Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

N. J. Miller.-Booth Bay, Me.; Dickson, master.

Detained at Hopewell Cape, New Brunswick, for alleged violation of customs laws, on July 24, 1886. Fined $400. Rattler.-Gloucester, Mass.; A. F. Cunningham, master.

Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, June, 1886. Detained in port of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, where vessel entered seeking shelter August 3, 1886. Kept under guard all night and released on the 4th. Caroline Vought.-Booth Bay, Me.; Charles S. Reed, master.

Warned off at Paspebiac, New Brunswick, and refused water, August 4, 1886. Shiloh.-Gloucester, Mass.; Charles Nevit, master.

Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, and subjected to rude surveillance. Julia Ellen.-Booth Bay, Me.; Burnes, master.

Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, 1886, and subjected to rude surveillance. Freddie W. Allton.—Provincetown, Mass.; Allton, master.

Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, 1886, and subjected to rude surveillance. Howard Holbrook.-Gloucester, Mass.

Detained at Hawkesburg, Cape Breton, August 17, 1886, for alleged violation of the customs laws. Released August 20 on deposit of $400. Question of remission of fine still pending. A. R. Crittenden.-Gloucester, Mass.; Bain, master.

Detained at Hawkesburg, Nova Scotia, August 27, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Four hundred dollars penalty deposited August 28 without protest, and vessel released. Three hundred and seventy-tive dollars remitted, and a nominal fine of $25 imposed. Mollie Adams.-Gloucester, Mass.; Solomon Jacobs, master.

Warned off into storm from Straits of Canso, Nova Scotia, August 31, 1886. Highland Light.-Wellfleet, Mass.; J. H. Ryder, master.

Seized off East Point, Prince Edward Island, September 1, 1886, while fishing within prohibited line. Suit for forfeiture begun in vice-admiralty court at Charlottetown. Hearing set for September 20, but postponed to September 30. Master admitted the charge and confessed judgment. Vessel condemned and sold December 14. Purchased by Canadian Government. Pearl Nelson.—Provincetown, Mass.; Kemp, master.

Detained at Arichat, Cape Breton, September 8, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Released September 9, on deposit of $200. Deposit refunded October 26, 1886. Pioneer.-Gloucester, Mass.; F. F. Cruched, master.

Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, September 9, 1886. Ererett Steel.-Gloucester, Mass.; Charles H. Forbes, master.

Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, September 10, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Released by order from Ottawa, September 11, 1886. Moro Castle.—Gloucester, Mass.; Edwin M. Joyce, master.

Detained at Hawksbury, Nova Scotia, September 11, 1886, on charge of having smuggled goods into Chester, Nova Scotia, in 1884, and also of violating customs laws. A deposit of $1,000 demanded. Vessel discharged November 29, 1886, on payment, by agreement, of $1,000 to Canadian Government. William D. Daisley.-Gloucester, Mass.; J. E. Gorman, master.

Detained at Souris, Prince Edward Island, October 4, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Fined $400, and released on payment; $375 of the fine remitted. Laura Sayward.-Gloucester, Mass.; Medeo Rose, master.

Refused privilege of landing to buy provisions at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, October 5, 1886. Marion Grimes.—Gloucester, Mass.

Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, October 9, for violation of port laws in failing to report at custom-house on entering. Fined $400. Money paid under protest and vessel released. Fine remitted December 4, 1886.

904

Annie M. Jordan.-Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander Haine, master.

Warned off at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, about May 4, 1886.
David J. Adams.-Gloucester, Mass.; Alden Kinney, master.

Seized at Digby, Nova Scotia, May 7, 1886, for alleged violation of treaty of 1818,
act of 59, George III, and act of 1883. Two suits brought in vice-admiralty court at
Halifax for penalties. Protest filed May 12. Suits pending still, and vessel not yet
released apparently.
Susie Cooper.-(Hooper?) Gloucester (?), Mass.

Boarded and searched, and crew rudely treated, by Canadian officials in Canso Bay,
Nova Scotia, May, 1886.
Ela M. Doughty.- Portland, Me.; Warren A. Doughty, master.

Seized at St. Anns, Cape Breton, May 17, 1886, for alleged violation of the cus-
toms laws. Suit was instituted in vice-admirlty court at Halifax, Nova Scotia, but
was subsequently abandoned, and vessel was released June 29, 1886.
Jennie and Julia.Eastport, Me.; W. H. Travis, master.

Warned off at Digby, Nova Scotia, by customs officers, May 18, 1886.
Lucy Ann.-Gloucester, Mass.; Joseph H. Smith, master.

Warned off at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, May 29, 1886. Matthew Keany.-Gloucester, Mass.

Detained at Souris, Prince Edward Island, one day, for alleged violations of customs laws, about May 31, 1886. James A. Garfield.-Gloucester, Mass.

Threatened, about June 1, 1886, with seizure for having purchased bait in a Canadian harbor. Martha W. Bradly.Gloucester, Mass.; J. F. Ventier, master.

Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, between June 1 and 8, 1886. Eliza Boynton.-Gloucester, Mass.; George E. Martin, master.

Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, between June 1 and 9, 1886. Then afterwards detained in manner not reported, and released October 25, 1886. Mascot.--Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander McEachern, master.

Warned off at Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, June 10, 1886. Thomas F. Bayard.—Gloucester, Mass.; James McDonald, master.

Warned off at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, June 12, 1886. James G. Craig.-Portland, Me.; Webber, master.

Crew refused privilege of landing for necessaries at Brooklyn, Nova Scotia, June 15 or 16, 1886. City Point.-- Portland, Me.; Keene, master.

Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, July 2, 1886, for alleged violation of customs
laws. Penalty of $100 demanded. Money deposited under protest July 12, and in
addition $120 costs deposited July 14. Fine and costs refunded July 21, and vessel
released August 26. Harbor dues exacted August 26, notwithstanding vessel had
been refused all the privileges of entry.
C. P. Harrington.- Portland, Me.; Frellick, master.

Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, July 3, 1886, for alleged violation of customs
laws; fined $100 July 5; fine deposited under protest July 12; $120 costs deposited
July 14; refunded July 21, and vessel released.
IIereward.Gloucester, Mass.; McDonald, master.

Detained two days at Canso, Nova Scotia, about July 3, 1886, for shipping seamen
contrary to port laws.
G. W. Cushing.-- Portland, Me.; Jewett, master.

Detained July (by another report, June) 3, 1886, at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, for alleged violation of the customs laws; fined $100; money deposited with collector at Halifax about July 12 or 14, and $120 for costs deposited 14th; costs refunded July 21, and vessel released. Golden Hind.—Gloucester, Mass.; Reuben Cameron, master.

Warned off at Bay of Chaleurs, Nova Scotia, on or about July 23, 1886. Novelty. - Portland, Me.; H. A. Joyce, master.

Warned off at Pictou, Nova Scotia, June 29, 1886, where vessel had entered for coal and water; also refused entrance at Amherst, Nova Scotia, July 24.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

N. J. Miller.-Booth Bay, Me.; Dickson, master.

Detained at Hopewell Cape, New Brunswick, for alleged violation of customs laws,
on July 24, 1886. Fined $100.
Rattler.-Gloucester, Mass.; A. F. Cunningham, master.

Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, June, 1886. Detained in port of Shelburne,
Nova Scotia, where vessel entered seeking shelter August 3, 1886. Kept under
guard all night and released on the 4th.
Caroline Vought.-Booth Bay, Me.; Charles Reed, master.

Warned off at Paspebiac, New Brunswick, and refused water, August 4, 1886.
Shiloh.-Gloucester, Mass.; Charles Nevit, master.

Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, and subjected to rude surveillance.
Julia Ellen.-Booth Bay, Me.; Burnes, master.

Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, 1886, and subjected to rude surveillance. Freddie W. Allton.Provincetown, Mass.; Allton, master.

Boarded at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, August 9, 1886, and subjected to rude surveillance. Howard Holbrook.-Gloucester, Mass.

Detained at Hawkesburg, Cape Breton, August 17, 1886, for alleged violation of the customs laws. Released August 20 on deposit of $400. Question of remission of fine still pending. A. R. Crittenden.—Gloucester, Mass.; Bain, master.

Detained at Hawkesburg, Nova Scotia, August 27, 1886, for alleged violation of
customs laws. Four hundred dollars penalty deposited August 28 without protest,
and vessel released. Three hundred and seventy-five dollars remitted, and a nomi-
nal fine of $25 imposed.
Mollie Adams.-Gloucester, Mass.; Solomon Jacobs, master.

Warned off into storm from Straits of Canso, Nova Scotia, August 31, 1886.
Highland Light.-Wellfleet, Mass.; J. H. Ryder, master.

Seized off East Point, Prince Edward Island, September 1, 1886, while fishing within
prohibited line. Suit for forfeiture begun in vice-admiralty court at Charlottetown.
Hearing set for September 20, but postponed to September 30. Master admitted the
charge and confessed judgment. Vessel condemned and sold December 14. Pur-
chased by Canadian Government.
Pearl Nelson.—Provincetown, Mass.; Kemp, master.

Detained at Arichat, Cape Breton, September 8, 1886, for alleged violation of cus-
toms laws. Released September 9, on deposit of $200. Deposit refunded October
26, 1886.
Pioneer.-Gloucester, Mass.; F. F. Cruched, master.

Warned off at Canso, Nova Scotia, September 9, 1886.
Ererelt Steel.-Gloucester, Mass.; Charles H. Forbes, master.

Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, September 10, 1886, for alleged violation of
customs laws. Released by order from Ottawa, September 11, 1886.
Moro Castle.—Gloucester, Mass.; Edwin M. Joyce, master.

Detained at Hawksbury, Nova Scotia, September 11, 1886, on charge of having smuggled goods into Chester, Nova Scotia, in 1884, and also of violating customs laws. A deposit of $1,000 demanded. Vessel discharged November 29, 1886, on payment, by agreement, of $1,000 to Canadian Government. William D. Daisley.Gloucester, Mass.; J. E. Gorman, master.

Detained at Souris, Prince Edward Island, October 4, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Fined $100, and released on payment; $375 of the fine remitted. Laura Sayward.-Gloucester, Mass.; Medeo Rose, master.

Refused privilege of landing to buy provisions at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, October 5, 1886. Marion Grimes.—Gloucester, Mass.

Detained at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, October 9, for violation of port laws in failing to report at custom-house on entering. Fined $400. Money paid under protest and vessel released. Fine remitted December 4, 1886.

Jennie Seaverns.--Gloucester, Mass., Joseph Tupper, master.

Refused privilege of landing, and vessel placed under guard at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, October 20, 1886. Flying Scud.Gloucester, Mass.

Detained for alleged violation of customs laws at Halifax, November 1, or about that time. Released November 16, 1886. Sarah H. Prior.-Boston, Mass.

Refused the restoration of a lost seine, which was found by a Canadian schooner, December, 1886. Boat (name unknown).—Stephen R. Balcom, master, Eastport, Me.

Warned off at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, July 9, 1886, with others. Two small boats (unnamed).-Charles Smith, Pembroke, Me., master.

Seized at East Quaddy, New Brunswick, September 1, 1886, for alleged violation of customs laws. Druid (foreign built).-Gloucester, Mass.

Seized, warned off, or molested otherwise at some time prior to September 6, 1886. Abbey A. Snow. -Injury to this vessel has not been reported to the Department of

State.
Eliza A. Thomas.-Injury to this vessel has not been reported to the Department of

State.
Wide-Awake.—Eastport, Me.; William Foley, master,

Fined at L'Etang, New Brunswick, $75 for taking away fish without getting a clearance; again November 13, 1886, at St. George, New Brunswick, fined $20 for similar offense. In both cases he was proceeding to obtain clearances.

[See pp. 610, 615.]

FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

February 28, 1887.

(Senate Report No. 1981.] Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Frye, and Mr. Morgan, managers on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 3173) to authorize the President of the United States to protect and defend the rights of American fishing vessels, American fishermen, American trading and other vessels, in certain cases, and for other purposes, submitted the following report:

The managers on the part of the Senate of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on their disagreeing on the amendments proposed by the House to the bill (S. 3173) respecting the fisheries, respectfully report that the bill passed the Senate on the 24th day of January, 1887, and on February 23 was returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment striking out the whole of the Senate bill and proposing one entire House amendment in its place.

On the 24th the bill was laid before the Senate, and the House amendment was disagreed to and a committee of conference asked and the papers ordered to be printed.

On the 25th instant the House agreed to the conference, and on the 26th the managers on the part of the House met the Senate managers in the afternoon of that day, and the differences in the views of the two Houses fully discussed. The House conferees did not object to the substance of any part of the bill as it passed the Senate, so far as it goes, but the first part of the first section of the House amendment undertakes to restate the enumeration of the cases and injuries mentioned in the Senate bill by entirely dropping the classifications or groups of vessels made in the Senate bill, and to bring all vessels of the United States, of whatever character or class, within one definition.

The ground on which the Senate bill went in this respect was that United States fishing vessels purely had their rights regulated and measured by the treaty of 1818, as having the absolute right of fishing inshore in certain ports of the marine territories of the British dominions in North America and being prohibited from fishing in other ports, but still having the right to enter those other waters for the purposes enumerated in the treaty, and not to be abused with a view to fishing in probibited waters.

The second classification of United States vessels made in the Senate bill covered precisely the same vessels, but having also a commercial character obtained by having not only a license to fish, but also under the laws of the United States a permit to touch and trade in foreign ports, and which, therefore, in their character as trading vessels, would not, as it was thought, be under the prohibitory provisions of the fishery treaty of 1818.

The third classification covered all other vessels of the United States not falling within the two preceding classes.

It was thought by the Senate, in passing the bill in that form, that a more clear understanding could be had of its application and enforcement than if all the vessels had been massed under one description. The Senate bill then proceeded to provide for cases not merely of the denial of treaty rights to purely fishing vessels, or the denial of lawful trading rights to fishing vessels otherwise to touch and trade or lawful rights to purely trading vessels, but to include also unjust vexation and harassment as well as exclusion from rights to trade accorded to the vessels of the most-favored nation.

The House amendment applicable to the whole of this part of the subject purports to provide for the cases of vessels of the United States which are denied in the ports or territorial waters of the British dominions in North America rights to which such vessels are entitled by treaty or by the law of nations or are denied the comity of treatment or the reasonable privileges usually accorded between neighboring and friendly nations."

It is, with great respect to the House of Representatives, thought by the Senate managers of the conference that this provision is not nearly so adequate to the condition of affairs as the provisions of the Senate bill which have been already described. There is no treaty in existence between the United States and Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the treatment of American vessels in British North American waters or ports, other than the provisions already referred to concerning purely fishing vessels and contained in the treaty of 1818, witb possibly an exception as it respects one or two particular ports, and with the exception of such provisions as are contained in the treaty of 1871, which provisions in this last-named treaty are in these respects not applicable to the now existing difficulties. What positive rights "the law of nations" mentioned in the House amendment United States vessels entering British North American waters are entitled to the Senate managers think it would be somewhat difficult to define or explain. For, it is believed, by what is called the “law of nations" no vessel of

66

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »