Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

of owner and captain, where from, where bound, and how many fish we had, and forbidding any of the crew to go on shore, he returned to the Terror for further instructions. Boarding us again after a lapse of perhaps forty-five minutes, he put two armed men on board of us, asked for our crew list, and said if I remained until morning I must enter at the custom-house, but if I could sail in the night, to tell his men to fire a revolver and a boat would be sent to take them off. At 12 o'clock that night, preferring to risk the dangers of the sea to the danger of seizure, I ordered the anchor hove short, the mainsail hoisted preparatory to sailing, and told one of the Terror's men to fire a revolver, which he did. Receiving no reply and seeing no signs of life on board the Terror, I ordered the revolver to be tired again. This brought a boat from the Terror, commanded by Lieutenant Bennett, who boarded my schooner, gave each of his two men on board an extra revolver, and told me the orders of Captain Quigley were that I should not leave the port until I had reported to the customs officer at Shelburne. Upon receipt of these orders I paid out the chain and lowered the mainsail. The boat went back to the Terror and immediately returned with Captain Quigley on board. He denied the permission given me by his first officer to sail in the night and ordered me to go to Shelburne and enter and clear at the customhouse there. I asked him how I should go, as we were 8 miles distant from the customhouse. His reply was, "I don't care, sir, how you go, but you must go there, and on your return show your clearance to me or suffer the consequences." He told me my vessel was in charge of his two men, and to them he gave these orders: "Gunner, you will allow the captain to proceed to Shelburne with the vessel, come to anchor, take his dory and two men, no more, and go on shore to enter; allow them to bring nothing off in their dory, and if a man puts his hand on the wheel to go to sea, chop his arm off or shoot him, as the case may require." I asked him if the law was not very strict that did not allow a vessel arriving at night after office hours to proceed before daylight, and why the law was thus enforced. He replied, "To prove that Canadian harbors were a benefit to American fishermen."

At daylight we got under way and started for Shelburne, and Lieutenant Bennett and four more armed men came on board. We arrived at Shelburne about 4.30 o'clock a. m. I went on shore with Lieutenant Bennett and his boat's crew, and woke up Collector Attwood, who, after inquiring of the lieutenant if there were any charges against me, entered and cleared the vessel. On my return to the vessel the lieutenant requested me to exhibit my clearance, which I did, and we were then allowed to depart.

I would state that when we first entered the harbor of Shelburne a Canadian vessel entered just ahead of us, and she was unmolested, sailing at her pleasure during the night, which showed plainly that an American vessel was not accorded the same treatment in Canadian ports as are Canadian vessels, although, as the collector at Halifax informed me in June last, the same laws apply to Canadian vessels as to American vessels.

During the whole difficulty my language was respectful, and I quietly submitted to the detention, to the sarcastic language and overbearing conduct of Captain Quigley; but I deem my treatment and detention severe and unjust, and an outrage upon the international courtesy that should exist between two friendly nations.

Signed by Capt. A. F. Cunningham, and also by Lawson C. Rich, of Canton, N. Y., a passenger.

Affidavit of Joseph E. Graham as to the case of the Crittenden.

I, Joseph E. Graham, master of schooner A. R. Crittenden, of Gloucester, being duly sworn, do depose and say:

That in the month of July last, I think on the 21st day, I was in the Straits of Canso on my passage home from a fishing trip. Thinking I had a right to fill water under the treaty of 1818, I stopped at Steep Creek for that purpose. The eustoms officer at that place informed me that if I filled any water, my vessel would be seized, and upon receiving this information I immediately sailed without water, and in consequence we were on short rations of water during the passage home. In my passage through the straits two of my men went on shore. I was then continuing my passage through the straits, as I made no stop after leaving Steep Creek.

Returning through the straits on my second voyage, say on August 4, I stopped at Port Mulgrave, and duly entered and cleared, and one of the men who had gone on shore the previous trip came on board. On my passage home from the second trip, say August 27, while coming through the Straits of Canso, a lack of wind disenabled us to stem the strong tide, and to prevent going on shore we came to anchor at Port

Mulgrave. Upon going on shore I was informed that my vessel was seized for landing men and filling water, and a fine of $400 imposed, which I deposited with the collector of customs. I protested against the payment of said fine, believing that I violated neither treaty nor law, preferring, as my action shows, to put my crew on short water rations rather than do anything illegal.

JOSEPH E. GRAHAM,

Master of Schooner A. R. Crittenden.

We, Robert Sawyer, Robert Jameson, Alonzo Callahan, of the crew of schooner A. R. Crittenden, having knowledge of the facts contained in within affidavit, do swear that within affidavit is true in every particular.

MASSACHUSETTS, ESSEX, 88:

ROBERT SAWYER.
ROBT. JAMESON.
ALONZO CALLAHAN.

SEPTEMBER 4, 1886.

Personally appeared Joseph E. Graham, Robert Sawyer, Robert Jameson, and Alonzo Callahan, and made oath to the truth of the above statement. Before me.

[SEAL.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

Affidavit of Solomon Jacobs as to the case of the Mollie Adams.

I, Solomon Jacobs, master of schooner Mollie Adams, of Gloucester, being duly sworn, do depose and say: That I arrived at Port Mulgrave, Straits of Canso, N. S., on August 31, on my way home from a fishing voyage, in want of water, our water tank having been burst by the laboring of the vessel caused by the heavy weather during the passage from the fishing grounds; I duly entered at the custom-house and asked permission of the collector to purchase two or three barrels to put some water in for the passage home. He answered that he could not allow us to buy anything, not even the barrels, and if we did, our vessel would be seized. We were therefore obliged to start for home with but 75 gallons of water (which we had in barrels on board) for a crew of eighteen men, for a passage of 500 miles. I protest against such treatment as severe, and if not in violation of the treaty of 1818, certainly in violation of the common charity of mankind. In trying to make some other harbor on our way up the Cape shore in hopes to replenish our scant supply of water, a gale of wind was encountered, which not only prevented our making any port, but caused damage to the vessel and loss of about ($700) seven hundred dollars' worth of mackerel from the deck and the smashing of two seine boats worth ($500) five hundred dollars. Had we been supplied with water, we should have been offshore with our vessel, and would have been in condition and situation to avoid the damage sustained. By struggling to keep off the rocks we sustained all this damage.

MASSACHUSETTS, ESSEX, 88:

SOLOMON JACOBS. SEPTEMBER 7, 1886.

Personally appeared Solomon Jacobs and made oath to the truth of the above

statement.

Before me.

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

SEIZURE OF THE W. D. DAISLEY.

The WITNESS. I will state that just before coming in here I received a dispatch from Consul-General Phelan, dated at Halifax, October 6, 1886, in regard to the W. D. Daisley, one of our fishing schooners, which reads as follows:

"W. D. Daisley seized at Souris. Charge, one of crew landed flour at Canso last August. Telegraphed Ottawa to release on deposit to be made here. Will wire you reply. "M. H. PHELAN, Consul-General."

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED.

By Senator FRYE:

Q. Have you any further information to submit to the subcommittee?-A. I have here a statement of the number of vessels, with their tonnage, engaged in the different

kinds of fishing; also tonnage returns up to June 30, 1886, and other statements. I will submit these, to be made a part of my testimony. The statements referred to by the witness are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

18 registers; 80 enrollments; 77 coasting licenses; 391 fishing licenses; 66 fishing licenses (under 20 tons).

Tonnage return, June 30.

6 permanent registers

1 temporary register

417 permanent enrollments.,

2 permanent enrollments, steam

1 temporary enrollment, steam

8 licenses under 20, sail, coasting 54 licenses under 20, sail, fisheries.. 6 licenses under 20, steam, coasting.

495

40 coasting licenses (enrolled).. 384 fishing licenses (enrolled)..

2 yachts (enrolled)

From February 1, 1886, to September 20, 1886.

231 vessels. 1,919 men. American, 1,896; British, 502; other foreign, 521.

Fresh mackerel

Fresh cod

Fresh halibut.

Fresh miscellaneous

Total......

Salt cod...

Salt miscellaneous.

Total.....

Salt mackerel.

Salt miscellaneous

Total.........

Tons.

373.30

87.52 20,669.88 55.52 477.58

30,663.80

$81.55

609.25

82.19

31, 436.79

3.804.84 26,448.71

165.94

Pounds.

8,002,650 5,302, 435 6,877, 473 8, 226, 277

28,408,835

25,601,415 2,065, 988

27,667, 403

108,794 541

109, 335

[blocks in formation]

TESTIMONY OF FITZ J. BABSON.

FITZ J. BABSON sworn and examined.

By Senator EDMUNDS:

Q. What is your age?-A. Fifty-eight years.

Q. Where do you reside?-A. At Gloucester.

GLOUCESTER, MASS., October 5, 1886.

Q. What is your occupation?-A. At present I am handling real estate and doing some little literary work. I was formerly collector of the port of Gloucester for sev

enteen years.

Q. Have you had any acquaintance with the fishing business as carried on at this port?-A. I have.

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE FISHING BUSINESS.

Q. Explain to the committee in your own way the nature of these fishing fleets, how they are fitted out, where they fish, and give whatever facts or information you possess concerning the value to our fishermen of the right to fish within the inshore lines of the British possessions of North America.—A. I have been present at the hearing of the testimony before this committee yesterday and to-day, and I will say that the testimony I have heard in regard to the fitting of the vessels by those who are practically engaged in that business is substantially true. I would like to make some statements in regard to the history of the fishing business from the time of the first treaty down to the present, and give to the committee as many of my own views as I have in my mind and as many facts as I have become possessed of by observation.

Q. You can go on in your own way.-A. In the first place the treaty of 1783 between the United States and England defined the rights of the United States upon the land as well as upon the ocean. By that treaty we find that the American fishermen were given the entire right to fish along the shores of the present Dominion and Newfoundland without any hindrance whatever. They were to occupy the same grounds and to have the same rights that they had as colonists.

After the war of 1812 England repudiated the treaty of 1783, and I would like to call attention to the treaty of 1783 in order to show the position of the English Government at that time in regard to what they considered to be their rights on the ocean. They gave us, together with our rights along the shores, the right to fish on the Grand Banks and the banks in the ocean, over which they had no jurisdiction whatever, though by the language of the treaty jurisdiction is assumed, and they appear there as giving us privileges of that kind, when in fact they had no right to do so. As early as 1815 Great Britain claimed that the war of 1812 terminated our right to the inshore fisheries, and commenced to harass and capture our fishing vessels.

The treaty of 1818 was made after the fall of Napoleon. In that treaty Mr. Rush and Mr. Gallatin conceded the right to fish on the shores of the Dominion, but the language of the treaty was such as to deprive our people of all rights to go into their ports except for wood, water, shelter, and for the repair of damages.

Q. By "our people" you mean purely fishing people?-A. Fishing vessels entirely.

THE TREATY OF 1818 A BASIS FOR SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS.

There is one point which, I think, is of great importance in connection with the policy of the English Government. In all treaties made subsequent to 1818 they have used the language of that treaty as the basis of their negotiations, and in those treaties have always referred to "the rights and privileges granted to the fishermen of the United States by the treaty of 1818," and have then proceeded to the other privileges and provisions of those subsequent treaties. We have had within the last six or seven years an example of what the language of that treaty conveys. We have rights in common with British fishermen on the coast of Canada and Newfoundland, and those rights in common have been construed by the English Government, through Lord Salisbury, at the head of that Government, at the time of the Fortune Bay trouble, as being restricted and abridged by the colonial laws. The colonial laws of Newfoundland, for instance, in the matter of the herring fishery, provide that there shall be no herring taken by or in a seine from the 20th of October until the 25th of the following April. That would entirely debar our people, even if we had the treaty of Washington in operation to-day, from taking any herring on those coasts, as our people use seines for this purpose, and under the gill-net process, which the local law allows, we could not pursue the business. (See Ex. Doc. No. 84, May 17, 1880; alleged outrages at Fortune Bay; message of President Hayes.)

DOMINION FISHERIES STIMULATED BY THE TREATY OF 1854.

There is no doubt whatever that the fisheries of the Dominion were stimulated after the treaty of 1854 went into operation, and for this reason: Their fisheries had been conducted in boats almost entirely previous to that time, had been carried on in small boats from the shore, and the mackerel fisheries had not amounted to much. But having the United States as a free market, and the United States being the principal market for mackerel, their fisheries were stimulated to such an extent that toward the end of that treaty, in 1866, they had a very large fleet of vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery. After the termination of that treaty those vessels gradually went into other business, until at last it amounted to very little. But when the treaty of 1873 came into effect then it was that, having our free markets and a knowledge of the value of the mackerel fishery, their fleets increased. I have here some statistics that were gathered by the committee that visited Washington during the last session of Congress, in which I find, from Canadian sources, that in 1873 they had about 402 vessels and about 9,000 boats; that in 1885 they had somewhere in the vicinity of 1,117 vessels and 28,472 boats, an increase of almost 300 per cent. I also find from the same statistics that in 1873 the fishing tonnage of the United States was about 109,519, and in 1884 it was 76,137 tons, a loss amounting to 33,382 tons, or a fraction over 30 per cent.

CODFISHING OUTSIDE OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION.

It has been assumed by the English Government that we pursued the cod fisheries inshore along their coasts, but I think that the committee by an examination of the map will see that the cod fishery is pursued almost entirely on the banks outside of all national jurisdiction. The only use we make of their shores in this fishery is to go in for bait.

BAIT.

That matter of going in for bait is one which has caused a great deal of trouble on that coast. In the Fortune Bay case, when our vessels attempted to take herring for bait, they were driven off by the mob, and they found that it was impossible to take herring or any other fish on that shore, because it deprived the inhabitants of about their only means of living. Newfoundland has no agriculture of any consequence, no commerce, and no manufactures; she has nothing but this fishing, and the people who live along the shores must either have this fishing or must starve. Our people have been in the habit of going there for bait, and it was well known that the inhabitants would rather our people would come there and buy bait than not. But I think it must be admitted that the whole action of the Canadian Government in this direction has largely a political basis. The interests of those poor fishermen are not to any extent represented in their public prints or their parliamentary debates.

HALIBUT.

The halibut fishery at one time was quite extensive on Georges Banks, but at present we do not catch many halibut there, but codfish and haddock and mackerel in their season. Nearly all of the halibut are brought in preserved in ice, and they are becoming a luxury in the market. A few vessels flitch their halibut and salt them in bulk in the vessel. These are smoked, and in this form are fully equal to smoked salmon in flavor and richness.

FRESH FISH.

I wish to say one word at this point in regard to the matter of fresh fish. By the tariff act the language "fish, fresh, for consumption," or "for daily consumption," was intended to refer to fish brought into port to be eaten by the local inhabitants. In 1861, when this clause was inserted in the tariff, we were not packing our fish in ice to the extent we are now, and it was not known to the legislators to what extent this business would grow. This language of the tariff act of that year has been carried along in subsequent enactments from time to time, without, perhaps, an inquiry into the matter, so that to-day we have it upon the tariff list, "fish, fresh, for daily consumption, free."

By Senator SAULSBURY:

Q. Is the word "daily" used?-A. Yes, sir.

Senator FRYE. It is not "daily;" it is "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption;" that is the present language.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »