Slike strani
PDF
ePub

which is relied on, no law existed under which the seizure could be justified. It will not be contended that Custom House Authorities or Colonial Courts can seize and condemn vessels for a breach of the stipulations of a Treaty, when no legislation exists which authorises them to take cognizance of the subject, or invests them with any jurisdiction in the premises. Of this obvious conclusion the Canadian authorities seem to be quite aware. I am informed that since the seizures they have pressed, or are pressing, through the Canadian Parliament in much haste an Act which is designed, for the first time in the history of the legislation under this Treaty, to make the facts upon which the American vessels have been seized illegal, and to authorize proceedings against them therefor.

What the effect of such an Act will be in enlarging the provisions of an existing Treaty between the United States and Great Britain need not be considered here. The question under discussion depends upon the Treaty, and upon such legislation, warranted by the Treaty,

as existed when the seizures took place. 315 The practical construction given to the Treaty down to the

present time has been in entire accord with the conclusions thus deduced from the Act of Parliament. The British Government has repeatedly refused to allow interference with American fishing vessels, unless for illegal fishing, and has given explicit orders to the contrary.

On the 26th May, 1870, Mr. Thornton, the British Minister at Washington, communicated officially to the Secretary of State of the United States copies of the orders addressed by the British Admiralty to Admiral Wellesley, commanding Her Majesty's naval forces on the North American Station, and of a letter from the Colonial Department to the Foreign Office, in order that the Secretary might "see the nature of the instructions to be given to Her Majesty's and the Canadian officers employed in maintaining order at the fisheries in the neighbourhood of the coasts of Canada.” Among the documents thus transmitted is a letter from the Foreign Office to the Secretary of the Admiralty, in which the following language is contained :

The Canadian Government has recently determined, with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Ministers, to increase the stringency of the existing practice of dispensing with the w:'rnings hitherto given, and seizing at once any vessel detected in violating the law.

In view of this change, and of the questions to which it may give rise, I am directed by Lord Granville to request that you will move their Lordships to instruct the officers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the protection of the fisheries that they are not to seize any vessel unless it is evident, and can be clearly proved, that the offence of fishing has been committed, and the vessel itself captured, within three miles of land.

In the letter from the Lords of the Admiralty to Vice-Admiral Wellesley of the 5th May, 1870, in accordance with the foregoing request, and transmitting the letter above quoted from, there occurs the following language:

My Lords desire me to remind you of the extreme importance of Commanding Officers of the ships selected to protect the fisheries exercising the utmost discretion in carrying out their instructions, paying special attention to Lord Granville's observation, that no vessel should be seized unless it evident, and can be clearly proved, that the offence of fishing has been committed, and that the vessel is captured within three miles of land.

Lord Granville, in transmitting to Sir John Young the aforesaid instructions, makes use of the following language:

Her Majesty's Government do not doubt that your Ministers will agree with them as to the propriety of these instructions, and will give corresponding instructions to the vessels employed by them.

These instructions were again officially stated by the British Minister at Washington, to the Secretary of State of the United States, in a letter dated the 11th June, 1870.

Again, in February, 1871, Lord Kimberley, Colonial Secretary, wrote to the Governor General of Canada as follows:

The exclusion of American fishermen from resorting to Canadian ports, except for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, might be warranted by the letter of the Treaty of 1818, and by the terms of the Imperial Act 59 Geo. III. cap. 38; but Her Majesty's Government feel bound to state that it seems to them an extreme measure, inconsistent with the general policy of the Empire, and they are disposed to concede this point to the United States' Government, under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent smuggling, and to guard against any substantial invasion of the exclusive rights of fishing which may be reserved to British subjects.

And in a subsequent letter from the same source to the Governor General, the following language is used:

I think it right, however, to add that the responsibility of determining what is the true construction of a Treaty made by Her Majesty with any foreign Power must remain with Her Majesty's Government, and that the degree to which this country would make itself a party to the strict enforcement of the Treaty rights may depend not only on the literal construction of the Treaty, but on the moderation and reasonableness with which these rights are asserted.

I am not aware that any modification of these instructions, or any different rule from that therein contained, has ever been adopted or sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government.

Judicial authority upon this question is to the same effect. That the purchase of bait by American fishermen in the provincial ports has been a common practice is well known, but in no case, so far as I can ascertain, has a seizure of an American vessel ever been enforced on the ground of the purchase of bait, or of any other supplies. On the hearing before the Halifax Fisheries Commission in 1877–78 this question was discussed, and no case could be produced of any such condemnation. Vessels shown to have been condemned were in all cases adjudged guilty either of fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prohibited limit.

And in the case of the “White Fawn," tried in the Admiralty Court at New Brunswick before Judge Hazen in 1870, I understand it to have been distinctly held that the purchase of bait, unless proved to have been in preparation for illegal fishing, was not a violation of the Treaty nor of any existing Law, and afforded no ground for proceedings against the vessel.

But even were it possible to justify on the part of the Canadian authorities the adoption of a construction of the Treaty entirely

different from that which has always heretofore prevailed, and 316 to declare those acts criminal which have hitherto been re

garded as innocent, upon obvious grounds of reason and justice, and upon common principles of comity to the United States' Government, previous notice should have been given to it or to the American fishermen of the new and stringent restrictions it was intended to enforce.

If it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recall the instructions which I have shown had been previously and so explicitly given relative to interference with American vessels, surely notice should have been given accordingly.

The United States have just reason to complain, even if these restrictions could be justified by the Treaty, or by the Acts of Parliament passed to carry it into effect, that they should be enforced in so harsh and unfriendly a manner, without notice to the Government of the change of policy, or to the fishermen of the new danger to which they were thus exposed.

In any view, therefore, which it seems to me can be taken of this question, I feel justified in pronouncing the action of the Canadian authorities in seizing and still retaining the “ David J. Adams” to be not only unfriendly and discourteous, but altogether unwarrantable.

The seizure was much aggravated by the manner in which it was carried into effect. It appears that four several visitations and searches of the vessel were made by boats from the Canadian steamer “ Lansdowne " in Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia. The “Adams” was finally taken into custody, and carried out of the Province of Nova Scotia across the Bay of Fundy and into the port of St. John, New Brunswick; and, without explanation or warning, on the following Monday, the 10th May, taken back by an armed crew to Digby, in Nova Scotia. That, in Digby, the paper alleged to be the legal precept for the capture and detention of the vessel was nailed to her mast in such manner as to prevent its contents being read, and the request of the Captain of the “ David J. Adams," and of the United States' Consul General, to be allowed to detach the writ from the mast, for the purpose of learning its contents, was positively refused by the provincial official in charge. Nor was the United States' Consul General able to learn from the Commander of the “ Lansdowne” the nature of the complaint against the vessel, and his respectful application to that effect was fruitless.

From all the circumstances attending this case, and other recent cases like it, it seems to me very apparent that the seizure was not made, for the purpose of enforcing any right or redressing any wrong. As I have before remarked, it is not pretended that the vessel had been engaged in fishing, or was intended to fish, in the prohibited waters, or that it had done, or was intending to do, any other injurious act. It was proceeding upon its regular and lawful business of fishing in the deep sea. It had received no request, and, of course, could have disregarded no request, to depart, and was in fact departing when seized; nor had its master refused to answer any questions put by the authorities.

It had violated no existing law, and had incurred no penalty that any known statute imposed.

It seems to me impossible to escape the conclusion that this and other similar seizures were made by the Canadian authorities for the deliberate purpose of harassing and embarrassing the American fishing vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment, and the injury which would have been a serious one if committed under a mistake,

92909°—S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 4---44

[ocr errors]

is very much aggravated by the motives which appear to have prompted it.

I am instructed by my Government earnestly to protest against these proceedings as wholly unwarranted by the Treaty of 1818, and altogether inconsistent with the friendly relations hitherto existing between the United States and Her Majesty's Government; to request that the “ David J. Adams " and the other American fishing vessels now under seizure in Canadian ports be immediately released; and that proper orders may be issued to prevent similar proceedings in the future; and I am also instructed to inform you that the United States will hold Her Majesty's Government responsible for all losses which may be sustained by American citizens in the dispossession of their property growing out of the search, seizure, detention, or sale of their vessels lawfully within the territorial waters of British North America.

The real source of the difficulty that has arisen is well understood. It is to be found in the irritation that has taken place among a portion of the Canadian people on account of the termination, by the United States' Government, of the Treaty of Washington on the 1st July last, whereby fish imported from Canada into the United States, and which, so long as that Treaty remained in force, was admitted free, is now liable to the import duty provided by the General Revenue Laws. And the opinion appears to have gained ground in Canada that the United States may be driven, by harrassing and annoying their fishermen, into the adoption of a new Treaty by which Canadian fish shall be admitted free.

It is not necessary to say that this scheme is likely to prove as mistaken in policy as it is indefensible in principle. In terminating the Treaty of Washington the United States were simply exercising a right expressly reserved to both parties by the Treaty itself, and of the exercise of which by either party neither can complain. They will not be coerced by wanton injury into the making of a new one. Nor would a negotiation that had its origin in mutual irritation be promising of success. The question now is not what fresh Treaty may or might be desirable, but what is the true and just construction, as between the two nations, of the Treaty that already exists.

The Government of the United States, approaching this question in a most friendly spirit, cannot doubt that it will be met by Her Majesty's Government in the same spirit, and feels every confidence that the action of Her Majesty's Government in the premises will be such as to maintain the cordial relations between the two countries that have so long happily prevailed. I have, &c.,

(Sd.) E. J. PHELPS.

317 No. 196.—1886, June 2: Letter from Earl of Rosebery to Şir

L. S. S. West. (No. 24. Treaty.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, 2nd June, 1886. SIR,—The American Minister informed me to-day, in the course of conversation, that he was at this moment preparing a statement of the American contention with regard to the recent seizures under

the terms of the Convention of 1818. He entered into a long argument to show that seizure was not provided for by law as a penalty for the infraction of this clause; that what was provided for was a punishment for American vessels fishing within the forbidden limits. He said that his Government could not admit the interpretation which apparently was accepted by the Canadian Government, and he mentioned the fact that in any case the American fishermen had no notice of the action that was going to be taken. As to the latter point, I replied that that was not the fault of Her Majesty's Government. On the 18th March I had telegraphed to you to ask you to request the Secretary of State to issue a Notice such as we were about to issue to Canadian fishermen, and he had declined to do so. Mr. Phelps was not aware of this. I went on to say that the view of the American Government appeared to be this: “You are to accept our interpretation of the Treaty, whether it be yours or not, and in any case we will not negotiate with you.” I said that that was not a tenable proposition. Mr. Phelps said that it was quite true that his Government, owing to circumstances of which I was aware, had not been able to negotiate, but as regarded the Treaty, he felt sure that he would be able to convince me that the American interpretation was correct. I said that, as regards the circumstances to which he had alluded, we had only to look to the United States' Government, and could not look beyond it. He would remember that at almost our first interview on my accession to office I had proposed to him to endeavour to procure the continuation of the recent arrangement for a year, although that arrangement was disadvantageous to Canada in that it gave the United States all it wanted and gave Canada nothing in return. We had also pressed on the United States' Government the issue of a joint commission to investigate the matter, and that had also been refused. Further, on the 24th May, I made a proposal, personally indeed, but with all the weight which my official character could give, that Canadian action should be suspended, and negotiations should commence, and to this I had receive no reply. In these circumstances, I could not feel that Her Majesty's Government had been wanting in methods of conciliation, and I begged him to send me his statement of his case as quickly as possible, for in the meantime there was such unanimity among our Legal Advisers as to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818 that I had nothing to submit to them. As regards the cases themselves, I had as yet no details, nor was I in possession of the Bill or of the Circular to which' Mr. Bayard's recent telegram referred. I am, &c.,

(Sd.) ROSEBERY.

No. 197.1886, June 5: Report of the Canadian Minister of Marine

and Fisheries.

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,

Canada, Ottawa, June 5th, 1886. With reference to a despatch from the British Minister at Washington, to his Excellency the Governor General, dated 21st May last, and enclosing a letter from Mr. Secretary Bayard, regarding the

« PrejšnjaNaprej »