Page images
PDF
EPUB

remove all possible subjects of controversy, the British plenipotentiaries are ready to make the following temporary arrangement for a period not exceeding two years, in order to afford a modus vivendi' pending the ratification of the treaty:

"1. For a period not exceeding two years from the present date, the privilege of entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada and Newfoundland shall be granted to United States fishing vessels by annual licenses at a fee of $1.50 per ton for the following purposes:

"The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits..

Transshipment of catch and shipping of crews.

"2. If during the continuance of this arrangement the United States should remove the duties on fish, fish-oil, whale and seal-oil (and their coverings, packages, etc.), the said licenses shall be issued free of charge.

"3. United States fishing vessels entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland for any of the four purposes mentioned in Article I. of the convention of October 20, 1818, and not remaining therein more than twenty-four hours, shall not be required to enter or clear at the custom-house, providing that they do not communicate with the shore.

"4. Forfeiture to be exacted only for the offences of fishing or preparing to fish in territorial waters.

"5. This arrangement to take effect as soon as the necessary measures can be completed by the colonial authorities.

"WASHINGTON, February 15, 1888.”

"J. CHAMBERLAIN.

"L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. "CHARLES TUPPER.

To this communication the American plenipotentiaries made the following reply:

"The American plenipotentiaries having received the communication of the British plenipotentiaries of this date conveying their plan for the administration to be observed by the governments of Canada and Newfoundland in respect to the fisheries during the period which may be requisite for the consideration by the Senate of the treaty this day signed, and the enactment of the legislation by the respective governments therein proposed, desire to express their satisfaction. with this manifestation of an intention on the part of the British plenipotentiaries, by the means referred to, to maintain the relations . of good neighborhood between the British possessions in North America and the United States; and they will convey the communication of the British plenipotentiaries to the President of the United

States, with a recommendation that the same may be by him made known to the Senate for its information, together with the treaty, when the latter is submitted to that body for ratification.

"WASHINGTON, February 15, 1888." a

tory.

"T. F. BAYARD.

"WILLIAM L. PUTNAM.
66 JAMES B. ANGELL.

The treaty was communicated by the President to the Senate. Subsequent his February 20, 1888, with a message recommending its approval. May 7, 1888, a report was made from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate adverse to ratification. A minority report also was presented. The treaty was debated in open session. August 21, 1888, the resolution that the Senate give its advice and consent failed by a vote of 27 yeas to 30 nays. August 23, 1888, President Cleveland sent to Congress a message in which he stated that, as the Senate had rejected the treaty without any apparent disposition to alter or amend it, and with indications of the opinion that no negotiation should then be conducted touching the matter at issue, he turned to the contemplation of a plan of retaliation as a mode which still remained of treating the situation. In connection with the question of the fisheries, he also dealt with the subject of discrimination in tolls and charges in the use of the Canadian canals by citizens of the United States, under Article XXVII. of the treaty of Washington. He recommended, as measures of retaliation, the suspension of the bonded

a For the form of the license subsequently issued by the Dominion Government under this modus vivendi, see For. Rel. 1888, I. 808.

Under the bait act of 1889 licenses also were issued by the Newfoundland government to foreign fishing vessels, including vessels of the Dominion of Canada. Licenses issued by the Dominion under the modus vivendi were not good in Newfoundland. (Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dawes, May 7, 1890, 177 MS. Dom. Let., 421.)

As to the proposed reciprocity convention between the United States and Newfoundland, known as the "Blaine-Bond convention," and the protest of Canada against it, see Canadian House of Commons papers containing the message of the governor-general of June 3, 1891, p. 85. At page 82 of the same document may be found a note of Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British minister, of April 1, 1891, referring to a negotiation to be held with representatives of Canada in Washington on the subject of commercial relations. The opening of the conference was finally fixed for Oct. 12, 1891. H. Ex. Doc. 434, 50 Cong. 1 sess. 9-13; S. Ex. Doc. 113, 50 Cong. 1 sess. 127-131.

The majority report was signed by Messrs. Sherman, Edmunds, Frye, Evarts, and Dolph; the minority report by Messrs. Morgan, Saulsbury, Brown, and Payne. (S. Report 3, Conf. 50 Cong. 1 sess.) The reports were made public.

d Congressional Record, 50 Cong. 1 sess. 7768.

1

transit system, maintaining in this relation that Article XXIX. of the treaty of Washington was no longer in force, and the adoption of such legislation as should impose on Canadian vessels and cargoes navigating the canals of the United States the same rule of discrimination as was applied to United States vessels and cargoes on the Canadian canals."

No action was taken by Congress in pursuance of these recommendations.

"The questions between Great Britain and the United States relating to the rights of American fishermen, under treaty and international comity, in the territorial waters of Canada and Newfoundland, I regret to say are not yet satisfactorily adjusted.

"These matters were fully treated in my message to the Senate of February 20, 1888, together with which a convention, concluded under my authority with Her Majesty's Government on the 15th of February last, for the removal of all causes of misunderstanding, was submitted by me for the approval of the Senate.

"This treaty having been rejected by the Senate, I transmitted a message to the Congress, on the 23d of August last, reviewing the transactions and submitting for consideration certain recommendations for legislation concerning the important questions involved.

"Afterwards, on the 12th of September, in response to a resolution of the Senate, I again communicated fully all the information in my possession as to the action of the government of Canada affecting the commercial relations between the Dominion and the United States, including the treatment of American fishing vessels in the ports and waters of British North America.

"These communications have all been published, and therefore opened to the knowledge of both Houses of Congress, although two were addressed to the Senate alone.

"Comment upon or repetition of their contents would be superfluous, and I am not aware that anything has since occurred which should be added to the facts therein stated. Therefore, I merely repeat, as applicable to the present time, the statement which will be found in my message to the Senate of September 12th last, that since March 3, 1887, no case has been reported to the Department of State wherein complaint has been made of unfriendly or unlawful treatment of American fishing vessels on the part of the Canadian authorities, in which reparation was not promptly and satisfactorily obtained by the United States consul-general at Halifax.'

"Having essayed, in the discharge of my duty, to procure by negotiation the settlement of a long-standing cause of dispute, and to remove a constant menace to the good relations of the two countries,

a H. Ex. Doc. 434, 50 Cong. 1 sess.

and continuing to be of opinion that the treaty of February last, which failed to receive the approval of the Senate, did supply 'a satisfactory, practical, and final adjustment upon a basis honorable and just to both parties of the difficult and vexed question to which it related,' and having subsequently and unavailingly recommended other legislation to Congress which I hoped would suffice to meet the exigency created by the rejection of the treaty, I now again invoke the earnest and immediate attention of the Congress to the condition. of this important question, as it now stands before them and the country, and for the settlement of which I am deeply solicitous.”

President Cleveland, Annual Message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888. I. pp. x-xi.

The messages referred to in the foregoing extract may be found in the following documents: Message of Feb. 20, 1888, H. Ex. Doc. 434, 50 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 9-13; S. Ex. Doc. 113, 50 Cong. 1 sess. 127-131; message of Aug. 23, 1888, H. Ex. Doc. 434, 50 Cong. 1 sess; message of Sept. 12, 1888, S. Ex. Doc. 265, 50 Cong. 1 sess.

In connection with the discussions of 1886-1888, we may refer to the following prints:

The United States and the Northeastern Fisheries: A History of the Fishery Question. By Charles B. Elliott, LL. B., Minneapolis, 1887, 151 pp.

Isham, The Fishery Question: New York, 1887.

A paper read by the Hon William L. Putnam, of Portland, Maine, March
28, 1887, before the Fraternity, a social and literary club.
Diplomatic Fly-Sheets, Tuesday, March 15, 1887, containing a report by
the St. Pancras foreign affairs committee on "The alleged Rights
of American fishermen in British North-American waters.'"
A letter of William A. Day, counsel for the Grand Trunk Railway Com-
pany, of Canada, to the Hon. William Windom, Secretary of the
Treasury, in the matter of consular sealing of goods for transporta-
tion through Canada. [No date.] This letter maintains the con-
tinuing force of Art. XXIX of the treaty of Washington.
The Fisheries Dispute. By John Jay, late minister to Vienna: New York,
1887. As may be seen at p. 9 of this pamphlet, the author of it
argues upon the assumption, the grounds of which are not disclosed,
that the convention of 1818 was "suspended," in the sense of being
supplanted by the treaties of 1854 and 1871. As has been seen, these
treaties merely granted for a term of years and for specific considera-
tions certain privileges which were not secured by the convention
of 1818.

For references to fisheries correspondence, see pp. 317-322 of Martin's General Index to the Dip. Cor. and For. Rel. of the United States. "On the part of the government of the Dominion of Canada an effort has been apparent during the season just ended to administer the laws and regulations applicable to the fisheries with as little. occasion for friction as was possible, and the temperate representa-tions of this Government in respect of cases of undue hardship or of harsh interpretations have been in most cases met with measures of transitory relief. It is trusted that the attainment of our just

rights under existing treaties and in virtue of the concurrent legislation of the two contiguous countries will, not be long deferred and that all existing causes of difference may be equitably adjusted."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 3, 1889.

See report of Select Committee of the Senate on Relations with Canada,
July 21, 1890, S. Report 1530, 51 Cong. 1 sess.

As to the case of the Howard Holbrook, under the Newfoundland bait
act of 1889, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lincoln, min. to
England, March 30, 1891, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXIX. 439; also, as to
the seizure of the Rapid Transit, under the same act, see Mr. Uhl,
Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. White, Sept. 4, 1894, 198 MS. Dom. Let.
476.
The act requires a license to be obtained for any exportation
of herring to foreign parts, and requires the licensee to give bond for
the landing of the cargo in the foreign country.

The Frederick Gerring, jr., having been condemned for unlawful fishing in
territorial waters, was afterwards restored on payment of a nominal
fine, with costs, it being alleged in extenuation that the vessel caught
a seine full of mackerel outside and drifted inside the line while
removing the fish from the seine. Gratification with the decision was
expressed by the Department of State. (Mr. Day, Act. Sec. of State,
to Mr. Hay, min. to England, July 19, 1897, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXXII.
172.)
As to the fine imposed on the American schooner Carrie E. Phillips at
Shelburne, see Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas. Feb.
9, 1898, 225 MS. Dom. Let. 335.

On the representation of the British ambassador that American fishing
vessels were in the practice of resorting to Canadian waters and
engaging in commercial transactions, without reporting their pres-
ence and business to the customs authorities, as required by the local
laws and regulations, the Secretary of the Treasury was requested
to communicate the complaint to the officials at Gloucester, Mass.,
and Eastport, Maine, whence the vessels complained of proceeded,
with instructions to notify such vessels sailing from those ports
"that the practice referred to will subject them to arrest and pun-
ishment by the Canadian authorities, and that in view of the nego-
tiations now pending between the Governments for an amicable
adjustment of fishing rights all causes of irritation should be
avoided." (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas. Nov. 4, 1898,
232 MS. Dom. Let. 470.)

As to fishing in Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait on the Pacific coast,
see Mr. Adee, 2nd. Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Eatock, Oct. 28, 1897,
222 MS. Dom. Let. 59.

For an agreement between France and Great Britain in relation to the
Newfoundland fisheries, see For. Rel. 1904, 329.

February 15, 1892, a tentative understanding was reached between Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of State, and the delegates of the government of the Dominion of Canada, for the appointment of a commission of two experts to consider and report upon (1) the prevention of destructive methods of fishing in the territorial and contiguous waters of the two countries, and in waters outside their territorial

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »