33 
We have already given reasons why it must be im- 
ble for British subjects to obtain, and therefore useless for 
1 to expect, from a British naval officer, under such cir- 
a stances, anything resembling the redress or protection of a 
of justice. But whether the fault lies with the British 
er, or with the authorities from whom he receives pe 
r ruc ions, or with the inexorable necessities or “ exigencies” 
n control these instructions, the fact is incapable of dispute 
the most outrageous and unwarranted demands of the 
h fishermen and French officers are continually enforced by 
h officers against our people, and that redress is denied to 
in cases in which the French have not merely violated. 
. aties as interpreted by the British authorities, but have 
ne beyond any possible justification, even under the most 
me French interpretation. We may take, by way of illus- 
n, a case which occurred in the year 1887, in which two 
S ealled Murphy and Andrews were ordered by a British 
foo: to remove their lobster factory at the instance of a 
re ch officer. In the correspondence which subsequently took 
wee between the English and French Governments, the 
rmer most firmly and clearly contended that the English 
story was not prohibited by the treaty; that it was not an 
ruption of any “fishery” to which the French had rights 
r the treaty. But although it was contended, as against 
French, that the removal of the factory was not called 
y the treaty, and therefore not necessary; yet, in reply 
/ Murphy and Andrews’ claim for compensation, the action 
the British officer was upheld, on the ground that a certain 
mount of discretion was entrusted to him, &c. This case will 
ed to at greater length hereafter, in connection with the 
ster question,” but it serves here as a good example of the 
manner in which British naval officers in many cases admini- 
ter the law and “protect” the British fishermen against the 
rhteous demands and acts of the French. 
WHERE THE BLAME LIES. 
We repeat here that our object in now calling attention to 
shortcomings, if we may so term them, of the British naval 
—the only tribunal for the enforcement of the rights and 
redress of the wrongs of British subjects—is not for the 
3 
