its object. The Mascot made a similar attempt at Port Amherst, in the Magdalen Islands, and also desired to take on board a pilot. Both vessels were refused permission by the authorities to purchase bait, and the Mascot to take a pilot, and were notified to leave the ports within twenty-four hours on penalty of seizure. They were therefore compelled to depart, to break up their voyages, and to return home, to their very great loss. I append copies of the affidavits of the masters of these vessels, stating the facts.

Your Lordship will observe, upon reference to the Treaty, not only that the right to fish in these waters is conferred by it, but that the clause prohibiting entry by American fishermen into Canadian ports, except for certain specified purposes, which is relied on by the Canadian Government in the cases of the Adams and of some other vessels, has no application whatever to the ports from which the Bayard and the Mascot were excluded. The only prohibition in the Treaty having reference to those ports is against curing and drying fish there, without leave of the inhabitants, which the vessels excluded had no intention of doing. The conduct of the provincial officers towards these vessels was therefore not merely unfriendly and injurious, but in clear and plain violation of the terms of the Treaty. And I am instructed to say that reparation for the losses sustained by it to the owners of the vessels will be claimed by the United States' Government on their behalf as soon as the amount can be accurately ascertained.

It will be observed that interference with American fishing-vessels by Canadian authorities is becoming more and more frequent, and more and more flagrant in its disregard of Treaty obligations and of the principles of comity and friendly intercourse. The forbearance and moderation of the United States' Government in respect to them appear to have been misunderstood, and to have been taken advantage of by the Provincial Government. The course of the United States has been dictated, not only by an anxious desire to preserve friendly relations, but by the full confidence that the interposition of Her Majesty's Government would be such as to put a stop to the transactions complained of, and to afford reparation for what has already taken place. The subject has become one of grave importance, and I earnestly solicit the immediate attention of your Lordship to the question it involves, and to the views presented in

my former note, and in those of the Secretary of State. 348 The proposal in your Lordship's note that a revision of the

Treaty stipulations bearing upon the subject of the fisheries should be attempted by the Government upon the basis of mutual concession is one that under other circumstances would merit and receive serious consideration. Such a revision was desired by the Government of the United States before the present disputes arose, and when there was a reasonable prospect that it might have been carried into effect. Various reasons not within its control now concur to make the present time inopportune for that purpose, and greatly to diminish the hope of a favourable result to such an effort. Not the least of them is the irritation produced in the United States by the course of the Canadian Government, and the belief thereby engendered that a new Treaty is attempted to be forced upon the United States' Government.

It seems apparent that the questions now presented and the transactions that are the subject of present complaint must be considered and adjusted upon the provisions of the existing Treaty, and upon the construction that is to be given to them.

A just construction of these stipulations, and such as would consist with the dignity, the interests, and the friendly relations of the two countries, ought not to be difficult, and can doubtless be arrived at. As it appears to me very important to these relations that the collisions between the American fishermen and the Canadian officials should terminate, I suggest to your Lordship whether an ad interim construction of the terms of the existing Treaty cannot be reached by mutual understanding of the Governments to be carried out infor mally by instructions given on both sides, without prejudice to ultimate claims of either, and terminable at the will of either, by which the conduct of the business can be so regulated for the time being as to prevent disputes and injurious proceedings until a more permanent understanding can be had.

Should this suggestion meet with your Lordship's approval, perhaps you may be able to propose an outline for such an arrangement. I am not prepared nor authorised to present one at this time, but may hereafter be instructed to do so if the effort is thought advisable.

I have, &c.

E. J. PHELPS.

No. 214.-1886, October 6th: Letter from Captain N. F. Blake to the "Boston Herald" referred to in Report of Committee of the Privy Council for Canada, dated 28th October, 1886.a

So much has been written and printed about the experiences of American fishermen in Canadian waters, and the indignities put on them, I wish you would open your columns and give your readers an insight into the other side of the story. I sailed from Boston for North Bay on June 16, not knowing just what the cutters would do or how the law would be interpreted. I neared the coast with fear and anxiety. The first land sighted was Whitehead, and immediately cries came from aloft: "Cutter in sight ahead!" I rushed to the deck, found the vessel which proved to be the "Houlett," commanded by Capt. Lorway, nearing us rapidly. At time of sighting the cutter we were standing in shore. She hoisted her flags to let us know what she was, and we immediately "about ship" and put to sea to get out of her way, for fear we might be placed on the prize list of the captures. We finally headed up for Port Mulgrave in Canso, expecting to receive rough usage from the authorities, but to our surprise found Collector Murray a perfect gentleman, willing to assist me as far as he could without encroaching on the Canadian laws. From there we put in at Port Hawkesbury and boarded the cutter "Conrad," and asked the captain for instructions in regard to the threemile limit, and what privileges, if any, we had. I was answered. in a courteous and hearty way, that he did not have them aboard, but would go ashore in a few moments and get me a printed copy of the

Document No. 218.

regulations, which he did, and assured us that if we followed them we would be unmolested; that he was there to see that the law was not violated, but not to cause unnecessary annoyance. After receiving instructions from the Captain, thanks to him, I went to the Custom House and entered my vessel, paying twenty-five cents. I found a very pleasant gentleman in the Collector, who did all in his power to relieve my mind and make us comfortable.

Souris was our next port of landing, where we also reported, and were well treated. From there we went to Malpeque, where we found another gentleman in the Collector. We met the cutter "Houlett ” at Cascumpec, and had several interviews with her commander, Captain Lorway, who I found a quiet, just and gentlemanly officer. My vessel was one of the fleet ordered out of harbour by him. At that time it was as good a fish day as one could ask for, and the instructions were plain that at such times we had no right to remain in harbour. At no time is there much water to spare on the bar, and it is a common occurrence for vessels to ground in going in or out, and that some did touch was due to ignorance of the channel or carelessness on the part of captains. At the time the order was issued the weather was fair, but before all the fleet could work out through the channel, one of the sudden changes in weather, so much to be dreaded on such a coast, came, and the cutter rescinded the order and the fleet returned. It has been printed in a Boston paper that, owing to being forced to sea by the cutter's orders in bad weather, my schooner, the "Andrew Burnham," fouled two 349 Englishmen and narrowly escaped serious damage. If true it would look like a hardship. It was simply this: In getting under way, in a small and crowded space, finding I would not have room, I dropped our starboard anchor. That not holding, we let go the other, and it brought us up all right; not much in this to point to as an outrage or danger from stress of weather. I believe Captain Lorway to be a man who would carry out all the requirements of the Canadian laws, but I saw nothing in my experience in those waters that could be considered as being arbitrary, or taking a mean advantage of his official authority to annoy any one. Captain Lorway has been a master of vessels for twenty-five years, is a man of high reputation as a seaman, and as good a judge of whether the weather is favourable for a vessel to go to sea as any man who walks a deck, and when he ordered the fleet to sea he went himself, and I know he would not order a vessel to leave harbour if there was any danger of loss of life or property. We reported at Cascumpec, and were treated the same as at all other ports we touched at. If our vessels would attend to reporting at the Custom House, the same as they do in our ports, no trouble would be met with.

If we had "free fish" it would give the Canadians some recompense for what our fishermen want, viz., the right to go anywhere and everywhere, use their harbours, ship men, get provisions, land, and mend our nets, buy salt and barrels, and ship our catch home by rail or steamer without expense or annoyance, the same as we have heretofore.

If we had had that privilege this year, myself and vessel would have been $5,000 better off this season, and all the fishermen in the bay would have been in the same boat with me. I do not say that I am too honest not to fish within the three-mile limit, nor do I believe

there is a vessel in the fleet who would not, if the cutter was out of sight. I made two trips to the bay, both of which were very successful, and I lived up to the requirements of the law as well as I knew how, and did not find them obnoxious, or to interfere with my success, and everywhere I went I was courteously treated by the officials-especially so by both the cutters. Should it be a bay year next season, I hope to meet them again. Those who openly preached that they would go where they pleased, do what they wanted to in spite of law or cutters, shipped men, smuggled or openly fished inside of the limit, and indulged in the satisfaction of damning the cutter, the captain, the government, and everything else when they knew they could do it with impunity, and that the men they were talking to could not resent it by word or blow, were looked after sharp and were not extended the courtesy that was shown so many of us.

In the interest of fair-play I could not help writing you and asking you to give this to your readers, if not taking up too much of your valuable space.

Very respectfully,

CAPT. NATHAN F. BLAKE, Schooner "Andrew Burnham" of Boston. BOSTON, 6th October, 1886.

No. 215.-1886, October 9th: Extract from the "Boston Herald," referred to in Report of Committee of Privy Council for Canada dated 28th October, 1886.a

A FISHING CAPTAIN'S EXPERIENCE.

The letter of Captain Nathan F. Blake, of the fishing schooner "Andrew Burnham" of this city, which we published on Wednesday, would apparently indicate that the Canadian officials have not been disposed to push the requirements of their law quite as rigorously as some of our fishermen have maintained. Captain Blake says that he has experienced not the least trouble in his intercourse with the Canadian officials, but that, as he has treated them courteously, they on their side have reciprocated in like terms. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of bitterness felt on both sides, and probably this bitterness has led both parties to be ungracious in their own conduct, and to exaggerate the wrongs they have endured, hardships frequently due to an unwillingness to observe the requirements of the law as these are now laid down. If all American fishing captains exhibited the same courtesy and moderation that Captain Blake has shown, we imagine that there would be very little trouble in arriving at an equitable and pleasing understanding with Canada.

No. 216.-1886, October 19th: Letter from Mr. Bayard (United States Secretary of State) to Sir L. S. S. West (British Minister). WASHINGTON, 19th October, 1886. SIR, The "Everett Steele," a fishing vessel of Gloucester, Mass., in the United States, of which Chas. E. Forbes, an American citizen,

• Document No. 218.

was master, was about to enter, on the 10th September, 350 1886, the harbour of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, to procure water, and for shelter during repairs. She was hailed when entering the harbour by the Canadian cutter "Terror," by whose Captain, Quigley, her papers were taken and retained. Captain Forbes on arriving off the town anchored and went with Captain Quigley to the Custom House, who asked him whether he reported whenever he had come in. Captain Forbes answered that he had always reported with the exception of a visit on the 25th of March, when he was driven into the lower harbour for shelter by a storm and where he remained only eight hours. The collector did not consider that this made the vessel liable, but Captain Quigley refused to discharge her; said he would keep her until he heard from Ottawa, put her in charge of policemen and detained her until next day, when at noon she was discharged by the Collector.

But a calm having come on she could not get to sea, and by the delay her bait was spoiled and the expected profits of her trip lost. It is scarcely necessary for me to remind you, in presenting this case to the consideration of your Government, that when the northeastern coast of America was wrested from France in a large measure by the valour and enterprise of New England fishermen they enjoyed in common with other British subjects, the control of the fisheries with which that coast was enriched; and that by the Treaty of Peace of 1783, which, as was said by an eminent English Judge when treating an analogous question, was a Treaty of "Separation,' this right was expressly affirmed. It is true that by the Treaty of 1818, the United States renounced a portion of its rights in these fisheries, retaining, however, the old prerogatives of visiting the bays and harbours of the British north-eastern possessions for the purpose of obtaining wood, water and shelter, and for objects incidental to those other rights of territoriality so retained and confirmed. What is the nature of these incidental prerogatives, it is not, in considering this case, necessary to discuss. It is enough to say that Captain Forbes entered the harbour of Shelburne to obtain shelter and water, and that he had as much right to be there, under the Treaty of 1818, confirming in this respect the ancient privileges of American fishermen on those coasts, as he would have had on the high seas, carrying on, under shelter of the flag of the United States, legitimate commerce. The Government which you so honourably represent has with its usual candour and magnanimity conceded that when a merchant vessel of the United States is stopped in time of peace by a British cruiser on the grounds of being a slave trader, damages are to be paid to this Government, not merely to redress the injuries suffered, but as an apology for the insult offered to the flag of the United States. But the case now presented to you is a much stronger one than that of a seizure on the high seas of a ship unjustly suspected of being a slaver. When a vessel is seized on the high seas on such a suspicion, its seizure is not on waters where its rights, based on prior and continuous ownership are guaranteed by the sovereign making the seizure. If in such case the property of the owners is injured, it is, however wrongful the act, a case of rare occurrence on seas comparatively unfrequented, with consequences not very far reaching; and if a blow is struck at a system of which such vessel is