FISHERY QUESTIONS. 



283 



authorities proceeded in the spring of 1886 to 

 assert the most inconvenient literal construc- 

 tion of the Convention of 1818, to carry into 

 effect the restrictions that in previous disputes 

 had been only threatened, and to enforce the 

 headlands doctrine in an exaggerated form. 

 They were actuated partly by a desire to ex- 

 tort valuable commercial concessions from the 

 United States and partly by resentment against 

 American fishermen, who, in spite of warn- 

 ings and penalties, continued to take fish with- 

 in Canadian jurisdiction, driving the Govern- 

 ment to the expense of sending cruisers to 

 patrol the coast. There was an unusual temp- 

 tation to poach on the Dominion fisheries, be- 

 cause in the season that followed the abroga- 

 tion of the treaty the run of mackerel was 

 good near the shore but very light outside and 

 on the New England coast. The Canadians 

 sometimes have asserted that the New Eng- 

 landers, by not observing a close season, have 

 exhausted their own fisheries. 



The right to purchase bait, or to land and 

 transship fish, or to enter Canadian ports for 

 any purpose other than the ones specifically 

 mentioned in the treaty of 1818, was strict- 

 ly inhibited. The United States authorities 

 granted licenses to touch and trade to fishing- 

 vessels, and claimed that, for the purposes of 

 purchasing supplies and transshipping cargoes, 

 they were entitled to all the rights secured to 

 trading-vessels under the treaties. But by a 

 decision of the Canadian customs authorities, 

 no vessel has liberty of commercial intercourse 

 that is manned, equipped, or in any way pre- 

 pared for taking fish. 



During the season of 1886 thirty-two ves- 

 sels were detained by the Canadian officials, 

 some for buying bait, landing fish, or taking 

 on crews, but in the majority of cases for sim- 

 ply breaking the customs rules by anchoring 

 within the port boundaries or landing persons 

 without regular entry at the custom-house. In 

 no instance was a seizure made for fishing 

 within the three-mile limit, and in only two 

 cases for preparing to fish within the forbidden 

 bounds. In evading the customs and fishery 

 regulations, the fishermen of Gloucester and 

 other New England coast towns were aided by 

 their numerous relatives and business associates 

 in the provincial ports. More than one hundred 

 complaints of illegal interference, arrests, and 

 seizures were made to the United States Gov- 

 ernment against the Canadian authorities. 

 Some of the arrested fishermen were fined, 

 some were released after being detained and 

 sustaining considerable losses, two vessels were 

 condemned to confiscation, and one of these 

 was fitted out at St. Johns as a cruiser. 



The American Case. In providing fishing-ves- 

 sels with trading-permits the United States au- 

 thorities desired to bring cases of seizure and 

 arrest before the British admiralty courts, in 

 order that they be may decided according to in- 

 ternational law, and not under acts of the Do- 

 minion Parliament that are believed to be in 



contravention of principles of general applica- 

 tion and acceptance between friendly nations. 

 Minister Phelps held that the right to pur- 

 chase bait and supplies belonged to American 

 vessels by the ordinary usage of international 

 intercourse. The United States Government 

 does not desire to obtain the privilege of the 

 inshore fisheries, which are considered of 

 very little value, since the use of purse-nets 

 has increased the catch of mackerel in the out- 

 side waters. The yield of the duty on Cana- 

 dian fish imports is worth more, and the 

 Americans would be unwilling to remit that 

 duty to secure the inshore fisheries, while the 

 Canadians would desire larger concessions. 



Minister Phelps took the ground that the 

 restrictive provisions of the treaty of 1818 

 were intended to prevent encroachments on the 

 territorial fisheries, and should be interpreted 

 according to their spirit and purpose. For- 

 merly the British Government was guided by 

 the same, principle, and never before had 

 American fishermen been denied the privilege 

 of entering the ports and procuring bait or en- 

 gaging crews. In a dispatch of Lord Kimberley 

 it was formerly held that, while the exclusion 

 of American fishermen, except for purposes of 

 shelter, repairs, or obtaining wood or water, 

 might be warranted by the letter of the treaty 

 of 1818, it would be "an extreme measure, in- 

 consistent with the general policy of the em- 

 pire." In reference to the seizure of the 

 " David J. Adams " for purchasing bait in the 

 port of Digby and violating the customs act 

 by not reporting to the authorities, Mr. Phelps, 

 in a communication dated June 2, 1886, called 

 attention to the fact that fishing-vessels had 

 been accustomed for forty years to do as this 

 vessel had done. The seizure and confiscation 

 of vessels for such acts he considered a ques- 

 tion apart from the interpretation of the 

 treaty. At the time of the seizure of this and 

 other vessels there was no British or colonial 

 law prohibiting or providing any penalty for 

 the purchase of bait. There had never before 

 been a seizure of an American vessel for the 

 purchase of bait or other supplies, but in every 

 previous case vessels condemned were shown 

 to have been guilty of fishing or preparing to 

 fish within the. prohibited limit. On the 

 Canadian side the argument was advanced 

 that the catching of bait is fishing, and that, 

 since it is necessarily caught within the three- 

 mile limit, to come within that limit and buy 

 fish is to be responsible for the fishing. The 

 infliction of severe penalties, amounting even 

 to confiscation of vessels and their contents for 

 technical violations of a treaty, even if the 

 Canadian construction were admitted, was 

 considered by the American minister to be 

 a ground for the recovery of damages. 



Retaliatory Legislation. During the Congres- 

 sional session of 1886, a bill was introduced in 

 the House of Representatives to close Ameri- 

 can ports to Canadian vessels, and to forbid 

 the entrance of Canadian fresh or salt fish or 



