, La
m0 Vf,

¢
iad
Oe wis |
LAO 7
tot

y ew of the Fisheries ‘[rsety (Washington, _
888) by Mr. William. L. Putnam, one of the Ce
Jnited States Plenipotentiaries. as
oe : (>

/

(Reprinted Jrom Boston Post, April 20th, 1888.)

onsidering the troaty just negotiated, it will be plain to every
est reader of it that the “protocol” or “modus vivendi,’’ pro-
ing temporarily relief for our vessels from certain cust. m house
ulations and also annual licenses, was merely received by our
ipotentiaries and passed along to the Senate for its information,
ly except expressions of gratification at the friendly dis-
ich it exhibited. It was not “ accepted” either expressly
y norsubmitted to the Senate to be “ accepted.” It forms
the treaty, and the treaty is not to be construed with
to it.

8 no allusion in the treaty to tonnage tax except an ex-
f our vessels therefrom; and the licenses which our ves-
receive under some circumstances for the purchase of sup-
provisions must be issued “ prompily on application,
harge therefor.” Yet so eager were those who were pre-
id against any treaty to misrepresent it, that the New

une in its issue of Feb, 22 said unblushiugly: ‘By the
for tonnage dues to be paid the Canadian officials, Secre-
arms them with new facilities for operating against
hermen”’; and J. C. Tarr, vice-president of the fishery
at Gloucester, condemns the whole in the following des-
ynnage tax for privileges offered is an outrage. Hope
will not ratify such a treaty.” Somewhat similar licenses
in A,D. 1886, though they also covered the privilege of
ithin the marine belt, Four hundred and fifty-four were
hat year by our vessels; but ihe use of them gradually
ntil they were abolished in A.D 1870. There certainly
rm in the Cauadian Govern nent tendering them sgain,
Is can take them if they wish. The result may be the
will receive a practical object lesson to the effect that we
imate the privileges offered at ihe price which Canada
Sea

connection may be considered the fifteenth article of the
dering certain privileges whenever Congress puts fixh on
ist. Nothing in the treaty binds the United Siates to the
9 Of this proposition: but it is left entirely free for the
y unfavorable action of Congress, if any should ever be
aken, One thing further may be said as to it: In A.D, 1870, while
ur fishing vessels were being seized and condemned for purchasing
while we were refused admission into Dominion ports for any
8, while we were compelled to submit to the most rigorous
sions of the Canadian customs laws, while our fishermen had
ractically driven from resorting to Canadian bays and harbors,
x d when, indeed, the American flag was not only pulled down, but
04 nsolently set under the English Jack, a Republican House of
Representatives with Mr, Blaine as Speaker, and a Senate presided

2

over by Schuyler Colfax, with the approval of a Republican Presi-

dent, enacted the law by which to-day more than half of the Cana-

dian fish entering in the United States comes in duty free. Nothing

whatever was received in exchange for that great boon to foreign

fishermen. The privileges contemplated by the fifteenth article are

certainly not less than nothing; and if estimated as now asserted
by those who declare hostility to the treaty, they are of very great
value. So that in any event under this article we shall not see
repeated the complete throwing away of the purchasing power of
our tariff which took place in the act of July 14, A.D, 1870.

Having thus laid aside what is not relevant to the substance of the
obligatory part of the treaty, we will examine its provisions with
reference to the larger principles involved, and afterwards consider
the practical benefits which it affords our fishermen.

The existing conventional relations concerning fishing in Dom-
inion waters are found in article one of the Treaty of 1818, This
provides that our fishermen may enter the bays and harbors
therein specified for shelter, repairing damages, purchasing wood
and obtaining water, “ and for no other purpose whatever,” and also
that they shall be under “such restrictions” a3 may be necessary to
prevent their fishing unlawfully “orin any other manner whatever
abusing the privileges reserved to them.” It has also been somewhat
contended that under the twenty-ninth article of the Treaty of 1871
our vessels have a right to tranship their catch in Dominion ports.
It never has been claimed that they had any treaty right to bait, or
to any supplies whatever beyond obtaining wood and water. What-
ever there may be on this point is governed by the rules appertaining
to the general comity of nations.

Canada and Great Britain have always maintained that the words

‘for noother purpose whatever ” have a very extensive effect, that

fishing vessels are svi generis, and that as they receive special rights,
under the Treaty of 1818, as to entering Canadian bays and harbors,
they expressly exclude themselves by conventional agreement, from
the privileges to which other vessels are entitled, and therefore
that the Dominion may shut them out, except when coming in for
the express purposes named, without such exclusion being justly
regarded as unfriendly. They strengthen their claim by the asser-
tion that under the treaties with France, British fishing vessels sub-
mit to like exclusion from French ports without complaint on the
part of England, It is apparent that this extreme claim is now
yielded.

The “restrictions” which the Convention of 1818 says may be

imposed on our vessels have always heretofore been determined by

the exclusive action of Great Britain, or of Canada, without consul- —

tation with the United States. Statute after statute has been passed
for that purpose, beginning as early as A. D. 1819 and ending with

the statute of A. D. i886, all of which remain in force; and though ©
the United States in A. D. 1844 or 1845 remonstrated against the ©
eailier statutes nothing was ever accomplished with reference to —
them, Now for the first time we have obtained a hearing as to such ©

restrictions, and the precedent is established which will enable the
United States to be turther heard in the event in the future if other

obnoxious regulations are attempted. L

The Treaty of 1818 contained the negative words “ and for no other
purpose whatever.” These words have formed the basis of many of
the contentions between the United States and Great Britain, In
the treaty just negotiated no such negative expressions can be found.
Certain privileges are granted our vessels, but. nowhere is it stated
that, if future changes of circumstances should justly entitle the
United States to other privileges, we would be barred from asking
therefor.

The treaty is perhaps without precedent for the extent and num-
ber of rights and privileges which it guarantees the vessels of one
nation in the waters of another. The purpose of the first eight sec-
tions is to mark so clearly the line within which our vessels cannot
fish, as to bar disputes and prevent so far as practicable our vessels
from being caught through mistake. One congressional critic
assumes to say, a8 reported in the Boston Journal, that he does not
make much of these provisions, that they are secondary, that there
is no real controversy over this poiat, that it has been many years
since the Canadians have really insisted on the “ headland ” theory,
and that none of the vessels which have been seized were seized on
that ground. This is true so far as actual seizures of late are con-
cerned; but Great Britain has never before conceded the “ head-
land” claim which shuts in not only bays but great sinuosities of the
coast. During the last two years these extreme claims have been
on several occasions practically enforced against us. The policy of
the United Ststes—before A. D. 1885—has been to permit our ves-
sels to contend at their own expense in the Canadian courts over all
the controverted fishery issues between two governments; and while
to-day the claim may not be practically enforced, to morrow the un-
wary fisherman is seized in consequence of it, dragged before the
Vice-Admiralty Court at Halifax, and his vessel condemned, or the
issues which two great nations should have settled between them..
_ selves are tried out at a cost to him quite equal to the value ot his
vessel. There has been in the history of the fishery disputes more
discussion and more “bad blood” over this matter than over any
other issue whatever ; and though it may happen that at the pre-
sent, vessels are not being seized in consequence thereof, a wise and
far-seeing statesmanship requires that the controversy should be
disposed of for all the future. Hven the Boston Advertiser is forced
to admit that the “treaty’s definition of fishing limits has the merit
of being clear and specific, and the claim in general, if not in nice
details, is within bounds recognized by standard authorities and in-
ternational law.”

The Convention of 1818 requires us to keep three miles away from
_ the “ bays” of the British dominions. What those bays were was

not defined. In the United States, Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay
and Long Island Sound are regarded as within our dominiung. In
1818 various bodies of water like Chaleur, the shores of which were
then substantially uninhabited, were common waters, which with
the present-condition of population would perhaps be regarded as
territorial bays. Barring Chaleur and a few other minor bays, the
Tule adopted by the treaty is that of ten miles in width, the same

as in the treaties between France and England and in the North
Sea Treaty between England, France, Denmark, Germany and Swe:

4

den. Looking at our enormous range of coasts and our rapidly
increasing population and industries, the United States in this mat-
ter of delimitation cannot afford to establish a precedent except of
a liberal character; and the application of the ten-mile rule to bays —
not only follows the consensus of Kurope, but anticipates only a
little the necessity of increasing the marine belt, which the increa-
sing projectile force of modern artillery will soon impose on all
nations.

The Bay of Fundy, Fortune Bay and the other great bays of New-
foundland, and more important than all, George’s Bay, which have
heretofore been claimed by the Dominion, are now, with the excep-
tion of wholly non-essential porticns, set off tous, No practical
fisherman can be found who wiil carefully examine the special deli-
mitation named in the treaty and compiain of the waters which
have been reserved. To be sure, one Senator objects that we are
shut out from Sir Charles Hamilton Sound, Barrington Bay and the
Bay of Miramichi; but specifications like these merely illustrate
the haste or inattention of the person making them.

Likewise the Boston Advertiser gives great space the false alle-
gation that the lines drawn in Fortune Bay exclude our fishermen
tiom purchasing frozen herring therein; when the terms are clear
that this matter of delimitation has no reference whatever to an
such pursuit. .

As to the Bay of Chaleur, the counsel for the United States at
Halifax stated as follows: 7

‘Then comes the Bay of Chaleur, and in the Bay of Chaleur what-
ever fishing has been found to exist seems to have been within
three miles of the shores of the bay in the body of the Bay of Cha-
leur. I am not aware of any evidence of fishing, and it is very |
curious that this Bay of Chaleur about which there has been so
much controversy heretofore, can be so summarily dismissed from
the present investigation. 1 suppose that a great deal of factitious
importance has been given to the Bay of Chaleur from the custom
among fishermen, and almost universal a generation ago, of which
we have heaid so much, to speak of the whole of the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, by that term. Over and over again, and particularly
among the older witnesses, we have noticed that when they spoke
of going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, they spoke of it by the term
‘Bay of Chaleur’; but in the Bay of Chaleur proper, in the body
of the bay, 1 cannot find any evidence of any fishing at all. I think,
therefore, that the bay of Chaleur may be dismissed from our con-
sideration.”

Since A, D, i817 there has been no change; and the Bay of Cha-
leur is admittedly at the present time of no substantial consequence
to our fishermen except for shelter, the right to which is by this
treaty in no way affected.

The opponents of the treaty undertake to sneer at its expressions
concerning the Gut of Canso. Ordinary caution would seem to
require that in a treaty of delimitation there should be some expres-
sion which should shut out of the possibility of prejudicing our
rights of navigation through that narrow strait. Moreover, this has
always been kept by Great Britain an open question, and therefore
like all others which have heretofore been met at the expense of

t

5

our fishermen, ready to fall on some of our vessels at an unexpected
time and to be contested at their expense. In the view of the ene-
mies of the treaty who have nothing at stake, it is not wise states-
manship to foreclose such disputes; but if any of them had been an
owner of one of the seventy vessels and more, seized from time
to time during the last half century, he would wisely prefer that
Canso should be disposed of as it has been in this treaty, and not at
some future time at the cost of some private purse,

On the whole, the delimitation provided by the treaty is practical
and not unjust; and therefore with reference to it, each party can
be said to have made substential gain with no important loss,

Article 10, it is believed, meets thoroughly all the difficul-
ties which our vessels have encountered, arising from the customs
laws of Canada, and also relieves them from dues of all kinds when
entering for the purposes of the Treaty of 1818.

Of course, when availing themselves of such of the privileges enu-
merated in article 11 as have not heretofore been treaty rights, and
which are extended only by comity, they become justly subject to
the same laws and dues to which trading vessels are subject—no
more and no less. So long as they enter only for the purposes gua-
ranteed by the Treaty of 1818, they may go in and depart freely.
Canada, like the United States, has a protective tariff and the
severe regulations incident thereto. The difficulties which this sys-
tem made for our fishing vessels arose from the fact that the cus-
toms laws of Canada require vessels to report “ forthwith.” In this
respect article 11 conforms the practice substantially to our own

_ statute, requiring a report after twenty-four hours, the language of

which it substantially adopts. This applies, however, only to ves-
sels entering for shelter and for such repairs as can be made aboard
the vessel, and does not apply to any vessel landing within the
limits of an established port of entry. It is just that all vessels
thus communicating with the shore should conform to the laws of
the locality, whatever they may be. This article relieves our ves-
sels from the annoyance of petty harbor dues charged them at some
ports in the Dominion, the larger pilotage dues claimed of them at
Halifax and the still larger light dues which they have been paying
in Newfoundland. It also protects from further annoyance vessels

_ touching in for shelter at such points as the outer ports of Shel-

burne, Nova Scotia, or of Georgetown or Malpeque in Prince Edward

Island,

But it is said that all this is nothing, and that it is only what we

_ are entitled to by the laws of bumanity. Fora “nothing” it has
_ occupied a large portion of the time of the Government of the
_ United States, whose records are spread with letter after letter com-
_ plaining of these exactions and obstructions. No case can be found
in the whole record which has more engaged the attention of the

os

ae

or %
ei
arts
te

a
we

Ob *

ee: a

2 he

foreign offices of both Great Britain and the United States than the
“Marion Grimes,” which vessel was seized on a subsequent voyage

__ for not reporting when putting into the lower harbor of Shelburne,
heavily laden and homeward bound. Is it “ nothing” to have these
things remedied by a solemn abandonment of the claim to do them,
and to prevent by treaty obligation their repetition in the future ?

Or in order to have the credit of accomplishing results, was it

6

necessary that they should be obtained at the end of all those com-

mercial disturbances, inevitably following a process of retaliation
which would be so especially injurious to the commerce of Port-
land and her steamboat and railroad lines to the eastward ?

Our Treaty of 1818 was with Great Britain, and in our commer-
cial relations we know only her. If she has violated the one or
disregarded the proprieties of the other, shall we follow the lead of
those who would make a cowardly and noisy paper war on Canada?
Or should we with courage make our demands on England herself,
seeking first the amicable adjustment which we have now obtained,
and preparing next for the just consequences which might have
followed if it had been refused? We think our fathers would have
blushed for shame at the suggestion, that for wrongs done them by
Great Britain they should avenge themselves by a Chinese war of

clamor against one of her minor dominions. ‘The tail-twisters of.

to-day manage to keep a safe distance from the lion.

Article eleven treats substantially of two matters: The first para-
graph is an enlargement of the rights guaranteed by the Treaty of
1818, and contains a complete and thorough provision for cases of
stress of weather and other casualties. The latter paragraph of the
article is additional to treaty rights, provides for furnishing provi-
sions and supplies without limit to vessels homeward bound, and
such “ casual or needful” provisions or supplies as are ordinarily
granted trading vessels whether homeward bound or otherwise. It
further directs that licenses for these purposes shall be granted
“promptly upon application and without charge,” and is explicit
against the tonnage tax which false critics are determined to affix
to the treaty.

In an interview published in the Boston Journal, in following out
an apparently common purpose of certain gentlemen to depreciate
this treaty at every hazard, a member of Congress stated unequivo-
cally that while we can go into Canadian ports for shelter and
repairs we can remain there only twenty-four hours. This is an
absolutely incorrect construction of the treaty. He also said that
the Canadians have conceded to us just what they were willing to
concede before the conference met, and nothing more. The diplo-
matic correspondence of the United States for the last two years, as
well as the reports of the committees, both of the House and Senate,
show, on page after page, constant refusal to permit all and each of
the matters covered by articles ten and eleven. He also said we can
go into Canadian ports for shelter and for repairs, and for provisions
on the way home; that is to say, ‘we have exactly thesame rights
and privileges which we had before set forth a little more clearly,
and that is all.” We find this erroneous allegation constantly and
persistently made.

The Boston Advertiser, in an editorial article, says that the tra-
ding privileges of chief value to fishing vessels are still withheld,
except in cases of distress, and except “‘ casual and needful provi-
sions and supplies for the homeward voyage strictly”; and a
Senator in an interview, published in the Boston Herald, says: “ It
is all intended and limited simply to enable our fishermen to get
home, and none of the supplies which can be purchased are to be
used in fishing. Nothing is to be procured except for the home-
ward trip,”

i

+
e

7

How it is possible for these things to be said by any person who
has read this treaty honestly and carefully would be beyond con-
ception, except that there is no limit to the power of party spirit to
blind the mental vision of human beings. It is just that they should
be noticed here, as they have been skilfully and extensively used
to prejudice the popular mind.

_ The testimony taken by the Senate Committee on Foreign Rolations
in A. D. 1886, of which Senators Edmunds and Frye were the most
active members, is uniform to the effect that our vessels fit out at
Gloucester and Portland better than in Dominion ports, and, in fact,
Dominion vessels go to Gloucester for that purpose. No case is re-
ported where any of our vessels desired to fit or refit in the Domi-
nion ports within the last two years; and no case can be supposed
where they would ever desire to do this unless possibly at times in

the Gulf of St. Lawrence in connection with the transhipment of

fish in bond if our fishing vessels had that right, which, as will be
seen hereafter, they do not possess.

The eleventh article will be found on examination to cover every
case of provisions and supplies, whether for the homeward voyage
or outward voyage, except bait, and other peculiarly fishing outfits
which will be spoken of hereafter, excluding only the right of
general fitting, which, as already said, no vessel desires except in
case of maritime disaster. In such case everything is permitted.
The first part of article eleven plainly gives vessels in case of mari-
time distress the right of replenishing bait and shipping men, and

also of transhipping cargo when necessary as incidental to repairs.

The latter part of the article gives neither of these; and it is there-
fore complained against the treaty that although it may secure all
the usual facilities for provisions and ordinary supplies it fails to
secure for fishing vessels those peculiar advantages falsely called

_ “commercial privileges” or “trading rights,” which are especially

_ helpful to enable fishing vessels to carry on deep sea fisheries, using
Nova Scotia as the base of their operations,

Heretofore Great Britain and Canada have strictly construed the
treaty of A. D. 1818, and held the words therein “ for no other pur-
pose” to mean the abandonment of every privilege except those

therein distinctly specified, maintaining as already stated, that fish-

ing vessels by virtue of the guarantees of that treaty received pecu-
liar advantages permitting them to enter everywhere for the purposes

named, and that in consideration thereof they gave up the general

comities appertaining to trading vesssels. So far as this claim de-
prived our fishermen of any rights now enjoyed by other craft with
reference to obtaining supplies, this treaty supersedes it; but it
makes a just distinction between the ordinary outfit of trading ves-
sels and the peculiar privileges which would enable our fishing

_ vessels to so avail themselves of the propinquity of Nova Scotia to

the fishing waters, as to give our fishermen in all respects equal
advantages in Nova Scotian ports, It is certainly not in accordance
with any just rules of the law of nations to compel any people in

_ this way to share with aliens its peculiar opportunities, and more-

_ over, while such just rules require that one nation should yield to

_ another ordinary hospitality, there is none which permits one to
compel the other to sell, or dispose of in any way except according

8

to its own free will, any article having a peculiar or spocial value,
or as to which it adopts a peculiar and special policy with reference
to all the world. This is precisely the condition of Nova Scotia as
to her bait, her ice, her fishing supplies, shipping of men and all
those other things which nature has given her in connection with
her proximity to the fishing grounds as a partial offset for the steri-
lity of her shores. We cannot in this matter justly assert a prin-
ciple in violation of the ancient policy of Massachusetts and the
district, now the State of Maine, with reference to the peculiar local
contro! maintained over our own shellfish; and we have also been
brought face to face with the statute which Newfoundland has been
compelled to pass for protection against French fishermen, who, by
the aid of bounties, are excluding her from her accustomed foreign
ma: kets. :

Newfoundland is a large customer of the United States, receiving
from her annually about $2,000,000 of goods, we purchasing of her
in return only about $200,0U0; and if we lawfully could, we ought
not aid to cripple her by breaking down a system of regulations in
a matter of this nature intended for her own protection. If the
French, driven from the waters of Newfoundland, should demand of
us the right to exhaust by purchase or otherwise, our clam bait in
Maine and Massachusetts in violation of our local regulations, we
should not submit. :

A late issue of the Concord (N.H.) Monitor prints an editorial,
said to be written by Senator Chandler, in which he denounces the
treaty asa “ cowardly, disgracerul and humiliating surrender of the
American position.” Any one who knows the Senator also knows
that when he is talking on a matter as to which he has convictions
he does not use adjectives so abundantly. We do not, however, stop
to comment on this. Both because he is in constant communication
with other opponents of the treaty and because what he says is in
line with what these others have said, we refer to his concluding
paragraph as summarizing on this point the alleged grounds of ob-
jection, namely: That “a treaty has been agreed upon in which the
idea of reciprocity, which was the basis of the retaliation acts, is
completely ignored.”

But we are met by the fact that “ reciprocity ” is what our Cana-
dian neighbors desire and what our fishermen oppose. To give our
vessels in catching fish all the advantages of the propinquity of the
Maritime Provinces to the fisheries, and to refuse Nova Scotia fish-
ermen for the sale of fish equal advantages with our own in our Own
markets, is not reciprocity.

The only reciprocity which can be justly demanded is that as-
cribed to Mr. Dingley in a late interview, namely: Maritime reci-
procity, that is, a reciprocity of maritime privileges. The present
treaty secures this to the utmost. The privileges of purchasing bait
and transhipping cargoes are not of this nature. The latter is
never enjoyed except in accordance with treaty grant; the former
is a commercial privilege like the purchase of any other product of
the country, exercised by our own commercial vessels in the Domi-
nion ports with the utmost freedom. The distinction is perhaps
illustrated in this way: The sale of bait and of other special sub-
jects of trade, in the absence of treaty stipulation, may be prohibited

by general law, and yet the prohibition cannot justly be held as
unfriendly to foreign nations. The sale, however, of the usual sup-
plies for provisioning crews and the like cannot be forbidden
except in violation of general comity. The laws of Canada prohi-
biting sale of bait to fishing vessels do not discriminate against the
United States, but have application to ali foreigners. As we ae
clam bait by the cargo to Canada, so Canada and Newfoundlan
ship frozen herrings, which are sometimes used for bait, by the
cargo to the United States. Hither nation could justly prohibit this
traffic for sufficient local reasons. Neither would tolerate that the
other should compel its involuntary continuance. Of what avail,
then, to insist by treaty stipulation, that we shail have the right to
purchase bait when Canada can lawfully and justly defeat the stipu-
Jation by prohibiting its sale to all foreign vessels whatever?

But we will look closer at the matter of buying bait, shipping men
and transhipping cargoes. The Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate, through a subcommittee consisting of Senators Hd-
munds, Frye, Morgan and Saulsbury, took, in the summer of 1886, a
vast amount of testimony at Gloucester, Portland and elsewhere,
and made their report to the Senate as to the result thereof, signed
ry Senator Kdmunds for the committee. That report said as fol-
OWS:

‘“‘ As regards the obtaining of bait for this class of fishing (that is,
for catching cod and halibut, the testimony taken by the committee
in its inquiries clearly demonstrates that there is no necessity what-
ever for American fishermen to resort to Canadian waters for that
purpose.”

Luther Maddocks, now enlarging at Washington, stated in the
Lewiston Journal last October :

‘‘We have nothing to lose by being deprived of bait, even if
commercial privileges are denied us. There is much talk about the
disadvantages to American fishermen by being deprived of bait;
but it is made largely to infinence legislation.”

Mr. George Steele cf Gloucester, president of the American
Fishery Union, who is now complaining of the treaty because it did
not secure a right for bait, over his own hand in June last, wrote to
the Boston Journai :

“Gloucester, Provincetown and Portland never felt better than
now their ability to do without Canadian bait; and the Ottawa
Government will find that its measures of retaliation and exclusion
have injured its own fishermen without doing the least damage to
the United States.”

; He also testified before the Committee of Foreign Relations as fol-
ows :

“Q. Taking the cod fishery, then, what in your opinion is the
value to the American fishing interest of the right to get bait on
British shores? A, Nothing whatever.

“Q. You would not care anything about it? A, No, sir,

“Q. In your halibut fishery you carry the ice out from here
always, do you not? A. Yes, sir.

“Q. And stand right straight off for the halibut fishing ground ?
_ A. Yes, sir, We take twenty-five to forty tons to a vessel. ga

10

“Q. Taking the cod-fishery, the mackerel fishery and the whole
thing together, how far do you regard as of any practical value to
American fishing interests the right to go ashore or inside the three-
mile limit, except for shelter and for fresh water? A. I should not
think it was of any value whatever.”

Mr. O. B, Whitten of Portland, vice-president of the Fishery Union,
said, November last, in a local paper, that Canada has nothing to give
us to offset free trade, “ no privileges, bait or fish.”

He also testified before the Committee of Foreign Relations as fol-
Ows: |

“Q. In fishing in Canadian waters for halibut—I do not mean in
waters within their jurisdiction, but off their coast on the banks—
what necessity is there for our fishermen to go into their ports for
pait? A. Not any whatever.

“‘Q. Is there any necessity of going into the ports of Canada to
get fresh bait? A. It is not necessary; they can get it here and
take it with them. There are thousands and thousands of barrels
caught no further off than Wood Island.

“Q. Do you consider valuable the privilege of going into Cana-
ae ports to buy bait? A. I do not consider it of any value at
all,

“‘Q. Then so far as the Canadian ports are concerned, other than
for purposes of shelter, water, wood and repairs of damages, it
would be better for the fishermen of Maine if they were not per-
mitted to goin atall? A. I think so.”

Mr. Charles A. Dyer of Portland, than whom no gentleman is
fe experienced, also testified before the same committee as fol-

ows:

“Q. From your experience in the fishing business do you think
that our fishermen from Maine on the Banks off the Canadian
shores, the Grand Banks and others, have any necessity for going
into port to buy bait? A. I should think not.

“‘Q. In your opinion, what is the privilege of buying bait in Cana-
dian ports worth to the Maine fishermen? A. Not a cent.

“Q. Whether or not you concur with Captain Whitten that, as a
rule, the voyages would be more successful if they did not touch in
Canadian ports at all for any reason? A. I think they would.

‘‘Q. Is there anything that you know of that is desirable for our
fishermen that Canada can give us? A, Nothing.”

And in the formal answer of the United States filed before the
Halifax Commission it was said :

“The various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the Treaty
of 1871, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait and other
supplies, are not the subject of compensation ; because the Treaty of
Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United
States, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at
any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing laws
or the re-enactment of former oppressive laws. * * * Moreover,
the treaty does not prcvide for any possible compensation for such
authorities, and they are far more important and valuable to the
subjects of Her Majesty than to the United States.”

J. L. Stanley, to whose objections to the treaty the Boston Adver-
tiser gives much space, stated as follows:

11

“To begin with, consider for a moment the question of bait! By
article 15 our vessels will be accorded the privilege of purchasing
bait ; but this is a matter about which wecare very little. * * *
The question of bait will regulate itself, and we care but little about
it any way.”

Citations of this nature can be extended indefinitely ; and they
show that, until it became necessary to make an attack on the
treaty, the so-called privilege of purchasing special fishery supplies
was contemptuously thrown away as of no value whatever. How
utterly devoid of consistency and truthfulness to deride a treaty
because it makes no provision for what was loudly, openly and con-
stantly proclaimed as valueless! And why complain of commis-
sioners who had a right to assume that the position so taken was
honestly taken, and to act accordingly ?

Notwithstanding the constant misrepresentations of the eleventh
article already referred to, in cases of distress it meets every pos-
sible desire; and for all else it secures without compensation there-
for the privilege of purchasing all such provisions and ordinary
supplies as are obtained by trading vessels, and this alike for the
homeward or the outward voyage, or when in for shelter, or when
putting in especially for the “‘ casual and needful supplies ” to which
it reters. Inefact, it meets every condition except that of original
“fitting out” for a fishing voyage, or a general “refitting ”’ for an
extencion of cruise. :

If our versels had the right of transhipping mackerel in the Gulf
of St. Lawrence, the latter privilege would undoubtedly be occa-
sionally of vaiue; bat an original fitting or indeed, except for those

‘Special Cases in the gulf, a general refitting would never be aitempted

except at the home ports, as was clearly proven before the Senate

Committee of Foreign Relations. Mr. Stanley, in the interview

already referred to, unwittirgly concedes on this point as follows:
‘“‘ Vessels’ supplies are generally bought here, where they are

cheaper. We buy our seines and lines here, and also sell to the

Nova Scotians; so that privilege is of no account. No one goes to
a Canadian port for supplies except in case of emergency or when
coming home. So far as shipping is concerned, the men come here

_ to ship. Cod-fish are never shipped home except in case ot distress.”

All these contingencies named by him are fully provided for by
the various articles of the treaty.

Next is the matter of shipping men. Mr. Stanley seems to dis-
pose of this question, but it is well to examine it a little more care-
fully. The three leading fishing ports in Maine and Massachusetts
are Portland, Gloucester and Provincetown. Portland and Glouces-

ter sail their vessels generally, if not entirely, on shares; so that,

except in case of death, sickness or other misfortune, which is fully
provided for by the treaty, they have rare occasion to run in to Domi-
nion ports for men, as stated by Mr. Stanley. This is also fully
explained by Captain John Chisholm of Gloucester, iu his testimony

_ before the Committee on Foreign Relations, as follows :

““Q. What is the nationality of the majority of the people on your
vessel, these ten men you have? A. Four are from the Provinces ;
the rest are from the State of Maine and Gloucester,

12

“ Q. Did yon pick up those four provincial men in the Provinces ?
A. No, sir; I shipped them here; I sent them money in the spring
to pay their passage here; so as to ship with them. ae

“Q. Are they people you know? A. Yes, sir. I knew them
before. ,

*©Q. Did you send for them to take them on board up there, or
because it was more convenient for your purposes to ship them
here. A. We would rather ship them here, and so I sent them
money to bring them here. We are never short of men here; we
can ship men here at any time.” .

It is understood that the system of Provincetown is otherwise,
and at that port the shipper engages the fishermen at s0 many
round dollars either for the trip, the season or the month; and thus ~
our American fishermen may be brought directly in competition
with the lower paid fishermen of Nova Scotia. ;

In A: D, 1886 the whole number employed in the cod, halibut and
mackerel fisheries of New England were 13,400, of whom 9,374
were citizens of the United States, 2,252 were from‘the British Pro-
vinces and 1,774 appear as foreigners of other nationalities, though
probably a great many of the last.two classes were residents of
Maine or Massachusetts.

Several witnesses from Provincetown went before the Committee
of Foreign Relations, who explained freely and fully the matters
covered in this part of this statement. James Gifford, deputy collec-
tor of Provincetown, testified that the wages paid a British crew,
meaning probably for the season, was from $75 to $82 per man, and
those paid the American crew was from $125 to $190 per man. It
is understood that Provincetown fits out for the Grand Banks about
half as much tonnage as Gloucester, and three times as much as
Portland.

We have had loud proclamations that the fishermen of New
England are to be protected ; yet the matter of freely shipping men
in Nova Scotia is not in the interests of fishermen, but of the
owners of fishing vessels, No one ought to object to justly aiding
the latter, and on the other hand, all ought to be willing to enconr-
age them by all reasonable methods. Neither should anyone oppose
the free ingress to the United States of the residents of the Maritime
Provinces, who in their own homes are a kind-hearted and honest
people; but it is a strange thing to ask, in the pretended interests
of our fishermen, the exercise of the power uf our government in
forcing a policy whose sole object is to bring them in direct and
easy competition with the cheaper paid Nova Scotians.

Only one thing remains to be considered, and that is the matter
of transhipment of fish in bond; and this, so far from being the
sole cause, or indeed a prominent cause of the difficulties, was heard
of only once, and then not from a fisherman in regular line, but
from a steam vessel, the “ Novelty.” It cannot be doubted that the
privilege is one of value; but it cannot be demanded as aright. It
is not one recognized by the ordinary comity of nations, and as
already said, it never has been asserted except when granted by ex-
press treaty provisions, These propositions are too clear to need
argumentation. Therefore its only alleged basis would be the
twenty-ninth article of the Treaty of A. D. 1871. Apparently in the

18

view of the commissioners the article did not sustain that construc-
tion; and in the argument of the Hon. Richard H. Dana, counsel of
the United States at Halifax id A, D, 1877, at a time when the mat-
ter cume fairly io issue, he asked the question: “ Does the Treaty
of 1871 give the United States the right to buy bait, ice, provisions,
supplies for vessels and to tranship cargoes within the British
Dominion?” He himself answered; “I say the Treaty of Washing-
ton has not given us these rights.” Moreover, the action of the
commission in construing this article was of very little consequence,
because the article is terminabie by two years’ notice by either Gov-
ernment. If the construction put on it is not satisfactory to the
United States, Congress can denounce it; and if a different con-
struction had been adopted unsatisfactory to the Dominion of
Canada, it would have in like manner been denounced by Great Bri-

tain,

The intelligent Washington correspondent of the Boston Journal,
while criticising the treaty in other respects, was forced to say as

follows:

“What our fishermen wanted were in the main two things: The
right to go into Canadian ports to buy bait, ice and all other sup-
plies, and the right to ship their fish to the United States from a
Canadian port in bond, ‘The latter was a privilege and could not
be claimed as aright. It could only be secured by negotiation and
presumably by some concessious on our part.”

Had Congress approved the commission recommended by the
President before the beginning of these troubles, the concession thus
indicated could perhaps have been formulated, and with the consent

of Congress, in some way made good otherwise than at the cost of
our fishermen, That they are not now obiained, is the work of those
who opposed that commission, and in no way the fault of the pre-
sent negotiators. These had no proper jurisdiction over matters
calling tor barter, and no just power under present circumstances
to bind Congress to pay ior such concessioas either in money, by
reduction of duties, cr in auy other manner,

What has been acquired by this treaty, and this examination of its
provisions must show that very much has thus been acquired, has
been obtained without any Consideration whatever moving from the
United States, beyond the arguments persistently put forward that
Canada must ultimately be an enormous loser by continuing the
unfriendly course which she had heretofore marked out, The result
of the provisions of articles ten and eleven are justly and moderately
described by the Daily Citizen, at Ottawa, as follows:

“ The people of Canada, however, will not be misled; they may
not have got all they wanted, but in reality they want only what
they got. The Treaty of 1818 in many particulars had outlived its
usefulness; the commercial intercourse between Canada and the
United States has become closer year by ysar; the traffic in fish
has become immense, and the ties between Engiand, Cunada and
the United States have gradually ripened into what may not unrea-
sonably be termed an Hnglish speaking alliance, whose interests are

___— peace, the promotion of trade and a desire to utilize every element

thereof to the best possible advantage. Modern progress demanded
a more specific definition of the old treaty, and acting upon this

14
Great Britain and Canada have agreed to an amelioration of certain
clauses, with a view to the prospective establishment of more
widened commercial intercourse.” .

At this point we are in a position to review the progress marked
by the treaty; and for this purpose we copy here the published in-
terview with Senator Frye, which took place at Lewiston in Octo-
ber, 1886, immediately after the Committee of Foreign Relations had
- Closed the taking of evidence, to which we have referred. He is
reported to have said as follows:

“The testimony of the owners and fishermen taken at Glouces-
ter, also at Boston, Provincetown and Portland, was entirely agreed
on the following points:

‘¢ First—That there is no necessity at all for our fishing vessels to
enter ports of Canada for any purposes except those provided for in
the Treaty of 1818, viz., for shelter, wood, water and repairs; that
while the Canadians admit our right to these privileges, they are
unnecessarily and without excuse interfering continuously with our
enjoyment of them, If one of our vessels runs into a Canadian
port in a storm for shelter they insist upon immediate entry, no
matter how inconvenient it may be to the captain of the vessel. They
will not permit him to land a man, though he be a citizen of that
country, send his clothing ashore, send for treatment in sickness,
purchase anything whatever. A score of our fishing vessels have
already been seized by them and fined $400, for what they deter-
mined to be infraction of the peculiar rules and regulations of their
customs laws, which have been obsolete for more than forty years.
In fact, they do not permit us to enjoy any of the rights which they
admit to be secured to us by the Treaty of 1818, without putting us
to more inconvenience and trouble than the right is worth.

“ Second—They refuse our fishermen absolutely and unqualifiedly
all commercial rights whatever, and refuse to recognize as valid our
customs permits to touch and trade. ‘Their ports are almost as
effectually closed against all our fishing vessels as if there was to-day
a condition of war between us and Great Britain. The fishermen
also concur in saying that these commercial privileges are of no
value. It has been generally understood that the right to purchase
bait was a very valuable one; but the testimony not only shows
that it is of no value, but the preponderance of testimony is that
the right exercised does more harm than good, that the time con-
sumed in going into and out of the port, and going thence to the
banks again, cost the fishermen more than the value of the bait,

“Third—Both fishermen and owners agree with great unanimity
that they require absolutely nothing of Canada other than the
treaty rights of 1818; that it is better for them when they start on
their cruises to provide their vessels with everything that is neces-
sary for the cruises, bait and all, than to leave anything to be pro-
vided for in Canada.

“ Fourth—They agree that the privilege of fishing inside of the
three-mile limit is absolutely worthless, and has been for fifteen
years; that nearly all the fish, both mackerel and cod, have been
taken outside; that fishing with purse seines within three miles of
the shores never brings compensation enough to make up for the
damage to the seines in the shoal water and on the rocks,

15

‘“Bifth—There seems to be no difference in opinion about the
result of a treaty with Canada which would give them our markets
or alter our tariff by making fish free. They believe it would
be certain to destroy in ten or fifteen years the fishing industry of
New England and transfer to Uanada the fishing’fleet; that there is
nothing which Canada can give them as a componsation for this.

“ Sixth—Their remedy for existing troubles with their business is
a higher duty on salt fish, also a duty on fresh fish.”

These remarks were made near the close of the first season of
these fishery troubles, and also at the close of the great mass of tes-
timony taken by the committee, of which the Senator was a mem-
ber. He stood then in a position to observe what had taken place
in the past, and what was needed for the future. The only recom-
mendation he made was a higher duty on salt fish and a duty on
fresh fish. This, if just, and if the time has now come to reverse
the action of the Republican Congress and the Republican Presi-
dent in A. D. 1870, when the duties on fish were fixed as they stand
to-day, is a matter for the legislative and not for the treaty-making

ower.
c We invoke the most careful examination of every word contained
in this statement, which was apparently prepared with care, and
we challenge the pointing out of a single mischief stated therein as
of consequence which this treaty does not entirely dispose of.

The fourteenth article must prove very beneficial. Of our vessels
heretofore seized for unlawful fishing, by far the greater number
have been condemned, and in some cases the owners found it more
expensive to defend than to permit them to be sold, purchasing
them back at the sales. ‘The proceedings have been in the vice-
Admiralty Courts, where they are unusually expensive ; and this is
now remedied, The mere matter of relief from giving bonds for
costs is of real importance; because, although on this point there
has been no discrimination against fishing vessels, and the praciice
in the Canadian courts has been somewhat as in our own, yet before
bonds can be given, so that the cases may be brought to trial, skip-
pers and sharesmen aro scattered and the owners find it expensive
and sometimes quite impossible to collect the proofs again. This
section provides that the penalty for unlawful fishing may extend
to the forfeiture of the vessel and cargo aboard at the time of the
offence, subject as in all other cases of penalties to revision by the
Governor in Council, thus giving the vessel the possibility of the
benefit of all mitigating circumstances. .

Since A, D. 1819 this forfeiture has been imposed, not only on
vessels illegally fishing, but on vessels preparing to fish. It has
also been claimed that vessels purchasing bait intended for the deep
sea fisheries were liable to forfeiture; and it was so decided in A, D.
1870 by the Vice-Admiralty Court at Halifax in the case of the “J.
H. Nickerson.” This vessel was alleged guilty of no offence except
of purchasing bait with the view of fishing on the Banks; and yet
she was seized and condemned, the United States furnishing no as-
sistance in her defence and obtaining no reparations for the owners.
The validity of that decision has been contested anew in the cases of
a “Adams” and “ Doughty,” mainly at the expense of the United

tates.

16

In order that there might be no question with reference to futuré
seizures, the Dominion Parliament in 1886 enacted a statute impos-
ing the extreme penalty of forfeiture, not only on vessels purchas-
ing bait, but on all entering the Dominion waters in cases not
expressly authorized by treaty, thus imperilling our fishermen with
the danger of forfeiture under innumerable circumstances. This
law was severe, yet it was not more unjust in some respects than
statutes passed in A. D, 1836, 1868 and 1870, the repeal and modifi-
cation of none of which was ever secured by our government, and
all of which have been permitted to stand as a continual threat to
our fishermen and a constant peril to their property. This article
permits no enlargement of any penalty in excess of those heretofore
constantly imposed. As already stated, it consents to a forfeiture
of the vessel for illegal fishing, but carefully limits it to the value
of the cargo at the time of the offence. It does not deny a like
maximum punishment for illegally preparing to fish, but clearly
restricts this to cases where the preparation was within the waters
of the Dominion and the fishing was intended also to be within the
Same jurisdiction; so that by its terms proceedings like those
against the ‘‘Adams” and the “Doughty” would beimpossible. Hav-
ing in view also the somewhat indefinite meaning of the words “ pre-
paring to fish” and the varying degrees of criminality which that
expression implies, it demands that the court shall take into consi-
deration all the circumstances and modify the penalty accordingly.
Had the commissioners been working new ground, strong reasons
might have been urged for refusing to recognize any penalty for
illegally preparing to fish; but in view of the fact that since A, D.
1319 this has been an offence according to the statutes of Great
Britain with the practical acquiescence of the United States, it is
very plain that the only question was whether the punishment
could be ameliorated.

As to all other matters the statute of 1880 is cut up by the roots;
and any vessel alleged to be guilty of violation of the fishery laws
of Canada, aside from illegally fishing or illegally preparing to fish,
is at the most exposed to a penalty not exceeding $3 perton. This,
of course, does not apply to proceedings under the customs laws;
it would have been beyond reason to have sought by a treaty to
modify the penalties of the customs laws of any foreign country.

Such are the beneficent provisions of this treaty. The principle
running through it is not one of barter, The privileges granted by
it are only those which we were justly entitled to ask as among
neighboring States, but they were the same which have been con-
stantly refused to us from the time of the Convention in 1818. It
was not within the jurisdiction of the commission to offer a price, in
the way of money, concessions of duties or other valuable consider-
ations, to enable our fishermen to share all the peculiar advantages
appertaining to those resident in Nova Scotia; but it is for
them an assurance of peace and it is hoped will enable them to pur-
sue their occupations unharassed and unvexed, It is, however, a
great misfortune that, in addition to the attacks to which the treaty
is subject from partisan sources, the losses against which our fish-
ing interests have struggled for the last two years, have left them
in n0 suitable condition to weigh justly whatever may be tendered

17

them. It is singular that, while they expected from the denuncia-
tion of the reciprocity treaty a race of prosperity, the seasons of
1886 and 1887 have been most disastrous for them. The remedy
proposed by some who assume to speak in their behalf is a rofusal
of all treaties and a perpetuation of the present difficulties until
retaliation leads to an embargo on Canadian fish. The Boston Ad-
vertiser distinctly shadows this by saying:

“In retaliation for the withholding of the rights of friendly ves-
sels in these waters, and in compensation to boycotted fishermen, a
stimulus should be given to the American fishing industry by ex-
cluding Canadian fish from our market.”

Also the correspondent of the Boston Journal says:

“It is among the probabilities that now that the commission has
completed its work Congress, may take steps to secure the execu-
tion of the retaliation act of a year ago. The closing of the ports
of the United States to the vessels of Canada until the Dominion is
willing to grant commercial privileges to American fishermen
would probably settle the question.”

So long as the question was the one raised by the events of the
Jast two years, that is, of justice, it was proper that the whole power
of the nation should be put in motion, as it has been, to require, not
of Canada, but of Great Britain, the rights to which our vessels are
entitled ; but when England responds with the treaty now offered,
in which all honest demands are satisfied, is it not time to halt?
Are we not then to have regard to other interests? Shall we there-
after enter on a blind course of retaliation for the purpose of giving
‘a stimulus to the American fishing industry by excluding Cana.
dian fish,” breaking up therefore the lines of communication
between New England and especially between Portland and the
Maritime Provinces, and perhaps all Canada, hastening further the
visible “ drying up” of the maritime business of our city already so
rapid, and extailing upon our social, political and economical rela-
tions consequences the magnitude of which no one can foresee ? No
fisherman who thoughtfully and carefully considers the situation
will refuse a just and favorable response.

WILLIAM L. PUTNAM,
Feb. 29, A. D. 1888.

\)