Vessels detained by Canadian Authorities on the Charge of Violating of Fishery or Trading Regulations of the Dominion of Canada. "Joseph Story," owned at Essex, Mass. Seized at Baddeck, Cape Breton, April 24, 1886; released April 25, 1886. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.)

"Matthew Keany," owned at Bath, Me. Detained twenty-four hours. (Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.) "Hereward," owned at Essex, Mass.; McDonald, master. Seized July 3, 1886, at Canso. (Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, p. 190.)

Everett Steele," of Gloucester, Mass.; Charles E. Forbes, master. Detained in the port of Shelburne, N. S., 10th September, 1886, by Captain Quigley, of the "Terror," who boarded the "Steele," took her papers, and put her in charge of a policeman till the following day, when she was discharged by the collector. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 52, 53, 54, 56, 153. This rep., 216.)

Vessels warned off by Canadian Authorities on the ground that they were about to Violate the Fishery or Trading Laws or Regulations of the Dominion.

Annie M. (or H.) Jordon," of Gloucester, Mass., was refused entry at the port of St. Andrews, N. B., although licensed to touch and trade. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 15, 171-172, 175-176. This rep., 461.)

"Martha A. Bradley," "Rattler," "Eliza Boynton," and "Pioneer," of Gloucester, Mass., were warned by the sub-collector of customs at Canso to keep outside an imaginary line drawn from a point 3 miles outside Canso Head to a point outside St. Esprit, on the Cape Breton coast, a distance of 40 miles. This line, for nearly its entire continuance, is distant 12 to 25 miles from the coast. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 16, 42, 44, 48-49, 56-57, 120-123, 190-191. This rep., 153, 195.)

"Thomas F. Bayard," of Gloucester, Mass.; James McDonald, master. Warned off by customs officials at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, July 12, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 26-27, 46-47, 146-147, 150-151, 187–189.)

"Mascot," of Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander McEachern, master. Warned by customs officials at Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, June 10, 1886, that if fresh bait was purchased vessel would be seized. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 46-47, 118-119-120, 146-147, 150-152.)

Vessels subjected to Hostile Treatment by Dominion Officials.

The "Shiloh" and the "Julia Ellen." While these vessels were entering the harbour of Liverpool, N. S., Captain Quigley, of the Canadian cruiser "Terror," fired a gun across their bows to hasten their coming to, and placed a guard of two armed men on board each vessel, which guard remained on board until the vessels left the harbour. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 44, 122-123. This rep., 168.)

66

Marion Grimes," of Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander Landry, master. Was in port of Shelburne, N. S., October 11, 1886, under detention for alleged infraction of customs regulations, and while so there Captain Quigley, of the Dominion cruiser "Terror," compelled Captain Landry to haul down his (the United States') flag; upon its being run up a second time, Captain Quigley went on board the "Grimes " and hauled the flag down with his own hands. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 124-125, 153-163.)

It will be seen from the correspondence and papers submitted by the President, in his Message on the subject of the 8th December last (Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session), and from the testimony taken by the committee, that some of these instances of seizure or detention, or of driving vessels away by threats, &c., were in clear violation of the treaty of 1818, and that others were on such slender and technical grounds, either as applied to fishing rights or commercial rights, as to make it impossible to believe that they were

made with the large and just object of protecting substantial 396 rights against real and substantial invasion, but must have been

made either under the stimulus of the cupidity of the seizing officer, sharpened and made safe by the extraordinary legislation to which the committee has referred, whereby the seizing officer, no matter how unjust or illegal his procedure may have been, is made practically secure from the necessity of making substantial redress to the party wronged, or of punishment, or else they must have arisen from a systematic disposition on the part of the Dominion authorities to vex and harass American fishing and other vessels so as to produce such a state of embarrassment and inconvenience with respect to intercourse with the provinces as to coerce the United States into arrangements of general reciprocity with the Dominion.

In respect of general reciprocity, the experience of the United States during the existence of the treaty of 1854 was such as to lead Congress, with great unanimity, to terminate it; and the experience of the United States, under such so-called reciprocity as was provided for by the treaty of 1871, was such as to lead both Houses, with very great unanimity, to terminate that. Each of these instances continued long enough to show fully the general working of the arrangement. The great balance of gain and advantage appeared to be in favour of the Canadians, while the great balance of loss and disadvantage fell on the people of the United States.

Indeed, the treaty of 1871, so far as it related to the fisheries, &c., was based upon the idea that the right of American fishermen to fish within 3 miles of the Dominion shores was of some considerable value, which the United States thought would be fully compensated by admitting Dominion fishermen to the waters of the United States and admitting their fish free of duty. Notwithstanding this, by the methods and results of setting the balance of pecuniary advantages by the Halifax Commission, the United States paid on the award of that commission (waiving the serious question of its irregularity) $5,500,000. So strong was the opinion of the United States, even at that time, that this award was wholly unjust in fact that it is understood that steps were taken to invite the British Government to terminate the fisheries clauses of the treaty of 1871 immediately and

before the positive period of ten years had expired, but it could not be accomplished.

From the investigations made by the committee during the last summer and fall, and as the result of the great mass of testimony taken by it and herewith returned, the committee believe it to be clear, beyond all dispute, that the right to fish within 3 miles of the Dominion shores is of no practical advantage whatever to American fishermen. The cod and halibut fishing has been for many years almost entirely carried on at long distances from the shores, in the deep waters, on banks, &c.; and it is believed that were there absolute liberty for Americans to fish, without restriction or regulation of any kind, within 3 miles of the Dominion shores, no such fishermen would ever think of going there for the purpose of catching cod or halibut. As regards the obtaining of bait for this class of fishing, the testimony taken by the committee in its enquiries clearly demonstrates that there is no necessity whatever for American fishermen to resort to Canadian waters for that purpose. Clam bait is found in immense quantities in our own waters, and there have been instances, so frequent and continuous as to amount to a habit, of the Canadians themselves resorting to American waters or ports for the purpose of obtaining it. The squid bait is found on the very banks where the fishing goes on. So that the instances would be extremely rare when any American fishing-vessel would wish to resort to a Dominion port for the purpose of buying bait for this kind of fishing.

It was also proved before the committee that, with the rarest exception, it would be absolutely injurious to the pecuniary interests of all concerned for American vessels to resort to Dominion ports or waters, except in need or distress, for the time taken in such departures from the cod and halibut grounds, or from direct sailing to and from them, is so great, that with or without the difference of port expenses, time and money are both lost in such visits.

In respect of the mackerel fishery the committee finds, as will be seen from the evidence referred to, that its course and methods have of late years entirely changed. While it used to be carried on by vessels fishing with hook and line, and sometimes near the shores, it is now almost entirely carried on by the use of immense seines, called purse-seines, of great length and descending many fathoms into the water. This gear is very expensive, and a fishing vessel does not usually carry more than one or two. The danger of fishing near the shore with such seines is so great, on account of striking rocks and reefs, that it is regraded as extremely hazardous ever to undertake it. Besides this, the large schools of mackerel, to the taking of which this great apparatus is best adapted, are almost always found more than 3 miles from land, either in great bays and gulfs, or entirely

out at sea.

There will be found accompanying this report (see Appendix) statements showing the total catch of mackerel during certain years, and the parts of the seas where they have been taken; and it will also be seen from the evidence that in general the mackerel fisheries by Americans in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and in the Bay of Chaleur have not been remunerative.

In view of all these facts, well known to the great body of the citizens of the United States engaged in fisheries, and embracing every variety of interest connected therewith, from the wholesale dealer,

397

vessel-owner, and outfitter to that portion of the crew who receive the smallest share of the venture, it must be considered as conclusively established that there would be no material value whatever in the grant by the British Government to American fishermen of absolutely free fishing; and in this conclusion it will be seen, by a reference to the testimony, that all these interests fully concur. It will also be noticed, on reference to the evidence, that it appears to show that when, by force of the treaty of 1871 Canadian fish, both salt and fresh, were admitted to the markets of the United States free of duty, no fall of prices to the consumer took place, and that the abrogation of the duty simply redounded to the advantage of the foreign fishermen or the foreign dealers in fish exporting the same to the United States; and that when, on the 1st July, 1885, the duty on salt fish was revived, no part of this duty was borne by the consumers in the United States, and that the cost of fish in the United States was not at all affected. It would follow that the sums received into the Treasury from these fish duties were paid and borne by the Canadians alone. A parallel instance is also found, on reference to the testimony, in the statements of gentlemen engaged in exporting salt fish from the United States to other countries where duties are imposed, these gentlemen stating that the duty thus imposed upon fish came out of their pockets, and not out of the pockets of the foreign consumers.

As regards commercial and other friendly business intercourse between ports and places in the Dominion and the United States, it is of course, of much importance that regulations affecting the same should be mutually resonable and fairly administered. If an American vessel should happen to have caught a cargo of fish at sea 100 miles distant from some Canadian port, from which there is railway communication to the United States, and should be denied the privilege of landing and shipping its cargo therefrom to the United States, as the Canadians do, it would be, of course, a serious disadvantage, and there is, it is thought, nothing in the treaty of 1818 which would warrant such an exclusion. But the Dominion laws may make such a distinction, and it is understood that, in fact, the privilege of so shipping fish from American vessels has been refused during the last year.

It is also inconvenient and injurious that American vessels of any character, whether engaged in fishing or licensed to touch and trade or purely mercantile vessels should be unable in cases of occasional necessity to resort to Canadian ports for the purpose of buying supplies or any commodities that the ordinary laws of the Dominion allow to be exported at all. Several instances of such injurious and unfriendly action appear to have taken place.

The treaties between the United States and Great Britain on the subject of inter-communication, and the rights of the citizens and subjects of the one in the ports and territories of the other have not included the British dominions of North America (with possibly certain exceptions as to intercourse by land), and such intercourse, strangely enough, still remains the subject of legislation merely in the two countries. Such legislation to be tolerable must be mutually friendly and reciprocal, and laws upon the subject must be administered fairly and generously, and not in a spirit of carping at small matters or in any other wise in an unfriendly way. The committee

is pained to believe that such has not been the course of British legislation or of administrative practice.

In view of all that has taken place, the committee thinks it to be the duty of the United States, in a firm and just way, to protect and defend the just and common rights of the people of the United States, whether fishermen, or traders, or travellers, or all, by all such measures as may be within our power. The measures the committee proposes to this end rest upon a principle universally recognised as right and necessary in the intercourse of nations, and it has often been resorted to in one form or another by many nations.

It is recommended that the President of the United States be invested with the power, and that it be made his duty, whenever he shall be satisfied that unjust, unfair, or unfriendly conduct is practised by the British Government in respect of our citizens and their property within the ports or waters of the British dominions in North America, to deny to the subjects of that Government in British North America and their property, or to any classes of them, such privileges in the waters and ports of the United States as he may think proper to name, and to suspend in respect of such vessels or classes of vessels or such property or classes of property of the subjects of such Government the right of entering or being brought within the waters or ports of the United States, so that he shall be able from time to time, as each emergency may arise, to preserve the intercourse between the United States and that Government in a state of fair equality. The committee, therefore, recommends the passage of the Bill (S. 3173) herewith reported.

The committee also recommends that the papers, documents, and maps herewith returned be printed. All of which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed)

GEO. F. EDMUNDS.
(For the Committee).

No. 231.-1887, January 26: Letter from Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury (British Foreign Secretary).

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, January 26, 1887.

MY LORD: Various circumstances have rendered inconvenient an earlier reply to Lord Iddesleigh's note of November 12, on the subject of the North American fisheries, and the termination of the fishing season has postponed the more immediate necessity of the discussion; but it seems now very important that before the commencement of another season a distinct understanding should be reached. between the United States Government and that of Her Majesty relative to the course to be pursued by the Canadian authorities towards American vessels.

398

It is not without surprise that I have read Lord Iddesleigh's remark, in the note above mentioned, referring to the Treaty of 1818, that Her Majesty's Government, "have not as yet been informed in what respect the construction placed upon that instrument by the Government of the United States differs from their own."

Had his Lordship perused more attentively my note to his predecessor in office, Lord Rosebery, under date of June 2, 1886, to which