proceedings, such as the United .States Government have blow repeatedly complained of and have just ground to apprehend i>ia,> be coutiuued |l)y the Canadian authorities. It was with tho earnest desire of obviatinjj the impending difficulty, and of pro- heiiting collisions and dispute until such time as aperiiianont unlerstamling between Hlietwo Governments could bo reached, that I suggested, on the part of tho United States, in my note to Lord Iddesleigh of September 11, 1680, that an ad interim eoii- pttuction of the terms of the treaty might be agreed on, to be carried out by iustruo- . 38 li 1; THE FISHERIES QUESTION. tions to bo given on both sides without prej'idico to theultirnateclaitnsof either, and terminablo at the pleasure of either. In au iiiKiiviow I bad the lionor to have with his lordsliip, in vliich this sujjgestion was discussed, I derived tlie impression thiit ho regarded it vith favor. Au outiiue of sucli an inraugi'iiient was therefore sub- sequeutly prepared by the United States Gove:unieu% which, at the request of Lord Iddesleigh, was submitted to him. But I observe, with some surprise, that in his note of November 30, last, his lord- ship refers to tliat proposal made in my note of 11th September, as a nropositiou that Her Majesty's Government "should temporarily abandon the exercise of the treaty rights wiiicli they claim and which they conceive to bo indisputable." In view of the very grave questions that exist as to the extent of those rjghts, in respect to which tiie views of the United States Government differ so widely from those insisted upon by Her Majesty's Government, it does not seem to me an uurea- sonablo proposal that the two Governments, by a temporary and nnitual concession, witliout prejudice, should endeavor to reach some middle ground of ad intcrivi cou- Btruction, by which existing friendly relations might be preserved, until some perma- nent treaty arrangements could bo made. The reasons why a revision of the treaty of 1818 can not now, in the opinion of tlie United States Government, be hopefully undertaken, and which are set forth in my note to Lord Iddesleigh of September 11, have increased in force since that note was written. I again respectfully commend the proposal above mentioned to the consideration of Her Majesty's Governmeut. I have, etc., £. J. Pjoelps. JlO. 307. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps No. 527.] Department of State, Washington, February 1, 1887. Sir : i transmit to you herewith, for the use of your legation, copies of Senate Executive Document No. 55, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, which contains a revised hstof vessels involved in the contro- versy with tlie CanaiUan authorities. I am, etc., T. F. Bayard. m f ■'■■ ■' [Inclosnre in No. 527.1 [Senftte Ex. Doc. No. 55, Forty-ninth Congress, second aoaaion. I Letter from tlie Secretary of State, transmitting revised lists of vessels involrcd in the contro- versy with the Canadian authoritien. Janvaky 27, 1887.— Ordorod to be printed, and also to be bound witli Senate Report No. 1G83. Drpahtmrnt of State, Washington, January 5i(5, 1887. Sin: Responding to your request, dated the 17th and received at this r»-,partiiiiMr on the Ibth instant, on behalf of the Coniuiittee on Foreign Relations, for a revisioil of the list, heretofore furnished by this Department to tlie committee, of all Americui vessels seized, warned, flned, or detained by the Canadian authorities during the | year 1886, I now inclose the same Every such instafice is therein chro'jologically ouuuierated, with a stateaieui of tin j jC^eueral faots attendant. . Very respectfully, yours, T. P. Bayaro. Hon. GuoaaE F. Edmunds, UnVed Stales Senate. THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 39 considoratiouof E. J. Phelps. iu the oontro- F. BAYARD. Ircd in the confro- Report No. 1C83. stateajcuii of tlit r. F, Bayakd. List of American vcsacla seised, detained, or warned off from Canadian porta d ■ ing the last year. Sarah B. rntiiam. — IJovorly, Mass. ; Cujvilcs Randolph, master. Driven from har- bor of Fiilinico in storin March 'Zi, 18S6. Josci^h Story. — Gloucester, Mass. Dotainod by customs officers at Baddeck, Nova Scotia, in April, 188(1, for alleged violation of the customs laws. Released after twenty- ioiir lioiirs' detention. Sdh Siockbridge. — Gloucester, Mass.; Antono Olson, master. Warned off from St. Aiidiews, New Brunswick, about April 30, 188(), Annie M. Jordan. — Gloucester, Mass. ; Alexander Haiuo, masto- Warned off at St. Andrews, Now Brunswick, about May 4, 18St>. David J. Adams. — Gloucester, Mass. ; Ablen Kinney, m yster. Seized at Dii:;by, Nova Scotia, May 7, l88t», for allegod violation of treaty of 1818, act of iVJ George III a'.itl act of H8:l. Two suits brought in vice-admiralty court at Halifax for penaUies. Protest filed May Vi. Suits pending still, and ve'jsel not yet released apparently. Sunie Coopn'\ — (Hooper?) GloucostP.r(0. Mass. Boarded an(l searched, and crew nidely ireated by Canadian officials in Canso Bay, Nova Scotia, May, 1886. EUa M. Doughty. — Portlan.., Mo. ; Warren A. Doughty, master. Seized at St. Ann's, Cape Breton, May 17, 188G, for alleged vio'ation of the cistoms laws. Suit was in- stituted in vice-admiralty court at Halifax, Nova Scotia, but was subseiiuently aliamloned, and vessel was released .Juno 21', 1886. Jennie and Julia. — Eastport, M(!. ; W. H. Travis, master. Warned off at Digby, Nova Scotia, by customs offietirs. May 18, 1886. . Lucy Ann. — Gloucester, Mass, ; Joseph H. Smith, master. Warned oiT at Yarmouth, Nova Sci/tia, May at), 1886. Matthew Kcany. — Gloucester, Mass. Detained at Souris. Prince Edward Island, one (liiy for alleged violation of customs laws, about May :U, 1886. Jamia A. Garfield. — Gloucester, Mass. Threatened, about .Juno 1, 18S3, with seiz- ure for having purchased bait in p Canadian harbor. Martha W, Bradley. — Gloucester, Mass. ; J. F. Ventior, master. Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, between Juno 1 and 8, 1886. Eliza Boynton. — Gloucester, Mass. ; George E, Martin, master. Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, between Juno 1 and 0, l-'86. Then afterwards detained in man- ner not reported, and released October "25, 18'S6. J/fls«j<.— Gloucester, Mass. ; Alexander McEachern, master. Warned off at Pert Amherst, Magdalen Islands, June 10, 1886. Thomas F, Bayard. — Gloucester, Mass. ; James McDonald, master. Warned off at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, Juno 12, 1886. James G. Craig. — Portland, Mo. ; Webber, master. Crew refused privilege of land- ing for necessaries at Brooklyn, Nova Scotia, .June l."> or 16, 1886. City Point. — Portland, Me. ; Keene, master. Detained at Shelbnrne, Nova Scotia, July 2, 1886, for alleged viohition of" customs laws. Penalty of $400 demanded. Money deposited, nnderprotest, July 12, and in addition §120 costs deposited July 14, Fine and costs refinu^'^d .July 21, and vessel released Augu, ; lijie de- posited, under p-otest, July 12; $120 costs deposited July 14; refuuled July 21, and vessel released. Jlercward. — Gloucester, Mass. ; McDonald, master. Detained two days at Canso, Xova Scotia, about July 3, 1886, for shipping seamen contrary to port laws. (r. jr. Cu»hbhj. — Portland, Mo. ; Jewott, master. Detained July (by another report .Jinie) 3, 1886, at Slielburne, Nova Scotia, for aih^ged violation of the customs laws; lined.'*, JOG; money deposited with collector at Halifax about July 12 or 14, and $120 for costs deposited 14th ; costs refiunied .July 21, and vessel released. (iohlen Hind. — Gloucester, Mass. ; Reul)en Cameron, master. Warned off at Bay of Cii.ileurs, Nova Scotia, on or about .July 23, 188!j. yorclty, — Portland, Me. ; H. A. Joyce, master. Warned off at Pictou. Nova Scotia, June 2!', 1886, where ve.ssei ;iad eutorod for coal and water; also refused entrance at Anilu'rst, Nova Scotia, July 24. A^ ./. Miller. — Booth Bay, Me. ; D'ckson, master. Detained at Hopewell Cape, New r.niiiswick, for alleged violation of customs laws, on .July 24, 18S(). Fined $400. Rattler. — Gloucester, Mass. ; A. F. Cunningham, master. Warned off at Can.so, Nova Sc«itia, .June, 1886. Detained in port of Shelbnrne, Nova Scotia, where vesstd iiiti'nid seeking shelter August 3, 1886. Kept under guard all night and released oa th(( 4tli. Caroline Fought — Booth Bay, Me. ; Ch.irlos S. Reed, master. Warned off at Ros- pebiac, New Brunswick, and refused water, August 4,- 1886. 4.0 THE FISHERIES QUESTlOl^. m /SftiZoA.— Qlouoeater, Mass.; Charles Novit, master. Boarded at Lirerpool, Nova Scotia, Anj^ust 9, aud subjected to rude surveillatico. Julia J'Jllcn. — Booth Bay, Mo. ; Barnes, mastur. Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, 1H86, and subjected to rude surveillance. Freddie W, ^JUo».— Proviuoetown, Mass.; Alton, master. Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scoti.i, August 9, 1886, and subjected to rndo siirveillancD. Howard Holhrook. — Glomester, Mass. Detained at Hawkosbury, Oape Breton , August 17, ISili, for alleged violation of the customs laws, lioleased August 20 on deposit of $400. Question of remission of line still pending. A. B. Crittenden. — Gloucester, Mass.; Bain, master. Detained at Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, August 27, 188i), for alleged violation of customs laws. Four hundred dollars pentvlty deposited August 28 without protest, and vessel raleased. Three hundred and Keventy-five dollars remitted, and a nominal line of $2^) imposed. Mollie Adams. — Gloucester, Mass. ; Solomon Jacobs, master. Warned off into storm from Straits of Canso, Nova Scotia, August .31, 1886. Highland Light. — Welllleot, Mass.; .1. H. Ryder, master Seize! olF East Point, Prince Edwarll Island, September 1, 1886, while fishing within prohibited line. Stilt for forfeiture begun in vice-admiralty court at Charloitetown. Hearing set for Sep- tember 20, but postponed to September 30. Master admitted the charge and con- fessed judgment. Vessel condemned and sold December 14. Purchased by Canadian Govern mint. l^earl Nelson, — Provincctown, Mass. ; Kemp, mastc. Detained at Arichat, Cape Breton, September 8, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Released Septem- ber 9, on deposit of ^'200. Deposit refunded October 26, 1886. Pioneer. — Gloucester, Mass. ; F. F. Cruched, masto". Warned oft' at Canso, Nova tcotia, September 9, 1886. Everett Steel. — Gloucester, Mass. ; Charles H. Forbes, master. Detained at Shel- burne. Nova Scotia, September 10, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Ru- le ased by ordor from Ottawa, September 11, 1886. iforo Crt8i^ucoediug to obtain cluaraucos. THE FlSHEUIES QUESTION. 41 No. 308. .t Canso, Nova Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. Ifo. .'528. j Department op Stat^, W(i8hin()ton, February 1. 1837. Sib : I receivetl on the 29th ultimo a replj* from the British minister at tliis capital to my notes to him on the 19th and 20th of October last, relative to the cases of the American Ashing vessels Pearl Nelson a.tni Ercrcit Steele. The note of Sir Lionel West serves only to inclose the communica- tioii of tlie Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope. Whilst tlie letter of Lord Lansdowne proceeds upon the nssumption of grounds never accepted by tbis Government as the basis of discussion o*" the rights of our fishermen, and fails t admit the obvious and ess vutial right of American fishermen to respru for i)urpose3 not abusive of the ancient ])nvilegcs guaranteed by the treaty of 1818, in the Canadian bays and liarbors, yet I am glad to see that the tone of his* discussion indicates the growth of a disposition to consider the case of the American fisher- men ill a more friendly light than heretofore in the discussions of the ])ast season. The letters will bo communicated to Congress as supplementary to the information heretofore laid before them by the President. 1 am, etc., T. F. Bayard. No. 309. ivilegoofiaiid- ^ Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. Ko. 53G.] DErARTMENT OP State, Washington, February 8, 1887. Sir : T have to acknowledge your dispatch of the 27th ultimo, No. 423, wliich was .accompanied by a copy of the ntite to you of the late Lord Id- (lesleigh, under date of December 10, J 880, and also one from Sir .hilian Pauncefote, dated January 14, 1887, and also a copy of your note to the Marquis of Salisbury under date of January 20 ultimo. I desire to express my entire satisfaction with tlie position correctly assumed and admirably and logically sustained by you in this relation. l^our telegrams of the 5th instant and of yesterday, with reference to .'le same question, have been received. As part of the general case, ami as bearing with unusual clearness upon the Canadian claims of construction of the convention of 1818, 1 transmit hr;rewith copies of a note t from Sir Lionel West, dated the 28th ultimo, inclosing a dispatch from Lord Lansdowne, governor-general of Canada, to Mr. Stanhope, dated November 9, 1880, which is accom- panied by reports of the committee of the i)rivy council for Canada, and of Mr. Thompson, the minister of justice at Ottawa. It may bo noted that this re[)ly of the British minister at this capital to my note to him of May 20, 1880, is dated on the 28th ultimo, giving some eight months for the r^ontplotion of the circuit of correspondence. At page 15 of the i»i'inted inclosure and in the last paragraph will be found t'lj explicit a\'o\val of clium by the Canadian Government to m i-'i * Printctl p. r>lG infra. tPriuted p. 502 infra. 42 THE FISHERIES QUKSTION. I M 1 '. I'fi '■V' 8:i1 employ the convention of 1818 as an instrument iijj;h to truii.smit a copy of a diHixitch I'roiii Mr. JJiiyard, diiloil tho 15th of tlio (Hocedinj? month, tofjcthor wiMi an out lino of a proposed ad interim arrango- mutit " for tho Nottlonicnt :if all (|ncHtionH in dispute iurulakiou to the li^thorioH on the northoastiTU coasts of British North Amorica." Her Majesty's Govcnniient have ^iven their most cnroful consideration to that com- munication, and it has also received tho fullest examination at the hands of the Ca- nadian Government, wlio entirely share the satisfaction felt by Her Majesty's Gov- ernment at any iudication ou tint part of that of the (Juitud States of a disposition to make arrangements which might tend to put tho affairs of tiie two countries ou a basis more Ireo from controversy and misumlerstanding than itufortunatoly oxism at present. Tho Canadian Qovernmont, however, deprecate several passages in Mr. Bayard's dispatch which attribute unfriendly motives to their proceedings, and in which tho character and scope of the measures they have taken to enforce tho toruis of the convention of 1818 are, as they believe, entirely misapprehended. Thoy insist that nothing has been done ou tho part of the Canadian authorities since tho t(>rmiuaf ion of tho Treaty of Washington iu any such spirit as that which Mr. Bayard condemns, and that all that haa been done with a view to the protection of the Canadian fisherk's ha ' been simidy for the purpose of guarding tho riglits guaranteed to the ]>eople of Canada by the convention of 1818, and of enforcing tiiu statutes of Great iiritaiu and of Canada iu relation to the fisheries. They maintain that such statutes are clearly within the powers of tho respective i'arliaments by which they were passed, and are iu conformity with the convention of 1818, espe- cially iu view of the itassage of the convention Avhich provides that the American fishermen shall bo under such restrictious as shall be necessary to prevent them from abusing the privileges thereby reserved to them. There is a passage in Mr. Bayard's dispatch to which they have particularly called the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is the following: "Tho numerous seizures made have beeu of v^issels (piietly at anchor in established ports of entry, uuder charges which up to this day have not been particularized suf- ficiently t<^) allow of intelligent defense; not one lias been condemned after trial and hearing, but many have been fined, without hearing or judgment, for technical vio- lation or alleged commercial regulations, although all commercial privileges have beeu simultaneously denied to them." In relation to this paragraph tho Canadian Government observe that the seizures of which Mr. Bayard complains have been made upon grounds which have been dis- tinctly and unequiv cally stated in every case; that, although tho nature of tho charges has been 11 ariably specified and duly aunouuced, those charges have not Iu any case been answered; that ample opportunity has in every case been att'orded for a defense to be submitted to the executive authorities, but that no defense has beeu ofttied beyond the mere denial of the right of the Canadian Government ; that the courts of the various provinces have been open to tho parties said to have been ag- grieved, but that not one of them has resorted to those courts for redress. To this it 18 added that tho illegal acts which are characterized by Mr. Bayard as "technical violations of alleged conmiercial roguL-vtions," involved breaches, in most of the cases not denied by tho persons who had committed them, of established commercial regu- lations which, far from being specially directed or enforce., against citizens of the United States, are obligatory upon all vessels (including those of Canada herself) which resort to the harbors of tho British North American coast. I have thought it right, injustice to the Canadian Government, to embody in this note almost in their own terms their refutation of the charges brought against them by Mr. Bayard ; but I would prefer not to dwell on this part of tho controversy, but to proceed at once to the consideration of the six articles of Mr. Bayard's memoran- dum in which tho proposals of your Government are embodied. Mr. Bavard states that he is " encouraged in tho expectation that the projjositions embodied in the memoraadum will be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, be- cause, in tho month of April, 1866, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, sent forward to Mr. Adams, at that time United States minister in London, the draft of a protocol which, in substance, coincides with the first article of the proposal now submitted." Article \ of tho memorandum no doubt to some extent resembles the draft protocol submitted in 1866 by Mr. Adams to Lord Clarendon, of which I inclose a copy for convenience of reference), but it contains some important departures from its terms. Nevertheless, tho article comprises the elements of a possible accord, and if it stood alone I have little doubt that it might be so modeled, with the concurrence of your Qoverumout, as to present an acceptable basis of uegotiatiou to both parties. But, *'iii'i TEE FISHtmiES QUESTION. 47 trch 24, 1887, «)r, Mr. 1* helps (lat.t'il tho luth iteriiii firran^u- iishoriuH uii the oil to that com- Liiilis of tho Ca- M!ijt3sty's Gov- i disposition to comitricH uii a latoly oxisl* at asHajj[OH ill Mr. 'iMliiifjM, and ill orco tho tonus d. an anthoi'itit!.s : HH that which tho protection in;; tlio rights ■ enforcing tiio I'hey maintain ;^ariiiiiiient8 l)y I of 1818, osi)i'- ; tlio American 'eut theiu from bicularly called • in established bicnlarized Hiif- after trial and technical vio- riviloges have it tho soizui'os ave been dis- natwre of tho es have uot in en afforded for fense has been Mit ; that the lave been ag- 2S8. To this it 19 " technical )8t of tho cases uierclal regn- itizeus of tho uada herself) mbody in this against tlieiu itroversy, but d's memorau- B prapositioiis irerumont, bo- sent forward of a protocol y submitted." Iraft protocol )se a copy for oin its terms, md if it stood rence of yonr artiea. But, nnfortnnatoly, it is followed by other articles which, in tho view of Ilor Majesty's Government and that of Canada, would give rise to endless anil unprolitablo discus- Hioii, and which, if retained, would be I'atal to the prospect of any satisfactory ar- rangement, inasmuch as they appear as a whole to be based on tho assumption that upon the most important points in tho controversy the views entiirtaiued by Her Majesty's Goverument and that of Canada are wrong, and those of tho United States Government are right, and to imply an atlmission by Her Majesty's Government and tli.it of Canada that such assuniMtion is well founded. 1 should extend the jiresent note to an undue length were I to attempt to discuss ill it each of the articles of Mr. Hayard's memorandum, and to explain the grouuds (in which Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to tliem. I have therefore thought it nH)re convenient to do so in tho form of a counter-memo- randum, which I havo the honor to inclose, and in which will be found, in parallel ccilumns, the articles of Mr. Bayard's memorandum, and tho observations of Her Miijesty's Government thereon. Alrhough, as you will perceive on a perusal of those observations, the proposal of your Government as it now stands is not one which could be accepted by Her Maj- esty's Goverument, still Her Majesty's Government are glad to think that the fact of Buiih a proposal having been made affords an opportunity which, up to tlio present time, had not beeu offered for an amicable comparison of the views entertained by the respective Governments. Tiio main priuci|do of that proposal Is that a mixed commission should be appointed for the purpose of determining the limits of those territorial waters within whicli, siiliject to the stipulations of the convention of 1818, the exclnsive right of lishiiig belongs to Groat liritain. llt:r Majesty's Government cordially agree with your Government in believing that adi'termination of these limits would, whatever may be the future commercial rela- tions between Canada and tho United States, either in respect of the tishing industry or in regard to tho interchange of other commodities, be extremely desirable, and tiny will bo found ready to co-operate with your Government in etFeotiug such a set- tlement. They are of opinion that Mr. Bayard was justified in reverting to tho precedent alVoided by the negotiations which took place upon this subject between Great Brit- ain and tho United States after the expiration of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, and they concur with him in believing that the draft protocol communicated by Mr. Ailains in 186G to tli<3 Earl of Clarendon affords a valuable indication of the lines upon which a negotiation directed to tho same points might now bo allowed to proceed. Mr. Bayard has himself pointed out that its concluding paragraph, to which Lord Cliirendou emphatically objected, is not contained in the first article of the memoran- dum now forwarded by him ; but he appears to have lost sight of the fact that the remaining articles of that memorandum contain stipulations not less open to objection, and calculated to affect even more disadvantageously the permanent interests of the Dominion in ttie fisheries adjacent to its coasts. There can be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the appoint- ment of a mixed commission, whose duty it would be to consider and report upon the matters referred to in the three first articles of the draft protocol communicated to the Earl of Clarendon jy Mr. Adams in 1866. Should a commission instructed to deal with these subjects be appointed at an early date, tho result of its investigations might be reported to the Governments affected without much loss of time. Pending the termination of the questions which it would discuss, it would be indispensable that United States fishing vessels entering Cana- dian bays and harbors should govern themselves not only according to the terms of the convention of 1818, but by the regulations to which they, in common with other vessels, are subject while within such waters. Her Majesty's Government, however, have no doubt that every effort will he made to enforce th6se regulations in such a manner as to cause the smallest amount of in- convenience to fishing vessels entering Canadian ports under stress of weather, or for any other legitimate purpose. But there is another course which Her Majesty's Government are inclined to pro- pose, and which, in their opinion, would afford a temporary solution of the contro- versy equally creditable to both parties. Her Majesty's Government have never been informed of the reasons which induced the Government of tho United States to denounce the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington, but they have understood that the adoption of that course was in a great degree tlio result of a feeling of disappointment at tho Halifax award, under which the United States were caiied upon to pay the sum of 1,100,0001., beini; the es- timated value of tlifl benefits which would accrue to them, in excess of those which would be derived by Canada and Newfoundland from the operation of the fishery articles of the treaty. Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Canada, in proof of their earnest desire to treat the question in a spirit of liberality and friendship, are now willing to 48 THE l'l!sni:UlES (^ilKSTION. rovert for Mio coming fiHliing oeaHon, and, if nonesHftry, for a fiirfliorterm, to the con- dition of tliin^H existing under the treaty of Washington, witlioiit any suggestion of pi'cnniary indemnity. ThiH l»a propOHal which, I trust, will conniumd itwclf to yoiirnovernnicnt nHliciii;^ baHod on that spirit of genorottity and good will which should aiiiuiato two great and kindred nations, whose coinmuu origin, language, audiustltutiouocouMtituto as many bouds of amity and concord. I huvo, etc., Balisbuut. '4' [Tnclosnre 2 in No. 478.] Drajv protocol communicaletl hij Mr. Adama to the Earl of Clarendon in 18C(k Whereas in the first article of the convention between the United States and Orent IJritain, concluded and signed in London ou the 'iOth October, 181H, it was declared that — "The United States hereby renounce, for over, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cur<> fish on or within '.i mariiiu miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or hitrbors of Ills Uritannic Majesty's do- minions in America, not included within cc^rtain limits lieietoforo mentioned ;" And whereas dirt'er(>nce8 have arisen in regard to the extent of the above-mentioned renunciation, the Government of the United States anurpose of shelter; and of repairing damages therein ; of purchasing wood, ami of obtaining water; and to agreti upon and establish such restrictions iis may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the privilege reserved by said convention to fishermen of the United States. (;i) To agree upon and recommeiul the penalties to be adjudged, and such proceed- ings and jurisdiction as may be necessary to secure a sitccdy trial and jiidgnunit with as little expense as possible, for the violation of rights and the transgression of the limits and restrictions whicli may be hereby adopted. Provided, however, that the limits, restrictions, and regulations which may be agreed upon by the said commission shall not be final, nor have any ettect, until so jointly confirmed and declared by the United States and Her Miijesty the Queen of Great Britain, either by treaty or by laws mutually acknowledged and accepted by the President of the United States, by and with the consent of the Senate, and by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. Pending a different arrangement on the subject, the United States Government engages to give all proper orders to officers in its employment ; and Her Britannic Majesty's Government engages to instruct the proper coloni.al or other British officers to ahstaiu from hostile acts against British and United States fishermen respectively. [Inclo8ure 3 in No. 478.1 interimmrrangement proposed by the United States Governmen>,. Article I. Observations on Mr. Bayard's memorandum. Whereas, in the first article of the con- vention between the United States and Great Britain, concluded and signed in London on the 20th October, 1818, it was agreed between the high contracting parties "that the inhabitants of the said United States sliall liave forever, iu com- The most important departure in this article from the Protocol of 1866 is the in- terpolation of the stipulation, " that the bays and harbors from which Americau vessels are in future to be excluded, save for the purposes for which entrance into bays and harbors is permitted by said THE FI8HERIi:S l^lTEaTION. 49 Salisduut. vliicli limy be fleet, until 80 tlio Queen of il accepted by uatc, and by memorandum. mon witli tho Bnbjcots of His Britannic MiijtMty, tilt) liberty to take Tmh of every kind oil that part of the southern coast of Newfoiindhuid which oxtondw from Capo KiiV to the Kan' an IshindH, on tlio wcHt- crn and uortliern coast of Newfoundliiiid, fiiPin tlie Hiiid Capo Kay to tho Quiipou IslaiulH, (III the shores of tho Majjdalen Isl- ttiidH, and also on the coasts, bays, har- bors, and creeks, from Mount Joly on tho Boiitliirri coast of Labrador, to and IIhoiikU tbo Straits of IJtjIleisle, and thence iu>rtli\vardly indeiinitely along tho coaHt, without pr-judice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Hay Company; and that tho American iisliL'iini'ii shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southeru part of tho coast of Newfoundland, hero aliove described, and of tho coast of Lab- rador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it sball not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure dub at such portion so settled with- out previous agreement for such purpose witiitlie iiduibitants, proprietors, orjios- Ke.-s(ii.s of the ground ; " and was declared that "tho United States hereby renounco forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claiiiii'il hy tho inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within '.{ nia- liiio miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of Ills Britannic Maj- esty's ilmninions iu America not included* williin the above-mentioned limits: Pro- ridtd, howcrer, That tho American fisher- iiieii shall bo admitted to enter such bays or liarliors for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of pnrchas- iiii; wcKiil, and obtaining water, and foruo otiicr purpose whatever. But they shall beiiiMler such restrictions as may be nec- essary to jiveveiit their taking, drying, or curing lish therein, or in any other iiiiiiiiier whatever abusing tho privileges liereliy reserved to them ; " ami whereas (liirercnceshavo arisen in rart iirarcMt tht<i« not cxccud 10 inil<'H, tlio Haid liiicH to ho rfjj;iilarly immlu'rt'd, !d regulations which may bo agreed upon by the said commission shall not be iinal, nor have any effect, until so Jointly couiiruied and declared by the United States and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, either by treaty or by laws mutually acknowledged. Article II. Pendingadofinitivoarrangomonton tlio Bubjoct, Her Britannic Majesty's Govern- lueut agree to instruct the proper colonial and other British ollicers to alistaiii from seizing or molesting fishing vessels of the United States unless they are found with- in 3 uiarino miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harborsof Her Britannic Majesty's doiiiiiiions in America, there lishing, or to have been fishing or prepar- ing to fish within those limits, not in- cluded within the limits within which, under the treaty of 1818, the iisherraen of the United States continue to retain a common right of fishery with Her Bri- tannic Majesty's subjects. Article III. For the purpose of executing; Article I of the convention of 1818, the Government of the United States and the Government of Her Bntannic Majesty hereby agree to send each to the Gulf of St. Lawrence n national vessel, and also one each to cruise during the lishing soasun ou the It is submittfld, howovcir, that as one of llm headlands of the Buy of Fiintly is in the territory of the United States any rules of international law apiilicabln to that bay are not therefon^ eiiually appli- cable toother bays the headlands of wnii^li are both within the territory of the same power. The second paragraph of the first article does not )ncor|>orate the exact langiiago of tho convention of 1818. For instance, the words, " and for no other purpose whatever," should bo inserted after tho mention of the jturposes for which vesseU may enter Co'iiadian waters, and after tlin words, "as may be necessary to prevent," shoiihl beinsorted, " their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other man- ner abusing the privileges reserved," etc. To make the language conform correctly to tlie convention of 1818, several other verbal alterations, which need not bo enumerated herO; would bo necessary. This article wonld Hnspond tho opera- tion of the statutes of Great Britain and of Canada, and of tho provinces now con- stituting Canada, not only as to the va- rious oliensea connected with fishing, but as to customs, harbors, and shipping, and would give to the fishing vessels of tho United States jirivilcges in Canadian ports which are not enjoyed by vessels of any other class or of any other nation. Such vessels would, for example, be free Irom tho duty of reporting at tho custonm on entering a Canadian harbor, and no safeguard could be adopted to prevent in- fraction of the customs laws by any vessel asserting the diaracter of a fishing vessel of tho ifiiited States. Instead of allowing to such vessels merely the restricted privileges reserved by tho convention of 1818, it would gi.o them greater privileges than are enjoyed at the present time by any vessels in any part of the world. This artl'ilo would deprive the courts in Canada of their jurisdiction, and would vest that juiisdiction in a tribunal not bound by leyal principles, but clothed with supreme authority to decide on most important rignts of the Canadian people. It would submit such rights to the ad- THE FIflllERIES QtlKSTION. 51 , that OB ono of of Fiiiuly it* in c(l HtivtPH any r upplicaltln to 1 «(iimlly iippli- llllllltlH"fwllU.ll ary of the Huuie tliofirHtiirticlo :xiiut laiiK'tiiKU For iimtiinets otlmr iHirpoNO lortod niter tho )r which vchhuIh PH, jiiiil after tlio my to prevent," ■taltinK.dryln;,', iftuyotlicrniiin- s ri'Hcrvod," etc, inform correctly r*, Heveral otlior h need not bo JO uecessary. ipcnd the opnra- •oat liritfiin and DvinccH nowcon- jly as to the va- |d with fishing, -a, and shipping, ishing vessels of [gos in Canadian ^ed by vessels of ly other nation, jxaniplo, bo free ig at tlu) customs I harbor, and no led to prevent in- Iws by any vessel [f a fishing vessel to snch -vessels alleges reserved [8, it would gi'.o \han are enjoyed ly vessels in any Hve the courts in (tion, and wonld a tribunal not lies, but clothed Eodecidoonniost Canadian people. |jght» to the ad' gontliorn roaflts of Nova Rootla. When- ever a liHhing vessel of the United Htates hIihII bo seize I for violating the provisions „l the iil'iiresikid conventioM by fishing or iireiiiiring to lish within it niurip.e miles of any (if the eoastn, bays, «rreoks, and hiir- imt'sof ller llriliinnie Miijesty'sdoniinions inthnleil witiiin the limits within which li.sliing is by the terms of the siild conven- tion renouncetl, n\wh vessel shall ff said vessels of dilfer- eiit nationality, shall bear and examine into the facts of the ease, .Should the Naid ('iiinnuinding oI]||<^(M's be of (>pini(Mi tliat the charge is not sustained, the ves- sel shall be released, lint if they should be (if opinion that the vesstd should bi) snlijected to a judi(Mal examination, Huu shall forthwith be sent for trial be- l^iiretho vice-admiralty court at Halifax. If, however, the said commanding ofhciirs should (litter in oiiinion, tlu^y shall name some third persoi: to act au umpire be- tween them, and si.<.Mild they be unable to agree n|ion the name of such third per- son, they shall each nannt a person, and it sluill be det(!riniiied by lot which of the two persons so named shall be the um- pire. Article IV. 1 ho fishing rossels of the United States shall have in the established ports of entry of Her Hritannio Majesty's dominions in America the same commercial privileges as other vessels of the United States, in- cluding the purchase of bait and other siipiilies; and such privileges shall be ex- ercised subject to the same rules and regu- lations and payment of the same port charges as are prescribed for other vessels of the United Btatoa. Ahticlb v. The Government of Iler Britannic Maj- esty agree to release all United States fishing vessels now under seizure for fail- ing to report at custom-houses when soek- iug shelter, repairs, or supplies, and to re- fund all fines exacted for such failure to report. And the high contracting parties agree to appoint a joint comiaisoiou to as- judicatioM of two naval oiHeora, one of themb(!longingloa fondgn country, who, if they should disagn^*' and be unabh« to (^lioose an umpire, must refer the final d(M'.lsion of the great interests which might be at stake to some person chosen by lot. If a vessel charged with infraction of Canadian fishing rightsshoiild bethought worthy of being snlijected to a "Judicial examination," she would be sent to the vice-admiralty court at Halifax, butthere would bo iio redress, no appeal, and no reference to any tribunal if the naval olH(;ers should think proper to release luT. It sliould, how<;ver, be observed that the limitation in the second senteiuu) of this article of the violations of the con- vention which are to render a vessel liable to seizure could not be accepted by Iler Majt*sty's Oovernnient. For tlutse reasons, tint article in tin; form ]>roposed is inadmissible, but Iler Maj- esty's Government are not indisposed to agree to the princi]ilo of a joint in(|nii'y by the naval otllcers of the two countrien in the first instance, tln^ vessel to be sent; for trial at Halifax if the naval ollicers do not agree that she should be relea.sed. They fear, however, that there would bo seriou.s ]iractical ditiicultics in giving ef- tect to this arrangement, owing to the great length of coast and tlie delays which must in consequence bo fretpient in secur- ing the yiresence at the same time and place of the ujval officers of both Powers. This article is also open to grave objec- tion. It proposes to give the United States fishing vessels the same commer- cial jirivileges as those to which other vessels of the United States are entitled, although such privileges are oxjiressly re- nounced by the convention of 1H18 on behalf of fishing vessels, which were thereafter to bo (lonied the right of access to Canadian waters for any purpose what- ever, except those of shelter, repairs, au 1 the purchase of wood and water. It has fretjuently been iioiutod out that an at- tempt was made, during the negotiations which jireceded the convention of 1818, to obtain for the fishermen of the United States the right of obtaining bait in Canadian waters, and that this attempt was successfully resisted. luspiteof this fact, it is proposed, under this article, to declare that the convention of 1818 gave that privilege, as well as the jirivilege of imrchnsing other supplies in the harbors of the Domiuiou. By this article it is proposed to give retrospective ettect to the unjustified in- terpretation sought to be placed on the convention by the last preceding article. It is assumed, without discussion, that all United States fishing vessels which have been seized since the expiration of t>li9 treaty vi Washin^toa tav9 heew 52 THE FISFEKTES QUESTION. certain the amount of damage caused to American fishermen during tlie year 1886 by seizure and detention in violation of the treaty of 1818, said commission to malie awards therefor to the parties in- jured. AUTICLE VI. The 'Jovernment of the United States and the Government of Her Britannic ;" ijestj agree to give concurrent notifica- tion and warning of Canadian customs regulations, and tlie United States agree to admonish its fishermen to comply with them aud co-oporato in securing their en- forcomont. iliogally BC'^jcd leaving as tne only question still open for consideration the amount of the damages for which the Canadian authorities are liable. Such a proposal appears to Her Maj- esty's Government quite inadmissible. This article calls for no remark. t I ' i ill •; 1 1 , . No. 317. ' .. Mr. Fhelps to Mr. Bayard, No. 501.] Li:gation of the United States, London, April 22, 1887. (Received May 3.) SiE : I have the honor to inclose herewith two copies of a parliament- ary paper* (United States, No. 2, 1887) just issued by the British Gov- ernment and containing further correspondence on the subject of the fisheries, together with a leading article from the Times of 21st instant in reference tliereto, ai;d the correction I caused to be inserted in to- day's issue of that newspaper of one of its statements. I have, etc., , . ' E.J.Phelps. Iluclosure 1 In No. 501. -Fron. tho TiiniiS, Thursday, April 21, 1887.1 The Canadian fiNhtlomacy has moved witiiout advancing much. Who is responsible f Not, in the niiiii), either the Home (rovernment or the Dominion Government. We must do them the justice to own tliat they have not been exacting or punctilious. The former have ui.ule overtures of a lair iiiid even gd'erous nature. Their fault, if any, has been one not unknown in negotiating with astuKi uiplomatists ; they have, ])crhaps, uiulervaliicd the advantage of standing still aud waiting to see wlie,ther the otln^r side moves Lust December the American minister communicated to Lord Iddesleigh a proposal for au ad interim arrangement, the chief featura of which was the estab- lishnieut of a mixed commission in ordc to "separate the exclusive from the common right of fishing on the coasts and in the adjficent waters of the British North Amer- ican colo'iies;" tlio vexed question of the headlands to be settled by laying it down that the bays and harbors into which entrance is not generally permitted are "to ho taken to be such bays and harbors as are 10 or less than 10 miles in width, and the dis- tance of li marine miles from such bays .and harbors, to be measured from a straight line drawn ai^mss tin* bay or harbor in the part nearest the entrance at the first point where, the widlli docs not exceed 10 miles." The (loinmissioners would al:«) be ein- powered to iiiaUn regulations to secure the right of entry of tisheruien of the United Stales into l»ays and harbors for the purpose of snfi-ty aud the like, and also to nnvko arraiig(Mncnts lor t lie speedy trial of oU'enders. In the mean time no seizures would take I'laee ; vessels of war of this country and the Uni:,ele seine lost at sea and carried into Malpeque hy a Canadian vessel, ha.** been received. As you were informed, by my letter of Jauua.'y 28 last, your original complaint of December 28, 1886, with the accompanying ailklavit of the captain and crew of the Sarah H. Prior purporting to set forth the facts of the case, was laid before Her Britannic Majesty's minister at this capital. My note and Sir Lionel West's acknowl- ' edgment thereof are printed on pages 7 and 8 of the inclosed executive document. I am now in receipt of Sir Lionel's reply, covering an approved report of a commit- tee of the Dominion privy council, of which a copy is inclosed for j our information. The question appears to have been one of compliance with the usual wreckage and salvage laws, and wholly disconnected from international right and duty. The sworn statements of the master of the Sarah Jf. Prior as to the refusal of the commander of the Critio to permit the restoration of the seine are controverted. It is alleged that, on the regular course of proceedings for the recovery of his prop- erty through the receiver of wrecks being pointed out to Captain McLaughlin, the latter " then said that as the seine was all torn to pieces, he would not bother him- self about it " It appears, from the letter addressed to you. May 2, by Mr. M. J. Foley, receiver of wrecks at Souris, Prince Edward Island, and which you send to me for my informa- tion, that the seine in question, after proper care during the winter, is still at your disposal on payment of the adjudged salvage, $25 This sum, it may be noted, is that which Captain McLaughlin offered in the first instance to pay to the master of the John Ingalls. Iiiasnuich as the rights of salvage are private rights, to be settled in judicial forums, and as no obstacle now exists, or appears to have at any time existed, to the recovery of your lost property by institution of a suit in the usual form, I am unable to dis- cover any connection between the subject-matter of your comi)laint and any ' aty of (he United States with Great Britain, or ground for Government interpositu ii. Wreck-master Foley's letter is herewith returned to you, a copy being retained on file with your letter. I aui| etc., T. F. Bayard. •66 v\ •the fisheries question. No. 321. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. [Estract.] Ko. 659 bis.] Department of State, Washington, July 12, 1887. Sir : On March 24 last the Marquis of Salisbury made reply to your note to biin of December 3, 18SG, and comnuiuicated the views of the Canadian government upon the ad interim arrangement proposed by the Government of the United States, undrr date of the 15th of November preceding, for the settlement of the fishery disputes. This reply of his lordship and the ''observations" of the Canadian authorities upon the proposal for an arrangement were conveyed iii Mr. White's dispatch of March 30, and received at this Department April 11 last, when it had my immediate consideration. An answer was prepared forthwith to the note of his lordship, as well as to the "observations," and 1 now inclose two copies of the latter, which, for convenience and intelligibility, has been printed as a third parallel column to the original proi)osal and the Canadian " obscva- lions." I am, etc.) T. F. Bayaed. ,,:|. !!.!» llnclosuro in No. C59 bis. ] FiSnERIES AunANGEMKXT mOPOSED BY UNITED STATES, WITH "OBSERVATIONS" OF British Goveinment and Reply op Government of United States. Ad interim Arrangement pro- posed by the United States, Government. Article I. WHEREAS, in tho 1st Ar- ticle of tlio Convention botweecu tbo United Stutes ni\(l Gro:it Diitaiu, concluded nnd signed in London on tho 20(h October, 1818, it wa« agreed between the High Contracting Parties " that the iubabitauta of tho saidlTiii- ted States shall have forever, in common with tbo subjects of Uis Britaunio HnjoBty, the lib- erty to take fish of every kind on that part of tho eouthern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Kameau Islands, on the ■western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Capo Kay to the Qiiirpon Islands, on the shores of tho Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts.bays, harbunrs,and creeks, from Mount Joly on tho Southern coast of Labrador, to and through tho Straits on BcUo- Isle, and thence northwardly Indefluitely alonf; the coast, Observations on Mr. Bayard's Memorandum. THE roost important depart- ure in this Article from the Pro- tocol of 1800 is the lutorpolation of tlieHtipulation, "that tho bays and harbours from which Ameri- can vessels are in future to bo excluded, save for tho purposes for which entrance into bays and harbours is permitted by said Article, are hereby agreed to be taken to bo such harbours as aro 10, orlessthan 10, miles in widili, and tho distance of 3 nuirino miles fom such bays and har- bours shall bo measui'cd from a straight line drawn across tho bay or harbour in the part near- est the entrance at the first point where the width does not ex- ceed 10 miles." This provision would involve a surrender of fi-shing rights which have always been regard- ed as tho osclusive pnipcrty of Canada, and would make com- mon fi.shing grounds of iho ter- ritorial waters « hicli, by the law of nations, have been invariably Reply to " Observations' posal. on Pro- A prior agreement betwcon the two Governments as to tlio proper defiuition of the "bays and harbors " from which Ameri- can lialiermcn are hereafter lo be excluded, would not only fa- cilitntethelaborsofthopropusud Comnijasion, by niateriaily as- sisting it in defining such bays and harbors, but would give to its action a finality that could not otberwiso bo expected. Tlio width of ton miles was proposed, not oul.y because it had been fol- lowed in Conventions betwcon many other powers, but also lie- cause it was deemed reasoiiablu andjust in the present case; i\m Governnu!Utrecognizing tho tact that, while it might have claiiiu'cl a width of six miles as a basi.s uf settlement, fishing within b:iys and harbors only slightly wiiUr would be confined to areas so narrow as to render it practically valueless and almost neco-ssaiily expose tho fishermen toconstuiit danger of carrying their oponi' THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 67 TATE, y 12, 1887. ilo reply to the views of iut iiroposed the 15tU of lUtes. ho Canadian conveyed iu Department I lordship, as of the latter, ;d as a third in " obse'va- , Bayard. BSERVATIONS" TED States. tervatioiM" on Pro- posal. Tfopmcnt botwcpn onimouts as to the tion of the "Imys from wlilcli Amen- n are bcreaftor to would not only fiv Ijorsoftlio proponed 1).V luutorialli' as- ilfdnlug Buch bays it womUI givo to iiality that could bo expected. The liloB was proposed, U80 it bad boon fol- ivcntious between owers, but also lio- doeincd reaaonablu present ca»io! tbis •ecognizing tbo laet might have claiimd miles as a basis uf gbing within bays inly slightly wider fined to areas so endor it practically almost uucossarily hprmen toconstaut rrying their opera- without projudlce, howevir, to :..iiy of tlleo^:elusive rights of tbo IIimIsoh's ]!ay Company; and l!iat tiio American tisbcrnieu xliall also bav.i liberty for ever to dry and cure tiah in any oi" the nn^dtled bays, harbours, and ci-ccka of the southern part of Ihft coast of Ncwfonndland, here almvc described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as tho samo.orany portion thereof,shall bo settled, it shall not bo lawful for tlio said fishormcn to dry or cure fish at such portions so set- tled without previous a-reemont for such purpose with the in- habitants, proprietors, or pos- sessors of the ground j " and was declared that "tho United States hereby renounce forever any lib- erty.heretofore enjoyed or claim- ed by the inhabitants thereof to talvc, dry, or cure fish on or with- in 3 marino miles of any of the coasts, bays, crocks, or harbours of His Britannic Jfajesty's do- minions in America not included within the above-mentioned lim- its; provided, however, that the American (ishernien shall bo ad- mitted to enter such bays or har- honra for tlui purpose of shelter, iind of repairing damages there- in, of purchasing wood, and ob- taining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may bo necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other man- ner whatevar abnslng the privi- leges hereby reserved to them ;" and whereas difTorenccs liavo arisen in regard to tho extent of tho above-mentioned renuncia- tion, tho Government of tho United States and Her Majesty theQiieen of Great Britain, being equally desirous of avoiding fu: • ler niisundorstanding, agree ,:o appoint a Mixed ('oinraission for llui following purposes, namely : 1. Toagrceupon and establish liy a series of lines tho limits which sliall separate the exclu- Mve from tho common right of lisliidg on the coast and in tbo ailjarent waters of the British Xorth American Colonies, in (nnforraity wUh tho Ist Article "f tho Convention of 1818, except that tlicbuys and harbours from whiili American fishermen are in the future to be excluded, save for the purposes for which regarded both in Great Britain nnil the United States as be- longing; to tho adjacent country. In the case, for instance, of the Baio dcs Cbalcurs, a peculiarly well-marked and almost land- lockcd'indcnfation of tho Cana- dian coast, the 10-mile lino would be drawn from points in the heart of Canadian territory, and al- most 70 miles distance from tbo natural entrance or mouth of tho bay. This would bo done in spito of the fact that, both by Imperial legislation and by ju- dicial interpretation, this liay b^. , been dcclnrod to form apart of tho territory of Canada. (Seo Imperial Statute 14 & 15 Vict., cap. 63 ; and " Mouat v. JIc- rhee," 5 Sup. Court of Canada lJc])orts, p. (Hi.) Tbo Convention with Franco in 1.930, and similar (^)nventions with other European rowers, form no precedents for the adop- tion of a 10-milo limit. Those Conventions were doubtless passed with a view to the geo- grapb.ical iieculiarities of the coast to which they related. They bad for their object the definition of tiio boundary lines which, owing to the configura- tion of tbo coast, perhaps could not readily bo settled by refer- ence to tho law of nations, and invidve other conditions which aro inapplicable to tbo territo- rial waters of Canada. This is shown by tbo fact that in the French Convention tho whole of the oyster-beds in Gran- ville Bay, otherwise called tho Bay of Cancain, the entrance of which exceeds 10 miles in width, were regarded as French, and tho enjoyment of them is re- served to the local fishernien. A reference to the action of tho United States' Government, "id to tho admission m.ado by their statesmen in regard f to] bays on tho American coasts, strength- ens this view; at d tho case of t he English ship "Grange" sliows that the Government of tbo United States in 1703 claimed Delaware Bay as being within territorial waters. Mr. Bayard contends that the rule which be asks to have set up was adopted by the Umpire of tho Commission appointed under tho Convention of 1853 in tlio case of tho United States' tioDS Into forbidden waters. A width of more than ten miles would give room for safe fishing niorctlian three miles from either shore, ond thus prevent the con- stant disputes which this Gov- ornmont's proposal, following the Conventions above noticed, was designed to avert. It was not known to Involve tlio surrender of rights "which had always been regarded as the exclusive property of Canada," or to "mako common fishing ground of territorial waters, which, by tho law of nations, have been invariably regarded, both iu Great Britain and the United Stiites, as belonging to the adj.ioent country." The case of tbo Bale des Cha- leurs, the only case cited in this relation, does not appear to sus- tain the "observations" above quoted. From IS.'il until 1800 American fishermen were per- mitted free access to all territo- rial waters of tho provinces un- der treaty stipulations. From IHtiO until 1870 thev enjoyed sim- ilaraccess under special licenses issued by the Canadian Govern- ment. In 1870 tho license sys- tem was discontinued, andnnder dale of May 14 of that year a draft of special instructions to ofUcera in command of tho ma- rino police, to protect the in- shore fisheries, was submitted by Mr. P. Mitchell, Minister of Marino and Fisheries of the Do- minion, to tho Trivy Council, and on tbo same day was ap- I)roved. In that draft tho width of ten miles, as now proposed by this Government, was laid down as the definition of the bays and harbors from which American fishermen were to bo excluded ; and in respect to tho Bi:y des Cbalenrs, it was (iiroct- ed that tho ofBcers mentioned should not admit American tlsh- ermen "inside of a line drawn " across at that part of such bay " where its width does not exceed "ten miles." (See Sess. Pap, 1870; tee also Appendix "A" to this Memorandum.) It is true that it was stated that these lim- its were "for the present to be exceptional." But they are Ir- roconcilablo with tho supposi- tion that the present proposal of this Government " would In- " Volvo a surrender of fiablnf J., « m ' I, 58 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. " I I '< I ll entrance into the bays and har> bonrs i8 permitted by Maid Ar- ticle, aro liorel)y ajtreed to be tftkon to be such bays and bar- bonrs as are 10 or less than 10 miles in width, nnd the distance of !( marine niilcH from such bays and harbours sliiiU be ni(!nRUTod from a straight line drawn across the bay or harbour, in the part nearest the entrance, nt the first point where the width does not exceed 10 miles, the said lines to bo rognliirly nuniborcd, duly de- scribed, and also clearly marked on Charts jirepaied in duplicate for the puri)Ose. 2. To agree upon and establish snch Regulations as may ho nec- essary and proper to secure to the llshcrmen of the United States tlie privilego of entering bays and harbours for the pur- pose of shelter nnd repairing daniiiges therein, of pnichasing wood, and of obtiilniug water, and to ngrne upon and establish Bucli restrictions as may ho nec- essary to prevent tlio nbuso of the ptivilego reserved by said Convention to the fishormen of the United States. 3. To agree upon and recom- mend the penalties to be ad- judged, and such proceedings and jurisdiction as may be nec- essary to secure a speedy trial and .Judgment, « ith as little ex- l)en8o as possible, for the viola- tors of rights and the transgress- ors of the limits and restrictions which may bo hereby adopted i Provided, however, that the limits, restrictions, nnd llegula- tions which may bo agreed iinon by tliesaid Commission shall not be final, nor have any eifect, un- til 80 jointly confirmed and de- clared by the United States and Her Majesty the Queen of Great liritain, either by Treaty or by lawa mutually acknowledged. fishing-schooner "Washingu.::," that it was by him applied to the Bay of l''undy, and that it is for this reason applicable to other Canadian bays. It is submitted, however, that as one of the headlands Of the Bay of Fundy is in the territory of the United States any rules of international law applicable to that bay are not therefore equal- ly applicable to other bays the headlands of which are both within the territory of the same Power. The second paragraph of the 1st Article does not incorporate the exact language of the Con- vention of 1818. For instance, the words, "and for no other purpose whatever," should bo inserted after the mention of the purposes for whioh vessels may enter Canadian waters, and after the words, "as may be neces- sary to prevert," should be in- serted, " their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner abusing the privi- leges reserved," &c. Tomake the language conform correctly to the Couvcsntion of 1818, several other verbal altera- tUms, which need not be enumer- ated hero, would be necessary. " rights which have always been " regarded as the exclusive prop. "orty of Canada." It is, however, to be observed that the instructions above re- ferred to were not enforced, but were, at the re rclovance to the lasiou, bccauai) it ivcly to the settle- ted bcnndariea hiv Uriti.sh proviuceB New Brunswick, ternatioual aspect d the same may bo le cited, which was ki(! in its nature. tlui Bay des Chil- lis adduced to show it adopU'd in the regulating the fiah- Iritish Channel ami Sea would not lie jable to tbo prov- tasts bordering on Icoutain numerous lo than ton niih« (ther condition ban ?d to make the lim by Groat Britain iwers as to tb(is<' ,plicuble" to the lada. lion referred to (of iHinOranvillcBay) lilei-uleinthoCon La;!9 and 1843, bc- [jritain and France, I examination of the ition, tobe"estab liahod upon special piiuciples;" aiid it is believed that the area of waters so excepted Is scarcely 12 miles by 10. In this relation It may be instructive to note tlie terms of the Memorandum pro- posed for tlie Foreign Oflice In 1870, withr eference to a Com- mission to settle the flsliing lim- its on the coast of British North America. (Sess. I'ap., 1871 ; tee also Appendix ' C") The Bay des Chaleurs is ICi miles wide at the mouth, meas- nred from Birch Point to Point Macqueroau ; contains within its limits several other well-defined bays, distinguished by their re- spective names, and, according to the*' observations, ".idistauce of almost seventy miles inward may bo traversed before reach- ing tbo toil mile line. ' The Delaware Bay is 11^ miles ■wide at the mouth, 32 miles from which it narrows Into the river of that jiame, and has always been held to be territorial waters, before and since the case of the "Grange" — an in- ternational case, — in 1703, down to the present tuno. In delivering .judgment In the case of tho " AS^ashington," tbo Umpire considered tho licadland theory and pronounced it " now doctrine." Ho noted among other facts that one of the head- lands of the Bay of Fuudy was in the United States, but did not place bis decision on that ground. And immediately in tho next case, that of tho "Ar- gus, " beard by him and decided on the same day, he wholly dis- carded tho headland theory and made an award in favor of the owners. The "Argus" was seized, not in the Bay of Fundy, but because (althongb more than throe miles from laud) she was found fishing within a line drawn from headland to head- land, from Cow Bay to Capo North, on tbo northeast side of Cape Breton Island. Tho language of the Conven- tion of 1818 was not fully incor- porated in tho second paragraph of the 1st Article of the propo- sal, becauBO that paragraph re- lates to regulations for the so- ouro enjoyment of certain priv- ileges expressly reserved. Tho words "and for no other pur- pose whatever" would in thl» Hk ^nj 60 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. relntion be surplusage. The if. | strictions to prevent the abine of the privih'jics referred i,, would iicccHsiirily ho Hiich ua i,, prevent the "taking, dryinc, iiiul curing " of fiHh. For thcKe rca Bons the words referred to were not iuHPTted, nor is the useful seas of their insertiou apparent I; 4(1 interiin Arrangement pro- poted by the United Statet' Oov- emment. Article II. Ponding a detlnitivo arranpo- mont on tlio subject, Her Bri- tannic Majesty's Government agree to instruct the proper Co- lonial and other British ofUcers to abstain from seizing or mo- lesting fl&bing vessels of the United Statca unless they are found within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbours of Her Britannic Mnjesty's dominions in Amer- ica, there fishing, or to have been fishing or preparing to fish within those limits, uotincludod within the limits within which, under the Treaty of 1818, the flail!, rmeu of the United States continue to retain a common right of fishery with Her Bri- tannic Msyeaty'B subjects. Observalioni on Mr. Layard's Memorandum. This Article would suspend the operation of the Statutes of Great Britain and of Canada, and of tho provinces now constitu- ting Cniiada, not only as to the various ofibusos connected with fishing, but as to customs, liar, hours, and shipping, and would give to tho fishing vessels of tho United States privileges in (Can- adian ports which are not enjoy- ed by vessels of any other class, orof any other nation. Such ves- sels would, for example, be free from tho duty of reporting at the Cnstoms on entering a Canadian harbour, and no safeguard could bo adopted to prevent infraction of tho Customs Laws by any ves- sel asserting tho character of a fishing vessel of the United States. Instead of allowing to such vessels merely tho restricted privileges reserved by tho Con- vention of 1818, it would give them greater privileges than are enjoyed at the present time by any vessels In any part of tho world. lieply to" Observationi " on Pn. posal. Article II. The objections to this Article will, it is believed, bo rcmovoii by a refer.nico to Article VI, in which "tho United Stales agrees to admonish its fisher- men to comply" with Cana- dian customs regulations and to eoiiperato in securing their enforecinent. Obedience by American fishing vessels to Ca- nadian laws was believed and certainly was intended to ho te- cured by tiis article. By the consolidation, however, of Ar- ticles IE and VI the criticiam would bo fully met. i*l|.,v Ad interim Arrangement pro- posed by the United State*' Oov- emment. Article III. For the purpose of executing Article I of tho Convention of 1818, the Government of the United States and tho Govern- ment of nor Britannic Majesty hereby agree to send each U> the Gulf of St. Lawrence a national vessel, and also one each to cruise during tho fishing season on the southern coasts of Nova Scotia. Whenever a fishing vessel of the United States shall be seized for Obgervationg on Mr. Bayard's Memorandum. This Article would deprive tho Courts in Canada of their juris- diction, and would vest that Ja- risdiction in a Tribunal not bound by legal principles, but clothed with supreme authority to decide on most important rights of the Canadian people. It would submit such rights to tho ailjadication of two naval ofBcers, one of them belonging to a foreign country, who, if they Iteply to " Observationi" onFro \ posal. Article m. As tho chief object of this Ar- ticle is not nnacceptable to Ilcr I Majesty's Government— t. «., tlic establishment of a joint system j of inquiry by naval oflBcers of tlio two couutries in the first in- stance—it ia believed that tl e 1 oY' >ction8 suggested may be re- moved by an enlargement of the list of enumerated olTonses so as to Include infractions of the reg- ulations which may be estab- I THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 61 urplusage. TlleI^ ]irovcnt tlio iibiiH ilcgcs referred to ! iRiirily bo Hiicli unto 'taking, clryinK, and Ish. For lliCHB rca •(Is reforrod to wen , nor is tlio tisi'fui inaoitiuu appaii'ut 'isernalions" on Pro- posal. TICI,E II. itions to this Article iliovcd, 1)0 rcniovoil iico to Article VI, tUo Unit bo at stulio to sciiiio iiorsou chosen by lot. If a vessel iliargod with infrac- tion of Canadian lishing rights should be tliought worthy of be* iiig subjected to a "judicial ez- uuilnation," she would be sent to tho Vice- Adni iralty Court at Ilal- ifax, but there woiiht be no re> dress, uo appeal, and no refeiv euce to any Tribunal if tho na- val officers should think proper to release her. It should, however, be ob- served that the limitation in the second sentence of this Articlo of tho violations of tho Conven- tion which are to render a vessel liable to scixure could not bo ao- copt.'d by Her Majesty's Gov- oramcnt. For those reasons, the Article in tho form proposed is inadmis- sible, but Her Majesty's Giivem- ment are not indisposed to agree to the principle of a joint inquiry by tho naval oflicors of the two countries in tho first instance, tho vessel to bo sent for trial at Ilalifax if tho naval otlicers do not agree that she should be re- leased. They fear, however, that thero would bo serious iir,ictical diffi- culties In giving cirect to this arrang' lont, owing to the great length (if coast, and tho delays, which must in consequence be frequent, in securing tlio pres- ence at tho same time and place of the naval officers of both Powers. lished by tho ComnilssiOk, And the trratniont to boawardoUto sucli infractions should also be couuidored by tho sumo body. >h>ervation$" onPn posal. RTICLK III. lef object of this Ar- inacceplable to Ilcr ivemment— t. «.. tilt it of a iolnt system naval officers of tlio ies in the first in- believed that tl i' iggosted may bo ro- enlargement of tho irated offenses so an fractions of the ren- liob may be estab- \Ad interim Arrangement pro- ]inted titj the United Statci' Oov- emmenl. AimCLE IV. Tho flailing vessels of the I United Stat«s shall have in tho I establiabed poits of entry of Iter [Britannic M^esty's dominions jiu Auieiicathosamo commercial [pririlpgos asoth^. vessels of the I United States, including the nur- I rhaso of bait and other supplies ; and such privileges shall be ex- orcisedsubjoct to the same Bnlcs and Hegulations and payment of the aaiue port charges as are yre> Observations on Mr, Bayard's Memorandum. This Articlo is also open to grave objection. It proposes to give tho United Stati's fishing vessels tho same commercial privileges as those to which other vessels of the United States are entitled, although such privileges are expressly re- nounced by the Convention of 1818 on behalf of fishing vessels, which were thereafter to be de- nied the right of access to Cana- Jieply to " Observations" on Pro- posal. Article IV- Tho Treaty of 1818 related solely to Fisheries. It \yas not a commercial Convention, and no commercial privileges were rouounced by it. It contains no reference to "ports," of whiclj, it is believed, tho only ones then existing were Halifax, in Nova Scotia, and possibly one or two more In tho other provinces ; and these ports were not until long Afterwards opened, by recipro- THE FISHERIES QUESTION. ri I ! ■orlbod for othor veuoU of tbo UnlloU Sutus. I'*.!: '\'' (linn waters for any piirpono wliatovor, jixcupt tliow (if bIicI- tcr, rcpiilrs, and the piiirliiiHo of wood mid walor. It hiis fro- quniilly b(3oi) pointed out that uii Attoiiipt wa» iiiiido, duriiiK the nOgOtilitioDH Wllicll prC(MMl(Ml tlu) Convention of 1818, to olitnln for tbo flshermon of tbo Unitod StatoH tho right of obtaining bait in Canadian watorn, and tliot tbia attempt waa BuccossriiUy re- Bisted. In spite of thif) Ciict, it is proposed, under thin Article, to declare tbat tbe Convention of 1818 gave that privilege, nH well r.n tbe privilege of piircbuHiug etber supplies in tbo barboura of thaDuiuiuion. onl comniorclut regiilationn, to vcnmi'Ih of tbii ITuitcd Stales tDl gaged in trading. Tbo right to "obtain" (it take, or tlidi for) bait, wan iim inMintcd upon by tbo Aiiicii(a. negotiators, and waH dniililliM , omitted from *tlie Treaty, be- cause, as it would haT(< ixTinit tod llsbing for that puiposi', || wuH a partial roaHHcrtion of tlir riglit to Hsh 4 ithlu Uw llniilM u { to wbicli tlio riglit to take tlitli bad already been expiosHly re- ' noiuiced. Tlio purcbaBeofbnltnnd other 1 supidies by the American tltil, ormcn In tbo established portu ofontrj'of Canada, as prdpcpmil In Article IV^, is not icgardcil iis inconsistent with any of tbe pru- vl'ions of tlio Treaty of 1818; rjid in this relation it is portl- sent to note tbe declaration o( tbo Early of Kimberly, in hiHiet. tor of I<'et)ruary 10, 1871. to Lonl Llsgar, that " tbe exolusion uf " American flslicrmen from re- "sorting to Canadian jMirts, ex- " cept for tbe purpose of sbeltor, "and of repairing da magus " therein, purchaMing wood, ami " obtaining water, might bo war- "ranted by the letter of tho "Treaty of 1818, and by tho "terras of tbo Imperial Act 59, "Geo. Ill, Chap. 38, but Her "Majesty's Government feol "bound to state that it seem-'< "to them an extiemo nuHi', It ial rcaHsfrtiou of tlip h witUiu tho liinilHi).i | ho ri}!ht to tiikii Dab y been oxiiiosMly re- shnsoorbaitnnilotliet y tho Aiiiuriciin (1«1; tho (mtabliHliril ports Cana nst any substantial of tho exclasivo shing which may bo Lritish ouhjeets." lontendcd that tiie base bait and sup- other privilege cf ven by tho Treiity ther was any auch lego stipulated I'ur he Treaty of IS'il, •eaty of Wikshini;- Halifax Corouiis- n 1877, thirt it was lut " for that tribii- l compensation for iutercoarae be- ,wo countries, nor iu|; bait, ice, sup- Ad interim Arrai^nnnent prn- I,. admissible. Obaervationf on 2Ir. Bayari't Memorandum. This AnicU calls for no ie> mark. "pile*, Slc, nor for permlsiilon " til transship cargoes in llrltiah "waters." And yet this (lov- cmnient in nut aware tlint, dur- ing the exlstrure of tho Treaty of 1HD4 or tho Treaty ot Wash- ington, question was ever made of the right of Annrican tlshor- nieii to purchase bait and other supplies in (Canadian ports, or that such privileges were over denied them. Iteply to " Obiervatli n§ " en Pro- posal. Abticle v. This Government is not dis- posed to insist on the precise form of this Article, but is ready to Hubstituto Iherel'or a siibmis- sion toarliitiatiuu in more gen- eral tortus. !■■■ -'•:,<■ -■ '^u'i-.^jrf .1 ,.-/.:/, J . r Appendix A. Ill sn'h capacity, your jurisdiction must bo strictly confided within flie limit of ' three marine miles of any of tho coasts, bays, creeks or harbors,' of ..'auada, with respect to any acti on you may lake against American fishing vessels and United States citizens engaged in fishing. Wliero any of Ihe lia.\ s, creeks or harbors sliail not oxceou ten geographical miles in width, you will consider that tlie line of demarcation extends from headland io headland, either at the ontrauco to such bay, creek or li;ii her, or from and between given points on both sides theroof, at any place nearest tho mouth where the shores nro less than ten miles ajiart; and may exclude foreign fishermen and fishing vessela tlieiefiom, or seize if found within three marine miles of tho coast. "Jurisdiction. — Tho limits within whieh you will, if necessary, exorcise the power to exclude United Slates fishermen, or to detain American fishing vessels or boats, are for the present to be exceptional. Dillidilties have arisen in former times with respect to the question, whether tho exclosive limits 84 THE FI8HERIK8 QUKSTION.' h I !| I ' 1 i5 •bonltl be iiiuaHUrcd on IIiich <1rawii piiralli'l ovurywlinni to tbi> cnnnt •iid dcmciililuK Iti slnnoNtlioi, or on lines pruducoil from liciidliinil to licucllaiid hitohn tliot'iitriiiiruM of bnyn, criMikH oi' liiirliorit. Ilir lIiijKRty's Uovernmmit. aio rlonrly of opinion, tluit liy llio (Nmvontlon nf.lHlS, tliu rultnl Hdilrg liavo runoiincud the rlulit ut' tlHliinu not only witliin tliroi* niibmof th« (Joloniul Hlion-H, liiit uitliin lliitn niilcH of a lino drnwn hviohh tli« nioutli of any liritiuli bity or crct^k. It U, liowcvcr. tlio niith of Ilir Mnjenty'a Oovornment noillior to couceilo, nor for tint ]iriit to cnforco nny rli{litri in tliii ronpi'd. wblcli nro In tboir uaturoopon to nny HorioiiH (lUUHtlon. lentil fiirtbnr InHtrurtod, tlioruforc, yon nili Dot intfrfvru with any Atnoricun llHlirrmim nnlcHH found witliiu thrconilliifi oftlio hIioio, or wilbin tliri'« nillcR of » lino drawn ncroBH thoniontbofa bay or crock which U Ichh than ten Kco^rupliical niilcxiu width. In the caHo of any other buy, nn tlio Day do CImhinrH, for u\amplu, you will not iidnilt iiuy United StatcH tliibinK vesael or boat, or any Ainericau (lubennen, Insido of ii lino drawn avroMsat that part of auchbay where its wiilthdoeB not exceed ton miles." (SchhIou Papers, Vol. Ill, Nu. 0, 1870.) Appendix B. " In such capacity, year JiirUdlction must be Htrictlyconfldi'4 within tho limit of 'throoniarinonillfi of any of the coastH, bays, creeks or harbors ' of (Janada, with respect to any act Ion you may take aguiust Aniericnn tlsbinR vcbhcIs and United States citizens en^^a^ed in tlHJiinjr. Where any of tlio ba.yn, creeks, or harbors shall not exceed six gcographii al miles in width, you will consider that thj) lino of de. marcation extends from headland to hoadlanil, either at tho entrance to sui^h buy, creek, or harbor, or from and between given points on both sides tlieroof, at any place nearest the montli where the shoroi are less than six miles apart; and may exclude foreign fishenneu and ILsbinK vessels thurelVom, or suizt U found withiu threo marino miles of tho coast. " Jurwi/iction.— The limits witliln which you will, if necessary, exorcise the power to exchidoUnitiiil Rtates llHhermcn, or to detain American fishing vessels or boats, are ior the present to be cxeeptioim! DKllculties have arisen In former times with respect to the r ImrUor*. Hit lUltiMl StiitPS liavo , liut wllliiii llircii r. llin wIhIi of llrr U III tliiH roHpi'd. lluiiufon', you will >i(), or wllliiii throe mrajilili'al nilh'sin will ii()t iidnilt liny awn iicroHnat llmt in, No. 6, 1870.) ' tliroomnrlnorailM iminii.v takoa;;iuuiit n ony of tlio Im.vH, • that till) l'i>" •*•''«■ citiok, or harbor, (ir U wliuro the sboroa I thorcfiom, or suite or to oxclmlo United t to hi! oxooptioiml ,ho (ixclusivo limit* lig ItH Biiiiiositli's, or .a or luu'borH, Her Unit ml States have It within tl'.roo niilos Ish of ITiir Majesty's respect which arc iu au will not intorfi^rc I three miles of a lino iloHwitlo.ls less than Ihe H'l'j den i.'haleun any American lisli, hroo marino miles of lla<;ilaleu Islands, or than His <;ro>;;ri'|il''- •li. iit iiointsneaii'st Isliinu', pn'parin^to nco with tlio above- lake her into port for cJ, that the offennc oj ti liniita." (Seasiou Vor-general. It, October 10, 1870. I to transmit to Sir E- 1 the Government ot the wishes of your ; States, nnil Canada Ileal limits of the ex Tie understood desiro Llomatic difficulties, KlUBBULET- MemoranHiim for foreign offlee reipcctintj a comminsion to lettle limili of tkt right c/et- ctunivejhhery oh the coast of Urltish North Ameiica. "A eon»en»lon nimle between Oreat Urltnln »nrt the United Statoi, on the 20th October, 181R, after ndurinif I" .\Mierle«n flsh<«rinin eertain rl){lit« to bo oxoroiscd on part of the coast* of Newfoundland iHil Liilini'l'ir, proeeeded as fellows; " '.Villi lliii I'niti'd States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the iiiliiiliiliiMti thereof to take, dry, or euro llsli onnr within three mllesof any of the coasts, hays, creeks, ur harbors el' Ills Urltannii^ Majesty's dominions iu America not liicliuled within the above limits.' "The liuht ef fish In it, except within three miles of the ' coftsti' ' when u U » bay of Her M;i{i'sty'H dominions,' they will not be permitted to fish within three m.'lea of it; that is to say (it is iiri'Hiiniril), within three miles of a line drawn from 'headland to headland. "It is desirable that the nritishand American Oovernments should come toaclear nnderstandin;" in t!ieriuioof each bay, creek, or harbor what are the precise limits of the exclusive rights of Oreat Ilri|«in, and should deflne those limits in such a way as to he Incapable of dls,')ute, either by reference In lb« bearings of certain headland, or other objects on shore, or by laying the lines down In a map or iliiirt. " With this object It Is proposed that a commission should be appointed, to he composed of repre- I m'ntatives of Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, to hold its sittings in America, and to re- jl„irlto tlie British and American Oovernments their opinion either as to the exact geographical limits jtn whieh tlie renunciation above quoted applies, or. If this found I m practicable, to suggest some line of ihlineiitioii ahmg the whole coast which, though not in exact conformity with the words of the con ven- I tiiiii. may appear to them consistentln substance with the Just rights of the two nations, and calculated I to I eiiiovo oixasion for further controversy. "It is not Intended that the rosul s of the commission should necessarily be embodied In a new con- jventinn between the two countries but if an agreement can he arrived at, it may be sufflclent that It jslioiilil 1)0 in the form of an understanding between the two Governments as to the practical Intec- [t)ii!Utivu whiob shall be filven to tke convention of 1818." (Session Papers, 1871.) No. 322. ' ' : • Mr. Phelps to Mr. Bayard. [Extract] Legation op the United States, London, August 2, 1887. (Received August 13.) Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your instruction lof tbo ]2th ultimo, inclosing two copies of your " proposal for an ar- liaiijjeinent," with the Canadian " okservations" and your reply thereto jlHiiiled in parallel columns, and to inform you that' I have commuui- Iciitud a copy of the same to Lord Salisbury. I have, etc.. E.J.Phelps. No. 325. , Mr. Bayard to Sir L. 8. Sackville West Department of State, Washington, December 11, 1886. SiE : I have the honor to acknowledge your note* of the 7th instant, jwitli which you communicate, by the direction of the Earl of Iddosleigh, la copy of the report of a committee of the privy council of Canada, S. Ex. 113- * Printed, p. 491 Foreign Relations, 1886. I'' te:* 66 THE FISUERIES QUESTION. apr roved October 26 last, wherein the regiet of the Canadian Govern- ment is exjjresvsed for the action of Captain Quig'e.v, of the Canarlian Governmeur cruiser Terror, in lowering the flag of the United States Ashing schooner Marion Grimes whilst under detention by the customs j uthorities, in the harbor of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, on October lUast, Before receiving this conimunication I had instructed the United I States minister at London to make representation of this regrettable ] occurrence to Her Majesty's minister for foreign affairs, and desire now ] to express ray satisfaction at the voluniaiy action of the Canadian | authorities, which, it seems, was taken in October last, but of hicb I j had no intimation until your note of the 7th instant was received. 1 have, etc., T. F. Bayard. No. 327. Sir L. 8. Saclvillc West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, December 24, 1880. (Received December 27.) Sir: With reference to your note* of the 11th ultimo, I have the honor to inform you that I am requested by the Earl of Iddesleigh to acquaint you that Iler Majesty's Governmer.t have desired the Canadian Govern- ment to furnish them with a report on the circumstances attending the alleged inhospitable treatment of United States fishing schooners Laura Saptcard and Jennie Seaoers by the Canadian authorities. I have, etc., L. S. Sackville West. No. 328. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, January 6, 1887. (Received January 7.) Sir: With reference to your letters! of the 19th and 20th October, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith reports from the Govern- ment of Canada relative to the cases of the United States fishing vessels Pearl Nelson and Everett Steele, which I have been instructed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to communicate to the United States Government. I have, etc., > ^ ^ L. S. Sackville West. * , [Incloanrel.] '.[■h.}''-: :;>'i ''K [,. The Marquis of Langdowne to Mr. Stanhope.'' '^—^^■^- - GovEiSNMKNT House, Ottawa, JVoiJe?ft?)cr 29, 188G, SiK: I have tho honor to tranNinit herewitli ai copy of an approved miuute of the privy council of Canada, furuisbiujj the rt^port asked for in your telegrajihic message * Printed, p. 425 Foreign Relations, 1H86. tPrinted p, 421 Foreign Relations, 1886. THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 67 ot tlio (itli Novombor, with rofereuco to tbo detention of the American scLoouer Everett Sttcic, at Shtlbnnie, Nova Scotia, for an infraction of the customs regulations of the Dominion. 1 have, etc., Lansdowne. [Inclo8nre2.] Report of a commHtee of thehonorahle the privy council for Canada, approved by Ma excel- lency the governor-general in council, on the ISth November, 1886. Tho (.oiniuictoo of the juivy council are in receipt of a tolegiani from the right hon- or-'iblo the .secretary of state for the colonics, in the words: "Uiiitt'd States Goverumcnt v'l'otest ag.iinsS proceedings of Canadian authorities in tlio case of Pearl Nelson aud E>'erelt Steele, said to have put into Arichat and Shel- burne, resi>ectively, for ])nrposct: sanctioned by convention. Particulars by post. Send report soon as possibh^" Thci minister of marine and fisheries, to whom the telegram was rofl3rred, submits thiit the. schooner Everett Steele appears from the report of the collector of customs at .slipll)nrno to have been at that port on the 25th March last, and sailed witliont re- nortiiifj. f'n lit^r return to Slielburue in September siie was detained by the collector uf r.nstdnus for an infraction of the customs law. The captain having assured the collector that he had been misled by the deputy liiirbor-niaster, who informed him his vessel could remain injiort for twenty-four hours without entering, and that he had no intention of violating the customs regulations, this statement was reported to the minister of customs at Ottawa, when the vessel was at once allowed to proceed to sea, and that no evidence is given of any desh'e or intention of denying to the captain of the Everett Steele any treaty privileges he was entitled to enjoy. Tiio committee, concurring in the above, respectfully recommend that your excel- li'iR-y lie moved to transmit acopy of this minute, if approved, to the right honorable the secretary of state for the colonies. All of which is respectfully submitted for your excellency's approval. John J. McGee, Clerk Privy Council, ' ■ ■" ' [Iiiclosure 3.] ^r- -■ i ',. The Marquis of Lansdotone to Mr. Stanhope. ■' -' ■ :;•. , GovERXMKNT House, Ottawa, iS^otemfter 29, 1886. Sin: With reference to your telegrajdiic message of the Cth instant, asking to bo furnished with a report in the case of the Pearl Nehon and Everett Steele, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of an approved minute of the privy council of I'.iiiiida, embodying a report of my minister of marine and fisheries, to which is ap- jiemled a copy of the correapoudeuco which has passed between the commissioner of (iistonis for Canada and tho Unite---i '• Lansdowne. [Inolosnre 4.] Ueport of a committee of the honorable the privy council for Canada, approved by hia excel- lency the governor-general in council, on the I8th Novemher, 1886. Tlie connnittoe of tho privy council are in receipt of a telegram from the right hon- orablo the secretary of state for tho colonics, in the wonls: "United States Government protest against proceedings of Canadian .authorities iucasoof Pearl X<^son and Everett Steele, said to have put into Arichat and Shelburne, i;'s]iectively, for ])inposes sanctioned by convention. Particulars by post. Send re- I'di f soon as iiossiblo." Till) minister of nmriiM* and lishories, to whom the telegram was referred, submits a o'ipy of a letter addn'ssed- by tho conuuissioiier of cuKtoms for Canada to the cousul- gi'ueral of tho United States at Halifax ,and also a co))y of Mr. Phelan's reply thereto. Tho minister suumits that it is clear, from Captain Kempt's atlidavit, that he was Kiiilty of ail infraction of tho customs rognhitious in allowing men to laud from his vc88"l bofon> siie had been reported, and tho niiuister of customs having favorably fp 1 hi 68 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. consiflerefl Ciiptain Kompt's rcprcsentatioi ,is to his ignorance of the cnstoms regn. lations rcquirius that vessels nlioul(l be roported before landing either men or cargo I therel'roni, has remitted the line of $2W which had been imposed in the case of the | American selionner Pi'.arl NeUon. The minister fnrther submits that it would appear from the collector of customs' rc])ort that his remark that "he would seize the vessel" hiid reiV^rence solely to Iitr j violatiiou of the customs law, and that no evidence is given of any desire or intention i of denying to the captain of the Pearl NeUon any treaty privileges he was entitled to | enjoy. The committee, concurring in the above, respectfully reconunend that your exee!- lency be moved to transmit a copy of this minute, if approved, to the right honorable ] the secretary of state for the colonies. All which is respectfully submitted for your excellency's approval. John .1. McGek, Clerk I'rivy Council, Canada, , [luclosuro 5 I ■ - .■ , .■.'•.■■ t> , ■ \ • ■ *" * ■;-■.•,■■;'■,. '.,■■■ * - ■' V , ■ ■.., ,, ,'| . . '. ■ . J- -J ' • Mr, Parmelee to Mr. Pliclan. ;- Ottawa, October 22, 188^. Sir ; I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, re seizure of the American schooner iVarJ J^'tisoH for au infraction of the customs | laws, etc. • The commissioner of customs' report in connection with this matter, which has been | approved by the minister of customs, reads as follows: " The undersigned, having examined this case, has come to the conclusion that the I cai)tain of the vessel did violate the provisions of sccticms '25 and 180 of 'the cus- toms act, iHdJJ,' by landing a number of his crew before going to the custom-house to I re|)ort ; that his plea of having come into port solely from stress of weather is incon- sistent with the circumstances, and is denied by the collector of customs, who reports I that ' the night was one of the finest and most moderate experienced there this sum- mer,' and that ' his crew were landed only in the morning.' That even if the ' stressi of weather' plea was sustained by facts it would not exempt him from the legal re- quirement of reporting his vessel before 'breaking bulk' or landing his crew, audit is evident that there was nothing to hinder his reporting, as the crew appear to have! had no difliculty in handling the vessel's boats ; that it was very easy for the crewiir j any of tikem to have taken valuable contraband goods ashore on their persons in tiiel absence of any customs ollicer at the landing-place. Inasmuch, however, as there isl no charge of actual smuggling preferred against the vessel, the undersigned respect-f fully recommends that the deposit of $200 be refunded, deducting therefrom any ex-j peuses incurred. "J. Johnson.'' I trust the above may be considered a satisfactory answer to your letter referred to,| I have, etc., W. G. Parmelke, Assistant Commiasioncr, [Inclosure 0.1 Mr. Phelan to Mr. Parmelee, Halifax, November 2, 1880. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your comnntnicatinn of th(| 22d ultimo, concerning the action of the cusionisd(!|)artnient of Canada in the case ofl the American Rchoonor Pearl Nelson, and to say I was much pleased at the decisioDl arrived at in that case. I have informed the Government of the United States tbat| the fine in the case referred to was ordered to be refunded. I have also to say that the Department of State, in acknowledging the receii)t oil a dispatch from me setting forth that you had jjlaced all the pai)ers in the canes ofl the American schooners Crittenden awA llulbrookiu my I'lnds for itenisal, said: "Tbi attonfion of Mr. Parmelee in referring the matter to yp Creek and lauded their barrels and till them with water. I went direct to the men who 'Printed j).414 Foieigu Eelations, 1686. i pip 70 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. were lilling the barrels, and tolil thom to como and enter before taking wood imn water. They said they would not enter or make any report. I told them that 1 would seize the schooner Crittenden for violating; tin* customs laws. They said they would risk that, as the schooner was now out of (ho way about .'? miles from niy station down the straits, and it was impossible for mo to board the vessel. They also landed a man the same day with his eU'ects, and on their return from Gloucester to the Bay St. Lawrence they shipped a man. Was lookingout for the vessel, l)ut could not catch her. I reported tho case to the collector of customs at Port Hawkesbury, and on tho schooner Crittendcn'8 return from the Bay St. Lawrence she was seiziMl, and Collector Bourinot frot tho aflidavits of the captain of the said schooner and ahn of some of the crow, which ho stated to tho department. I was in tho office at tho time when Collector Bourinot received a telegram from tho department to release the schooner Crittenden ou tho deposit of $400. I remain, etc., James H. Cakr, Pro Collector, No. 330. IL> l' ■■::':« ir Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Suclcville West. I '■ Department oy State, • i , ' • ■ V . Washiufjton, January 27, 1SB7. Sir : I have the honor to inclose a copy of an aiHdavit of the captain and two members of the crew of the schooner Sarah II. Prior, of Bos- ton, statin;; the refusal of the ijaptain of the Canadian revenue cutter Critic to ])ermit the restoration to the former vessel, in the port of Mal- petiue. Prince Edward Island, of her large seine, which she had lost at sea, and which had been found by the captain of a Canadian vessel, who ollered to return the seine to the Prior, but was prevented from doing so by the captain of the Critic. Tliis act ./f prevention, tiie reason for which is not disclosed, practi- cally disabled the Prior, and she was compelled to return home without having completed her voyage, and in debt. I have the honor to ask that Her Majesty's Government cause inves- tigation of this case to be made. I have, etc., '-':■ T. F. Bayaed. [Incloaure 1.] t .■•: i :;.,: Ja :^; f . • ; .. Mr. Pnor to Mr. Bayard, i ; Boston, December 28, 1886. Dear Sir : I wrote to Senator W. P. Frye, setting forth in my letter tho facts cou- taiueil in the affidavit inclosed. Ho wrote me to have it sworn to and to soud it to yon, which I have o any trouble in delivering the seine. Captain Mcljcarn would not allow tlie captain of the .7o//n Inqalh to give up the seine, so the latter returned the twenty live dollars to Captain McLaughlin. The schooner Sarah H. Prior had two seines, one large and one small size. It was the largo one which she lost and the schooner John Inf/alh picked up. She had to leave Malpeque without it, and consequently came homo with a broken voyage and in debt. Tiios. McLaugiiun. G.»;ouGK F. Little. ' , '^ CUAULKS FlXXKGAN. SUFFOtK, H8 •• BosTOX, December 28, 1886. Personally appeared before me Thoma.s McLanphlin, George F. Little, and Charles Finnegan, who signed and made oath that the foregoing stfttoment was true. [seal.] Charles W. Hallstrain, A'olary I'ublio, No. 331. . ' ' A Sir L. S. SacTcville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, January 28, 1887. (Received January 29.) Sir: I liave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday's date, and to inform you that I have submitted the case of the American schooner Sarah H. Prior to Iler IMajesty's Government for iavestigation, as requested by you. I have, etc., L. S. Sackville West. p. H. Piuoii. - ""^'■■^. ■civT- -'.-"■' No. 332. .;. :::-f;"^ :?::;"";;■...,;■'■':, . t Sir L. S. SacTcville West to Mr. Bayard, a • Washington, January 28, 1887. (Received January 29.) Sir : With reference to your note* of the 20th of May last, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith copy of a report by the minister of justice of the Dominion of Canada upon the seizure of the American flsJiiug vessel David J. Adams, which I am instructed by Uor Maj- esty's principal secretary of state for foreign alfairs to (iominunicate to the United States Government. 1 have, etc., L, S. Sackville West. [Inolofare 1.] ,.'./.- v ^ '■ v The Marquis of Lansdoipne to Mr, Stanhope. . - GOVERWltfKXT HODSE, OTTAWA, Novcmlcr 9, IHtiG. (Received November 22.) Sir: With reference to Earl Granville's dispatch of the 24th June last, rcspectinjj tbe fisheries question and inclosing copies of two letters' from the foreign ottlco and one from the United States minister in London, addressed to the secretary of state T- II ■■. ■ II. ■ II...— ■■■■- -^^»l i ... — - . ■ .. -. ....— . ...I. . ■■. I II !■ I ■■ II— I. IM ■ I i I«I«IB» * Printed page 377, Foreign Relations, 1680. I 72 THE FISHERIES QUESTION. i'or Inrciu:!! iiU'iiirs, I Iiiis'i* tin) honor to trniisniit liorowitli n copy of an niyprovrd min. iile of tin- ])iivy cotiiicil of C'iuiiulii coiienrriii'^ in a r^iwirt of tlio luiniHlcr of justice I (U'iiliiijt witli tln» iiointH laiHCfl by Mr. Phelps in his uoto of the 5iil Juno last on the j snhjiuit of the seizure of the United States fishing vessel DavidJ. Adams, near Digby, Mova Scotiu. I have, etc., Lansdownb. 'i. ' I [iDcIoRnro 2.] 1 1 1 < •I _ ' ' *■ lea m^ Cerfifed copi/ of a report of a committee of the honomhle the priry council for Canada, approved by his excellency the administrator of the Government in council on the iid Ao- vember, 1886. The committee of tho privy conncil have had under consideration a dispatch dated | iilth Jnne, IbBli, from the right honorable tho secretary of state for tho colonies resix-ct- ing the lislierie.s question, and inclosing copiesof letters on the subject from the foreign ollice to tho colonial oliico, and of one from Mr. i'heliis to the secretary -^f state lor loreign affairs. The minister of justice, to whom tho dispatch and inclosures were referred, sub- mits a report thereon herewith. The committee concur in the said report, and advise that your excellency he moved to transmit a copy thereof, if approved, to tho right honorable the secretary of state I for the colonies. All of which is submitted for your excellency's approval. • John J. McGee, ,1 ; 1 ' '., Clerk Frivy Council, Canada, [Inclosuie 3.] Report of the Minister of Justice. .il.C,vi.,fc, Department OF Justice, Ottawa-, July 22, 1886. To his Excellency the Jdministrator of the Gorcrnment in council: AVith reference to the dispatch of the 24th Juno last from the secretary of state for tli(! colonies to your excelloucy, respecting the fisheries question, and inclosing copies of letters on tho subject from the foreign ofHceto tho colonial oflico and of one from Mr. Phelps to the secretary of state for foreign affairs, the undersigned has the honor to report as follows : The letter of Mr. Phelps seems designed to present to Earl Rosobery the case of the David J. Adams, the fishing vessel seized a short time ago near Digby, in the province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Phelps intimates that he has received from his Government a copy of the re- port of tho ccnsul-gen• to ho based on the assertions made by the persons inter- ested in the vessel by way of defense against the complaint under which she was seized, hut can not be regarded as presenting a full or accurate representation of the case. The undersigned submits tho facts in regard to this vessel as they are alleij^d by those on wliose testimony the Government of Canada can rely to sustain the seiz- ure and detention. THE OFFENSE AS TO THE TREATY AND FISHERY LAWS. The David J. Adams was a United States fishing vessel. Whether, as alleged in lier behalf, her occnjiation was deep-sea fishing or not, and whether, as suggested, she had not been engaged, not was intended to be engaged, in fishing in any limit pre- scribed by the treaty of 1H18 or not, are qnestions which do not, in tho opinion of the undersigned, affect the validity of the seizure, and of tho proceedings subsequent thereto, for reaeona 'whioU will be beieafter stated, but in eo fur aa tiiey may be deeued THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 73 Lansdowne. e referred, sub- material to tlio dcfonsc they .'iro qtiestioiiH of fact, which rciiiaiu to Ito proved in the nco-fiiliiiiralty nonrt at Hiilitiix, in whicli tlieople on the nei^jhhoring hIioivs cnj,'a<;o in iishinj?. It. is a town witli a iiopulat ion of ahoiit "2,000 jiersons. Ita Larliiir is formed hy the Aninipolis Hasin, which is a larn;e inlet of the Hay of l-'iindy, 1 and the entrance to it consists of a narrow strait nu'.rked by conspicuous lieaiUands, wliieli are little more than a ndle apart. The entrance is called " Dij.;by Gut," and for all ])uri)ose8 connected with this inquiry the harbor is one of the best dedued ia j America. The IhirUlJ. Adnma was, on the morning of the 5th day of May, 1880, as has i already i)een stated, several miles within the Gut. She was not there for the purpose of "shelter," or "repairs," nor to " ptiridiase wood," nor to obtain water. .She ro- uiaiiied there durinjf the ."ith and the (ith of May, 1H8G ; she was lying at anchor about biilf ainile from thci shore, at a locality called "Clements West." On the morning of the Gth of May, 18fl), the captaiu niadoapidication to the owners of a fishing weir near where he was laying for bait, and purchased 4i barrels of that article. Ho also purchased and took on board about two tons of ice. While waiting at anchor for these purposes the name of the vessel's " hailing place" was kept cov- ered by canvas, and this concealmeut continued while she afterwards sailed down past liigby. Oneof the crew rej)re8onted to the persons attending the weir that the vessel he- longed to the neighboring province of Now Brunswick. The captain told the owner of the weir, when the treaty was spoken of by the latter, that the vessel was under British register. The captain said he would wait until the next morning to get more bail; from the catch in the weir which was expected that day. At daybreak, how- ever, on the morning of the 7th of May, 18^(5, the Government sle.amer Lavxdowne arrived ofl' Digby, and the David J. Adams got under way without waiting to take in the addil ioiial supply of bait, and sailed down the basin towards the Gtit. IJi'fore she had passed Digby she was boarded by the tirst orticer of the J.atisdowne, and to him the captain made the following utatement : That ho had come to that. i)laoe to Bco his people, as he had formerly belonged there; that he had no fresh bait on board, and that he was from the " Banks," and bound for Eastport, Me. The oflicer of the Lansdowiie told him he had no busiuess there, and asked him if he knew the law. His reply was, " Yes." A few hours afterwards, and while the David J. Adams was still inside the Gut, tL(! oflicer of the Lansdoivtie, ascertaining that the statements of the ca]>tain were iintnie, and that bait had been i)nrcha8ed by him within the harbor on the previous (lay, retnrned to the David J. Adams, charged the captain with the offense, and re- ceived for his reply the assertion that the charge was false, and that the persim who g.ivo the information was a " liar." The ollicer looked into the hold of the vessel and found the herring which had been purchased the day before, and which, of course, was perfectly fresh; but the captain declared that this " bait" was ten days old. The ollicer of the Lansdowiie returned to his ship, reported the facts, and went agaia to the Adams, accomi)anied by another ofBcer, who also looked at the bait. Both retiirned to the Lansdowiie, aiul theu conveyed the Adams the direction that sho should como to Digby and anchor near the Lansdowiie. This was, in fact, the seizure. These are the circnmstanccs by whicli the seizure was, in the opinion of Mr. Phelps, ''much aggravated," and which make it seem very apiiarent to Inm that the seizure " was not made for the imrpose of enforcing any right or redressing any wrong." The fact that the seizure was preceded by visitations and searches was due to the statements of the master aud the reluctance of the olllcers of the Lansdowiie to ea- forco the law until they had ascertained to a demonstration that theoti'cUBO had been comuiitted and that the captain's statements were uutrue. TUE OFFENSE A8 TO CUSTOMS LAWS. The David J. Jdawa, as already stated, was iu harbor upwards of forty-eight boors, •ndwbeu seized wasproceeding to sea without having been reported at auyouutoms- THE FISHERIES QUESTION. i-« U\ hoiigo. Her bnfiinoss was not. sncli as to malto it linr interest to atfract tlioattontinu of tlio Caniulian uutlioritieH, iind it \h not dinicult, ilieroforo, tocon.it'Otnro th«roa8on j why who was not no reported, or in woo tliat tlio reason put forward, that Digby i% \ bill " a small lii>hiij<; sottleiiient and its harbor not doliued," i8 a disingonuons one, In going to the weir to purchase bait the vessel passed the custom-house at Digby almost within hailing distance. When at the weir sho was within 1 or 2 miles of | another custom-house (at Clementsport), and witliiu about 15 miles ot another (ut Annaitolis). The nnister has not assertiul that ho did not know the law on this sub- ject, as it is established that ho knew the law in relation to the restrictiouou foreign tisliing vessels. The provisions of the customs aot of Canada on this subject are not essentially tlif. forent from those of his own country. The ca))lain and crew were ashore during tbe 51 h ami (ith of May, IHSG, The following provisions of the customs act of Canada ! aj)ply : "Thomastorof every vessel coming from any port or place ont of Canada, or coast- wise, and entering any port in Canada, whether laden or in ballast, f "'.all go without delay, when such vessel ia anchored or nu>ored, to the custom-house for the port ot place of entry where ho arrives, and there make a report in writing to tho collector or other proper oUieer of tho arrival and voyage of such vessel, stating her name, country, and tonnage, the port of registry, thonamoof the master, the country of tho owners, the number and names of tho passengers, if any, tho number of tho crew, and whether the vessel is laden or in ballast, and, if laden, tho marks and numbers of every package and parcel of goods on board, and where tho same was laden, and the particulars of any goods stored loose, and where atid to whom consigned, and where any and what goods, if any, have been laden or unladen, or bulk has been bro- ken during tho voyage, what part of tho cargo, and the number and names of the passengers which nr« intended to be landed at that port, and what and whom at any other port in Canada, and what part of the cargo, if any, is intended to bo exported in tho same vessel, and what surplus stores n^main on board as far as any of such particulars are or can be known to him." (40 Vic, cap. 12, sec. 25.) "The master shall at tho time of making his rcjiort, if required by the ofiQcer of cnstonis, produce to him the bills of lading of tho cargo, or true copies thereof, and shall make and subscribe an allldavit referring to his report, and declaring that all the statements made in the report are true, and shall further answer all such tiuestions J coucorniug tho vesse' and cargo, and tho crew, and tho voyage, as are demanded of bim by such otricer, ami shall, if required, make the substance of any such answer part ot his repr)rt." (4() Vic, cap. 12, sec. 28.) "If any goods are unladen from any vessel before such report is made, or if tbe master fails to make such report, or makes an untrue report, or does not truly answer tho questions demanded of him, as provided in tho next preceding section, ho shall incur a penalty of §400, and the vessel may be detained until such penalty ia paid." (41) Vic, cap. 12, sec. 28.) PROCEEDINGS KOLLOWINQ THE SEIZUUB. These have been made the subject of complaint by Mr. Phelps, although the ex- planations which were given in the i)reviou8 memorandum of the nudersigned (in reference to tho letters of Mr. Uayard to Her Majesty's minister at Washington), and in the report on the same subject of tho minister of mariiKi and lisheries, laiositive]y rofnsed by tho jtrovin. cial ofticial in charge ; that the ITulted States consnl-goneral was not ablo.to learn from till) commander of tho Za««rfoi(';ie the iiatnro of tho complaint a,^aiu8t the ves- sel and that bis respectfnl application to that olicct was frnitless." (1) As to the position of the paper on the mast. It is not a fact that it was nailed to the vessel's mast "in such a manner as to i)revcnt its contents being reaort. As to tho hreachbeinjj a "technical" one, it must " he remembered that with thou- Bands of ruiles of coast indent' ' as tho coasts of Canada are, by hundreds of har- bors and inlets, it is impossib < enforce the fishery law without a strict ouforeo- ment of the customs laws. Tlii.i difliculty was not unforeseen by tho framers of the treaty of 18fcH, Avho jjrovided that tho lishermeu shonkl bo " under such restrictions ns might be necessary to jiroveiot their taking, drying, or curinji fish * * * or in any other manner whatever ahuii'nift the ])ririlvge luaerred to tliPtii." No naval force whioh could be equijiiicd by tho Doniiniou would of itself bo sulQcieut for the enforcement of '.ho fishery laws. Foreign fishing vessels are allowed by the treaty to enter the harbors and inlets of Canada, but they aro allowed to doso only for s.]»ecified purposes. In order to confine them to those ]>nrposes it isnecessary to insist on theoI)servanceof tdie customs lawa, V liich are euforceil by oliicers all aloug tho coast. A strict enforcement of the cus- toms laws, and one consistent with tho treaty, would require that, even when coming into port for the purpo.ses for which such vessels are allowed to enter our waters, ii report should bo made at tho custom-house, but thi.s has not been insisted on in all cases; when tin; customs laws are enforced against those who enter for other than le- gitimate i)nrposes, and who choose to violate both tho fishery laws and customs laws, the Goveruuiont is far within its right, and should not be asktid to accept an apoloijy and payment of costs. It may be observed here, as affecting Mr. Phelps's demands ibr restoration and damages, that tho apology and costs have never been tendered, and that Mr. Phel|)s seems to be of opinion that they aro not called for. (.5) Mr. I'helpsi.s informed by the consul-general at Halifax that it is "conceded liy tho customs authorities thcu-o that foreign fishing vessels have for forty years boiii acenstoined to go in and out of the bay at pleasure, and have never been required to E" nd ftshore and rejunt when f hey had no business with the port and made no land- ing, and that no fieiznro had ever before been made or claim against them for so do- ing." Nothing of this kind is or could be conceded, by the customs authorities there or elsewhere in Canada. The bay referred to, the Annapolis Basin, is like all the other harbors of Canada, exc(!pt th.it it is unusually well defined aud land-locked and furnished with cnstouis- lionses. Neither there nor anywhere else have foreign fishing vessels been accus- tomed to go in and out at i>leasure without reporting. If they had. been so per- mitted the fishery laws could not have been enforced, and there would have been uo protection against illicit trading. While the reciprocity treaty of 1854 and the tisb- ery clauses of tho Washington treaty were in force, the con volition of 1818 being, of course, suspended, consideralilo laxity was allowed to the United States fishing ves- sels, much greater than tho tciins of those treaties entitled them to, but the consul- THE FISHERIES QUESTION. 77 18 Boon astlipy on to the ves- I waived, ho VP8H0I was mandor of tho ritioH Imd any fid to Ifliivc if, ams Imd nifulo of cnslomM at ic liond of Ilia m as mijjlit be Tlio collector is not tlio one > that coiithMii- uroof§40(», oil If Mr. riicips bo relied on in nod nntil that, vn Govermnont iplicit on that ital and clearly ^ intended, anil ondinied liy au Buid nmler tho Hon opposed to 'Javid J. Adam rn, and with the i not have coiii- ch he had gone that with thou- indreds of liar- I strict ouforeo- I franiera of the li restrictions as * • or in any val force which he enforcement jra and inlets of [order to confine lo cnstomslaws, liont of the ens- n when coming r our waters, a isisted on in all )v other than le- |d customs laws, •ept au apology is's demands tor tendered, and Is '< conceded hy >rty years been l)eeu required to made no land- Tthom for so do- luthoritiea there Jjors of Canada, tl with cnstonis- lels been accus- Id been so per- Id have been no l54 and tho iish- 1818 being, of [tes tishing ves- jut the cousul- jrpneral is RT'^Jif'.v mistnlfen wliPn he snpposea that at other time OTi'it) ii')t enforced, and that seiznn^s of forcii^n (ishing vessels iraea the customs laws oniitlinit n'd ninneroiis, were for ullej^eil violation of Ihe iiistonis laws (Tajiers relating to the Treaty f bi'twcen this Govern lut'ut and that of Great Britain in relation to the justitication of tho rights of Ameri- can tisliiiig vessels in the territorial waters of British North America, and wo shall relax no ell'ort to arrive at a satisfactory solution of tin* ditliculty. In the mean time it is the duty and inanifest interest of all American citizens entering Canadian .iuria- diction to ascertain and obey the laws and rcuLnions there in force. For all unlaw- ful (U]nedations of property or commercial rights this Government will expect to procure redress and compensation for tho innocent sullorers." ',■■■'''-'■■ INTEKPBETATION OF TIIK TREATY. Mr. Phelps, after commenting in the language already quoted from his let t