« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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 ll 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 35 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 bad 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 Can: lian 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 pur
chased 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 con
stant 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
English town, 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, Forty
ninth 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, Forty
ninth Congress, second session, pp. 142, 178, 182, 184. This Rep., 824.) C. B. Harrington, owned at Portland, Me., John Frellick, master. Seized at Shel
burne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $100, 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 Slory, 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.) Hereuard, 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.)
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.
Andrews, New Brunswick, although licensed to touch and trade. (H. R. Ex.
This Rep., 751.)
warned by the subcollector of customs at Canso to keep outside an imaginary line
This Rep., 744, 775.)
customs officials at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, July 12, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc.
187-189.) Mascot, of Gloucester, Mass., Alexander McEachern, master; warned by customs offi
cials 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.
burne, Nova Scotia, Captain Quigley, of the Canadian cruiser Terror, fired a gun
122–23. This Rep., 755.) Marion Grimes, of Gloucester, Mass., Alexander Landry, master; was in port of Shel
burne, Nova Scotia, 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. 124–25, 153–63.) It will be seen from the correspondence and papers submitted by the President in his message on the subject, of the 8th of 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, etc., 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 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 185+ was such as to lead Congress,