any of the coasts, bays, etc., thereof; and in either case freely to stay on board such ship, vessel, or boat as long as she shall remain within such port or distance; and if any such ship, vessel, or boat be bound elsewhere and shall continue so hovering for the space of twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to depart, it shall be lawful for any of the above-enumerated officers, etc., to bring such ship, etc., into port, and to search and examine her cargo, and examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and if there be any goods on board prohibited to be imported into this island, such ship, etc., and the cargo laden on board thereof shall be forfeited; and if said ship, etc., shall be foreign and not navigated according to the laws of Great Britain and Ireland, and shall have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, within such distance of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of this island, such ship, etc., and its cargo shall be forfeited; and if the master or any person in command thereof shall not truly answer the questions which shall be demanded of him in such examination, he shall forfeit the sum of £100. The act then provides for the methods of investigation, condemnation, etc.

The Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia of 1851, chapter 94 (which may have reenacted some earlier act), provided:

(1) That officers of the colonial revenue, sheriffs, magistrates, or any other person duly commissioned for that purpose, may go on board any vessel or boat within any harbor in the province, or hovering within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts or harbors thereof, and stay on board so long as she may remain within such place or distance."

(2) That "if such vessel or boat be bound elsewhere, and shall continue within such harbor or so hovering for twenty-four hours after the master shall have been required to depart, any one of the officers above mentioned may bring such vessel or boat into port and search her cargo, and also examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage, and if the master or person in command shall not truly answer the questions demanded of him in the examination he shall forfeit £100; and if there be any prohibited goods on board, then such vessel or boat with the cargo thereof shall be forfeited."

(3) That "if the vessel or boat shall be foreign and not navigated according to the laws of Great Britain and Ireland, and shall have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing within 3 marine miles of such coasts or harbors, such vessel or boat, or cargo, shall be forfeited."

It then provides for the method of procedure, etc. This provision was reenacted in the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia by the provincial act of May 7, 1858. This reenactment contained in its twentysecond section of title 25, chapter 94, a provision suspending those parts of it relating to American fishing vessels during the continuance of the treaty of reciprocity of 1854.

The committee has not been able to discover any orders in council made by the British King, as authorized by the act (59 Geo. III, ch. 58), and, so far as we have been able to examine, the regulation of the entrance of American fishermen within the limits wherein they were not entitled to fish has been made by colonial statutes such as have been above recited. That of Prince Edward's Island, of 1843 (6 Vict.,

ch. 14), the committee thinks, fairly illustrates the nature of legislative regulations on the subject down to the reciprocity treaty of 1854, and so, in effect, until the expiration of that treaty in 1866. This act provided:

(1) Proper officers were authorized to go and remain on board an American fishing vessel during her continuance within the waters where she was not entitled to fish.

(2) If the vessel was bound elsewhere, and should continue hovering within the 3-mile limit for twenty-four hours after she had been required to depart, then the officer might take her into port, search her cargo, examine the master, etc.

(3) If, on such examination, any goods should be found prohibited to be imported into the island, there should be a forfeiture.

(4) If the vessel should have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, in prohibited waters, a forfeiture should follow.

It w I be seen that this provision carefully excludes the right to seize and proceed against an American fishing vessel that had come within British waters, where fishing was not allowed, for the purposes named in the treaty, and only authorized British officers to require the vessel to depart, if, instead of coming into a bay or roadstead and coming to anchor, she was "hovering" on the coast and within the prohibited limits, and provided for her forfeiture when so "hovering" only upon its being discovered, on an examination, that she had contraband goods on board, or had been violating the provisions of the treaty by abusing the privilege of her entrance and shelter, by fishing, etc. And in all these cases the ordinary modes of judicial investigation and fair play were provided for, except: (a) That the burden of proof was thrown on the claimant of the vessel in case of dispute as to whether the seizure had been lawful; (b) that no suit should be brought for an illegal seizure until one month after notice in writing had been served on the seizing officer of an intention to sue and the grounds of action; (c) and, further, that a statute of limitations, in respect of all such illegal seizures, of three months only, was provided.

The committee does not see any just ground of criticism of those parts of this act that relate to the conduct of American fishing vessels coming within waters where fishing was prohibited; but when it comes to the matter of just and reasonable judicial determination of any question arising, the committee does think that the methods and limitations of procedure were harsh and unjust, and beyond the right of the British Government to provide, under its authority by the treaty to make only such restrictions as should be necessary to prevent the abuse by the American fishermen of their right to enter nonfishing waters.

But the foregoing species of legislation has been considerably improved upon, in an unjust direction, by the Dominion act of the 22d of May, 1868 (31 Vict., ch. 61), which authorized the officials to require any vessel, which was not hovering on the coast, but which had come within a harbor, to depart from such harbor on twenty four hours' notice, and, on failure of such departure, to bring her into port, for that mere cause, and without any suspicion or ground of suspicion that she had violated or intended to violate either the treaty or the laws of Canada, and without any limitation as to the length of time she might be detained in port, or any security for just and fair treatment of the American fishing vessel which might have sought shelter

in such harbor or come there for any of the lawful causes named in

the treaty.

It also provided for punishing the master if he failed to answer any question put to him touching the cargo or voyage.

It also provided that the consent of the seizing person should be necessary in order to enable the judge of the admiralty court to release the vessel on proper security.

It also, as in the case of the former act, put the burden of proving innocence on the claimant.

It also provided that no suit should be brought for any illegal conduct of those officers until after a month's notice in writing, and that the notice should contain the cause of action.

It also provided that "no evidence of any cause of action shall be produced except such as shall be contained in such notice."

It also provided that every such action should be brought within three months after the cause of action had arisen.

It also provided that if in any such suit judgment should be given against the seizing person and there should be a certificate of probable cause, then the plaintiff should only recover 3 cents damages and no costs, and that no fine beyond 20 cents should be imposed upon the respondent.

On the 12th of May, 1870, the Dominion act of 33 Vict., ch. 15, was passed, repealing the third section of the last-mentioned act on the subject of bringing vessels into port, etc., and provided in lieu thereof that any of the officers or persons before mentioned might bring any vessel, being within any harbor in Canada, or hovering in British waters within 3 miles of the coast, into port, search her cargo, examine her master on oath, etc., without any previous notice to depart, which had been required by the former act. So that an American vessel fishing at sea, being driven by stress of weather, want of wood or water, or need of repairing damages, which should run into a Canadian harbor, under the right reserved to it by the treaty of 1818, the moment her anchor was dropped or she was within the shelter of a headland, was, at the discretion of the Canadian official, to be immediately seized and carried into port, which might be, and often would be, many miles from the place where she would have her safe shelter or could obtain her wood and water or repair her damages.

The committee thinks it is not too much to say that such a provision is, in view of the treaty and of the common principles of comity among nations, grossly in violation of rights secured by the treaty and of that friendly conduct of good neighborhood that should exist between civilized nations holding relations such as ought to exist between the United States and Her Majesty's dominions.

This last provision was substantially reenacted, with the royal approval of the Queen, given on the 26th day of November, 1886, with the addition that if any such vessel had entered such waters for any purpose not permitted by treaty or convention, or by any law of the United Kingdom or Canada, for the time being in force, she should be forfeited, etc.

From all this it would seem that it is the deliberate purpose of the British Government to leave it to the individual discretion of each one of the numerous subordinate magistrates, fishery officers, and customs officers of the Dominion of Canada to seize and bring into port any American vessels, whether fishing or other, that he finds within any harbor in Canada or hovering within Canadian waters. The statute does not even except those Canadian waters in which, along a large

part of the southern coast and the whole of the western coast of Newfoundland, they are entitled to fish, to say nothing of the vast. extent of the continental coast of Canada.

The committee repeats its expression of the firm opinion that this legislation is in violation of the treaty of 1818, as it respects American fishing vessels, and in violation of the principles of comity and good neighborhood that ought to exist in respect of commercial intercourse or the coming of the vessels of either having any commercial character within the waters of the other. Had it been intended to harass and embarrass American fishing and other vessels and to make it impracticable for them to enjoy their treaty and other common rights, such legislation would have been perfectly adapted to that end.

The instances in which this sort of legislation has been applied during the last year, to the great embarrassment and injury of American rights and interests-although in some of them it may doubtless appear that there has been some merely formal or technical violation of some Canadian customs statute or regulation-are the following:

Vessels denied the right or privilege of purchasing coal or ice or of transshipping fish at ports of the Dominion, or refused other rights or privileges therein."

Novelty (steamship) denied the right to take in coal or purchase ice or transship fish in bond to the United States, at Picton, N. S., July, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 24-25, 49-50-51. This Rep., 633, 642, 709.) Golden Hind, of Gloucester, Mass., was refused the right to take water in Port Daniel, Bay of Chaleur, July 23, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 43, 47, 192-193. This Rep., 750.)

Mollie Adams, of Gloucester, Mass., Solomon Jacobs, master; his water supply having become exhausted by accident, Captain Jacobs put into Port Mulgrave, N. S., on the 31st of August, 1886, to replenish the same, but was refused the privilege of buying barrels and notified that if he did purchase barrels his vessel would be seized. A serious loss was occasioned through this action. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 45-46, 61–63. This Rep., 696, 775, 777.) A. R. Crittenden, of Gloucester, Mass., Joseph E. Graham, master. Stopped at Steep Creek, Strait of Canso, July 21, 1886, homeward bound from the open-sea fishing grounds, to obtain supply of water, which was refused, the customs officer notifying Captain Graham that if he took in water his vessel would be seized. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 47, 48, 152. This Rep., 744, 775, 776.)

Pearl Nelson, of Provincetown, Mass., Murdock Kemp, master. Was seized in the harbor of Arichat, N. S., September 8, 1886, and compelled to pay commercial fees, but was denied privileges which such fees are paid to secure. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 54-61, 193-197. This Rep., 670, 679.)

Laura Sayward, of Gloucester, Mass., Medo Rose, master. Was, on the 6th of October, 1886, while in the port of Shelburne, N. S., refused permission to buy provisions, &c., sufficient to last the crew on the homeward trip of the vessel; the vessel's papers were retained by the collector for an undue length of time, &c. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 58-59.) Jeannie Seaverns, of Gloucester, Mass., Joseph Tupper, master. While in the port of Liverpool, N. S., Captain Quigley, of the Dominion cruiser Terror, prevented Captain Tupper from landing to visit relatives in Liverpool, and forbade Captain Tupper's relatives from going on board the Jeannie Seaverns, placing a guard aboard of her while she was in that port. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19. Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 58-59, and 60.)

Jennie and Julia, of Eastport, Me., W. H. Farris, master. While in Digby Harbor, Nova Scotia, April (?) 18, 1886, was denied the privilege of buying herring. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 169-170.) James A. Garfield, threatened with seizure on opportunity; charged with having purchased bait or ice in Dominion port or ports. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Fortyninth Congress, second session, p. 171.)

S. Doc. 231, pt 5-40

Abbie A. Snow, of Gloucester, Mass., Jeremiah Hopkins, master. Subjected to constant surveillance in harbor at Shelburne, N. S., by Captain Quigley, of Dominion cruiser Terror, who finally boarded her with an armed guard, took Captain Hopkins ashore under armed guard, and threatened him with trouble if he revisited Shelburne. (This Rep., pp. 731, 732, 733.)

Highland Light, of Provincetown, Mass. Seized off the northeast point of Prince Edward Island for catching fish within 3-mile limit. (This Rep., pp. 656, 744.) Eliza A. Thoms, of Portland, Me., having gone ashore at Malpeque, laden with a fare of fish, the owners were not permitted to ship home either the fish, boats, or seines by vessels, but were, after delay, compelled to ship them by rail. (This Rep., p. 822.)

Vessels seized by Canadian authorities on the charge of violating the fishery regulations of the Dominion.

David J. Adams, owned at Newburyport, Mass., Aldon Kinney, master. Seized at Digby, N. S., May 7, 1886. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 6, 13, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 150, 164, 168, 176, 177, 178, et seq. This Rep.. pp. 739, 742.)

Ella M. Doughty, owned at Kennebunk, Me., Warren A. Doughty, master. Seized at Englishtown, C. B., May 17, 1886. Released June 19, 1886; bail, $3,400. Proceedings for remission. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146. This Rep., 819.)

City Point, owned at Booth Bay, Me., Stephen Keene, master. Seized at Shelburne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $400, alleged fine. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Fortyninth Congress, second session, pp. 44, 178, 193. This Rep., 807.)

George W. Cushing, owned at Bath, Me., C. B. Jewett, master. Seized at Shelbnrne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $400, alleged fine. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Fortyninth Congress, second session, pp. 142, 178, 182, 184. This Rep., 824.) C. B. Harrington, owned at Portland, Me., John Frellick, master. Seized at Shelburne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $400, alleged fine. ( (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session. This Rep., 825.)

Vessels seized by the Canadian authorities on the charge of violating commercial or trading laws or regulations of the Dominion.

W. D. Daisley, of Gloucester, Mass. Seized at Souris, October, 1886, on the charge that one of the crew had landed flour at Canso in the previous August. (This Rep., p. 777.) The Druid, of Gloucester, Mass., John McQuinn, master. Sailing under register to buy fish (not to catch, and having on board no apparatus for fishing), was twice boarded by the captain of the Dominion cruiser Houlette, with armed men, and once detained two nights and a day under armed guard at Malpeque on a charge of technical violation of customs regulations; subsequently released. (This Rep., pp. 726-729.)

Moro Castle, of Gloucester, Mass., Edwin Joyce, master. Seized at Port Mulgrave, in the Strait of Canso, September 11, 1886; stripped and held for an offense alleged to have been committed in 1884. (This Rep., p. 791 et seq.)

Vessels detained by Canadian authorities on the charge of violation 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., 791.)