have been in operation for nearly seventy years, excepting in intervals during which (until put an end to by the United States Government) special and more liberal provisions existed in relation to the commerce and fisheries of the two countries.

66

The undersigned has further to call attention to the letter of Mr. Bayard of the 20th May, relating also to the seizure of the David J. Adams in the port of Digby, Nova Scotia. ́

"That vessel was seized, as has been explained on a previous occasion, by the commander of the Canadian steamer Lansdowne, under the following circumstances:

"She was a United States fishing vessel, and entered the harbor of Digby for purposes other than those for which entry is permitted by the treaty and by the imperial and Canadian statutes.

"As soon as practicable, legal process was obtained from the viceadmiralty court at Halifax, and the vessel was delivered to the officer of that court. The paper referred to in Mr. Bayard's letter as having been nailed to her mast was doubtless a copy of the warrant which commanded the marshal or his deputy to make the arrest.

"The undersigned is informed that there was no intention whatever of so adjusting the paper that its contents could not be read, but it is doubtless correct that the officer of the court in charge declined to allow the document to be removed. Both the United States consulgeneral and the captain of the David J. Adams were made acquainted with the reasons for the seizure, and the only ground for the statement that a respectful application to ascertain the nature of the complaint was fruitless, was that the commander of the Lansdowne, after the nature of the complaint had been stated to those concerned and was published, and had become notorious to the people of both countries, declined to give the United States consul-general a specific and precise statement of the charges upon which the vessel would be proceeded against, but referred him to his superior.

"Such conduct on the part of the officer of the Lansdowne can hardly be said to have been extraordinary under the present circumstances.

"The legal proceedings had at that time been commenced in the court of vice-admiralty at Halifax, where the United States consulgeneral resides, and the officer at Digby could not have stated with precision, as he was called upon to do, the grounds on which the intervention of the court had been claimed in the proceedings therein. "There was not, in this instance, the slightest difficulty in the United States consul-general and those interested in the vessel obtaining the fullest information, and no information which could have been given by those to whom they applied was withheld.

"Apart from the general knowledge of the offenses which it was claimed the master had committed, and which was furnished at the

time of the seizure, the most technical and precise details were readily obtainable at the registry of the court, and from the solicitors of the Crown, and would have been furnished immediately on application to the authority to whom the commander of the Lansdowne requested the United States consul-general to apply. No such information could have been obtained from the paper attached to the vessel's mast. "Instructions have, however, been given to the commander of the Lansdowne and other officers of the marine police, that, in the event of any further seizure, a statement in writing shall be given to the master of the seized vessel of the offenses for which the vessel may be detained, and that a copy thereof shall be sent to the United States consul-general at Halifax, and to the nearest United States consular agent, and there can be no objection to the solicitor for the Crown being instructed likewise to furnish the consul-general with a copy of the legal process in each case, if it can be supposed that any fuller information will thereby be given.

"Mr. Bayard is correct in his statement of the reasons for which the David J. Adams was seized, and is now held. It is claimed that the vessel violated the treaty of 1818, and consequently the statutes which exist for the enforcement of the treaty, and it is also claimed that she violated the customs laws of Canada of 1883.

"The undersigned recommends that copies of those statutes be furnished for the information of Mr. Bayard.

"Mr. Bayard has, in the same dispatch, recalled the attention of Her Majesty's minister to the correspondence and action which took place in the year 1870, when the fishery question was under consideration, and especially to the instructions from the lords of the admiralty to Vice-Admiral Wellesley, in which that officer was directed to observe great caution in the arrest of American fishermen, and to confine his action to one class of offenses against the treaty. Mr. Bayard, however, appears to have attached unwarranted importance to the correspondence and instructions of 1870, when he refers to them as implying an understanding between the two Governments,' an understanding, which should, in his opinion, at other times, and under other circumstances, govern the conduct of the authorities, whether imperial or colonial, to whom under the laws of the Empire is committed the duty of enforcing the treaty in question.

"When, therefore, Mr. Bayard points out the absolute and instant necessity that now exists for a restriction of the seizure of American vessels charged with violations of the treaty of 1818' to the conditions specified under those instructions, it is necessary to recall the fact that in the year 1870 the principal cause of complaint on the part of Canadian fishermen was that the American vessels were trespassing on the inshore fishing grounds and interfering with the catch

of mackerel in Canadian waters, the purchase of bait being then a matter of secondary importance.

"It is probable, too, that the action of the imperial Government was influenced very largely by the prospect which then existed of an arrangement such as was accomplished in the following year by the treaty of Washington, and that it may be inferred, in view of this disposition made apparent on both sides to arrive at such an understanding, that the imperial authorities, without any surrender of imperial or colonial rights, and without acquiescing in any limited construction of the treaty, instructed the vice-admiral to confine his seizures to the more open and injurious class of offenses which were especially likely to be brought within the cognizance of the naval officers of the imperial service.

"The Canadian Government, as has been already stated, for six months left its fishing grounds open to American fishermen, without any corresponding advantage in return, in order to prevent loss to those fishermen, and to afford time for the action of Congress, on the President's recommendation that a joint commission should be appointed to consider the whole question relating to the fisheries.

"That recommendation has been rejected by Congress. Canadian fish is by prohibitory duties excluded from the United States market. The American fishermen clamor against the removal of those duties, and, in order to maintain a monopoly of the trade, continue against all law to force themselves into our waters and harbors, and make our shores their base for supplies, especially for bait, which is necessary to the successful prosecution of their business.

66

"They hope by this course to supply the demand for their home market, and thus to make Canada indirectly the means of injuring her own trade.

"It is surely, therefore, not unreasonable that Canada should insist on the rights secured to her by treaty. She is simply acting on the defensive, and no trouble can arise between the two countries if American fishermen will only recognize the provisions of the convention of 1818 as obligatory upon them, and until a new arrangement is made, abstain both from fishing in her waters and from visiting her bays and harbors for any purpose save those specified in the treaty.

"In conclusion, the undersigned would express the hope that the discussion which has arisen on this question may lead to renewed negotiations between Great Britain and the United States, and may have the result of establishing extended trade relations between the Republic and Canada, and of removing all sources of irritation between the two countries."

Report of Mr. Foster, Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, June 14,
1886, enclosed with instructions of Lord Rosebery to Sir L. West,
Brit. min. at Washington, of July 23, 1886, and communicated to the
Department of State, Aug. 2, 1886, Ror. Rel. 1886, 395.

"With reference to a dispatch from the British minister at Washington, to his excellency the governor-general, dated the 21st May last, and inclosing a leter from Mr. Secretary Bayard, regarding the refusal of the collector of customs at Digby, Nova Scotia, to allow the United States schooner Jennie and Julia the right of exercising commercial privileges at the said port, the undersigned has the honor to make the following observations:

"It appears the Jennie and Julia is a vessel of about 14 tons register, that she was to all intents and purposes a fishing vessel, and, at the time of her entry into the port of Digby, had fishing gear and apparatus on board, and that the collector fuly satisfied himself of these facts. According to the master's declaration, she was there to purchase fresh herring only, and wished to get them direct from the weir fishermen. The collector acted upon his conviction that she was a fishing vessel, and, as such, debarred by the treaty of 1818 from entering Canadian ports for the purposes of trade. He, therefore, in the exercise of his plain duty, warned her off.

"The treaty of 1818 is explicit in its terms, and by it United States fishing
vessels are allowed to enter Canadian ports for shelter, repairs, wood,
and water, and for no other purpose whatever.'

"The undersigned is of the opinion that it cannot be successfully con-
tended that a bona fide fishing vessel can, by simply declaring her
intention of purchasing fresh fish for other than baiting purposes,
evade the provisions of the treaty of 1818 and obtain privileges not
contemplated thereby. If that were admitted, the provision of the
treaty which excludes United States fishing vessels for all purposes
but the four above-mentioned, would be rendered null and void, and
the whole United States fishing fleet be at once lifted out of the
category of fishing vessels, and allowed the free use of Canadian ports
for baiting, obtaining supplies, and trans-shipping cargoes.
"It appears to the undersigned that the question as to whether a vessel
is a fishing vessel or a legitimate trader or merchant vessel, is one of
fact and to be decided by the character of the vessel and the nature of
her outfit, and that the class to which she belongs is not to be deter-
mined by the simple declaration of her master that he is not at any
given time acting in the character of a fisherman.

"At the same time the undersigned begs again to observe that Canada has
no desire to interrupt the long-established and legitimate commercial
intercourse with the United States, but rather to encourage and main-
tain it, and that Canadian ports are at present open to the whole
merchant navy of the United States on the same liberal conditions as
heretofore accorded.

"The whole respectfully submitted.

46

“GEORGE E. FOSTER, "Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

'OTTAWA, June 5, 1886." (For. Rel. 1886, 404.)

On January 28, 1887, the British minister at Washington communicated to the Department of State a copy of an Report of the Cana- approved minute of the privy council of Canada of November 2, 1886, accompanied with a report of Mr. J. S. D. Thompson, Canadian minister of justice, of July 22, 1886, in specific reply to the note of Mr. Phelps to Lord

dian minister of justice.

Rosebery of the 2nd of the preceding June. With regard to the allegations of fact made in behalf of the vessel, Mr. Thompson observed that they remained to be proved in the vice-admiralty court at Halifax, and that, as the trial had not been concluded, it was perhaps premature for Mr. Phelps to claim the restoration of the vessel and assert a right to damages for her detention. The vessel, said Mr. Thompson, was on May 5, 1886, at a point several miles within Annapolis Basin, and the suggestion that her captain was under a misapprehension as to the locality could not be sustained. Mr. Phelps, declared Mr. Thompson, was in error in speaking of Digby as" a small fishing settlement, and its harbor not defined." Although some of the people on the neighboring shores engaged in fishing, it was a town with a population of 2,000 inhabitants, and the wellknown harbor of Annapolis Basin was entered through a narrow strait called "Digby Gut," marked by conspicuous headlands. During the 5th and 6th of May the vessel lay within the harbor at anchor, about half a mile from shore, and on the second day she purchased and took on board from a near-by fishing weir four and a half barrels of bait. She also obtained two tons of ice. The name of her home port was kept covered by canvas, and the owner of the fishing weir was told that she was under British register.

Other circumstances were also stated by Mr. Thompson contradictory of the allegations made on behalf of the vessel. With regard to her failure to report, Mr. Thompson declared that the vessel, in going to the weir to purchase bait, passed almost within hailing distance of the custom-house at Digby, and that when she was at the weir she was within one or two miles of another custom-house. The captain and crew were also ashore during the 5th and 6th of May. In this relation Mr. Thompson quoted the provisions of the customs act of Canada, which were not, he declared, essentially different from those of the United States; and, after discussing other incidents of the seizure and denying the allegations of harsh or improper action on the part of the Canadian authorities, he repelled the inference of Mr. Phelps that the joining of a charge of violation of the customs law with the charge of violation of the statutes in relation to fishing by foreign vessels, indicated a consciousness that the vessel could not be forfeited on the latter charge. With thousands of miles of coast indented, as were the coasts of Canada, by hundreds of harbors and inlets, it was, said Mr. Thompson, impossible to enforce the fishery law without a strict enforcement of the customs law. The convention of 1818 provided that the American fishermen should be " under such restrictions as might be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish... or in any other manner whatever abusing the privilege reserved to them." He denied the statement made by Mr. Phelps, on the authority of the United States consul-general at Hali