DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



299 





of State was right in his statement as to the 

 boundary of Canada, ho would refer the subject 

 Indian Government and report their 

 reply. Since the receipt of this acknowledg- 

 ment, no further information to change the 

 of the United States Government has 

 received. 



A discrepancy which would have resulted to 

 the disadvantage of United States fishermen, 

 having been discovered between the instruc- 

 tions issued to Vice- Admiral Wellesley by the 

 Admiralty, and those issued by him to the Brit- 

 ish vessels under his command in Canadian 

 :-s, the Secretary of State, on the 3d of 

 Juno, called the attention of Mr. Thornton to 

 the subject. Mr. Fish was assured, in reply, 

 that the vice-admiral's instructions would be 

 modified so that fish ing- vessels would not be 

 seized unless it were evident and could be 

 clearly proved that the offence of fishing had 

 been committed, and the vessel itself captured, 

 within three miles of land. Mr. Thornton ex- 

 pressed an apprehension that the circular of 

 the Secretary of the Treasury upon the sub- 

 ject of inshore fishing might lead to mis- 

 understanding, inasmuch as it limited the ju- 

 risdiction of the Dominion of Canada to 

 three marine miles from the shores without re- 

 gard to its jurisdiction over creeks and bays, or 

 to the stipulations of the Treaty of 1818, in 

 which, he claimed, the United States renounced 

 the right of fishing within three miles, not of 

 coasts only, but of bays, creeks, or harbors of 

 British dominion in America. In reply to the 

 last statement, the Secretary of State, on 30th 

 of June, informed Mr. Thornton that the 

 President directed the British Government 

 to be informed that the description of the 

 limits of Canadian maritime jurisdiction con- 

 tained- in the Treasury circular was adopted for 

 the sake of brevity in expressing the interpre- 

 tation heretofore placed by the United States 

 on the first article of the Treaty of 1818, and 

 not for renewing a controversial discussion 

 on the subject. 



In August last the Dominion Government 

 prohibited United States fishing-vessels from 

 entering any harbor under its jurisdiction for 

 the purpose of leaving fish in bond, and subse- 

 quently reshipping them. This prohibition 

 was extended to the obtaining of supplies. 

 This measure was the occasion of the abandon- 

 ment of many voyages and consequent dam- 

 age to the fishing interests of the United 

 States. 



The purpose of the Dominion Government 

 seems to have been to compel the conclusion 

 of a reciprocity treaty by the United States. 



On the 13th of September, the Assistant- 

 Secretary of State requested information from 

 the consul of the United States as to whether 

 the practice of transshipment in bond was not 

 permitted before the existence of the late Reci- 

 procity Treaty, whether the American fishing- 

 vessels were admitted to ports of entry hi 

 British North America for that- or any other 



purpose prior to the date of that treaty, and 

 if it was prohibited by any colonial law; if 

 any prosecutions for the violation thereto had 

 taken place, and their results. It was ascer- 

 tained that the practice of procuring sup- 

 plies at colonial ports had long prevailed 

 with mutual advantage; that since the abro- 

 gation of the Reciprocity Treaty it had been 

 the practice of the colonial authorities to per- 

 mit the transshipment in bond of American- 

 caught fish. It was not ascertained that any 

 prosecutions had arisen out of the exercise of 

 these privileges. Subsequent seizures, by Brit- 

 ish authorities, of United States fishing-vessels, 

 under circumstances which did not seem to 

 warrant such a severe measure, were the occa- 

 sion of the following correspondence between 

 the Secretary of State and the United States 

 consul-general at Montreal : 



Mr. Fish to Mr. William A. Dart. 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE, } 

 WASHINGTON, October 29, 1870. ) 

 SIR : Several seizures of American fishing-vessels 

 are reported by the consular officers within your 

 consulate-general^ and by the parties interested. 

 Some of the vessels thus seized t upon the charge of 

 violating the laws of the Dominion of Canada, or 

 the other British North American provinces, have 

 been taken into port for adjudication by the tribu- 

 nals to which tnat function is assigned by the 

 laws of the respective provinces. It is to be pre- 

 sumed that those tribunals will decide the cases re- 

 spectively with intelligence and impartiality. It is 

 the duty of the owners of the vessels to defend 

 their interests before the courts at their own expense 

 and without special assistance from the Government 

 in the present stage of affairs. It is for those tri- 

 bunals to construe the statutes under which they 

 act. If the construction they may adopt shall ap- 

 pear to be in contravention of our treaties with Great 

 Britain, or to be (which cannot be anticipated) plain- 

 ly erroneous in a case admitting no reasonable doubt, 

 it will then become the duty of the Government 

 a duty it will not be slow to discharge to avail 

 itself of all necessary means for obtaining redress. 

 The present embarrassment is that, while we have 

 reports of several seizures upon grounds as stated by 

 the interested parties, which seem to be in contra- 

 vention of international law and special treaties re- 

 lating to the fisheries, these alleged causes of seiz- 

 ure are regarded as pretensions of over-zealous offi- 

 cers of the British Navy and the colonial vessels, 

 which will, as we hope and are bound in courtesy to 

 expect, be repudiated by the courts before which our 

 vessels are to be brought for adjudication. It is the 

 desire of this Government, nevertheless, that our 

 consular officers should watch the course of proceed- 

 ing in these cases, and give prompt and authentic 

 information of any decision which may bo made in 

 them. In particular, if the charge against any Amer- 

 ican fishing-vessel is only that she nas been prepar- 

 ing to fish, without actual fishing, in the prohibited 

 limits, it is to be made known to the counsel of the 

 owners of the vessel that this Government is not dis- 

 posed to regard such mere preparation as an infrac- 

 tion of the obligations of our citizens engaged in the 

 outfit and employment of fishing-vessels, and it is 

 desirous of having the point distinctly presented and 

 adjudicated, if possible, without being complicated 

 with other questions, so that, if adversely decided, 

 a case presenting that single issue may be made for 

 appeal to the British tribunal of last resort. It is 

 understood that the instructions of the Imperial Gov- 

 ernment of Great Britain do not authorize the cap- 

 ture of an American vessel ttnlat/oundjuhing within 



