43 
ot even allege an actual “interruption” or “ interference” 
h French fishing. He alleges “ complaints ” only—complaints 
ade to him, but to the French commander, if to anybody, and 
e merits of which he had apparently not inquired. There 
EB douts that the complaints were frivolous. The French 
weby artfully exclude the employed of the factory from 
ng lobsters for a considerable distance on either side of the 
tory, knowing full well that they could not profitably be 
ight from great distances. An indication of the grasping 
ire of the French, and of the compliant character of British 
iduct, will be found in a comparison of the letter from 
ptai n Hammond, dated 19th June, 1888, and from Captain 
npk ell, dated 1st August, 1888, in the former of which the 
tory fishermen are forbidden to set traps from Two Hills Point 
the south-west point of Garganelle Cove, and in the latter the 
nits being made to include the cove itself. 
- In hai 1889, Captain and Senior Officer Sir Baldwin Walker, 
M.S. “* Emerald,” renewed the prohibition as to the limits 
a which the factory employés at Port Saunders were not to 
lobsters, and he also prescribed limits for the factory at 
a Meagher’s Cove. 
“2 “Both orders were couched in the most objectionable language. 
a the order ‘regarding Port Saunders, Captain Walker says:— — 
* view of the complaints that have been made in former years 
f the interruption to French fishing operations by lobster 
trawls set by your fishermen, I deem it my duty to forbid the 
4 ” tting of any lobster trawls on that portion of the coast 
‘between the first point of rocks at Two Hills Point and Gar-. 
‘ gar nelle Cove.” In the order regarding John Meagher’s Cove, 
apt ain Walker says:—‘“ As I consider it desirable to prevent 
zy cause for convplaint on the part of the French fishermen, 
is my direction that the lobster trawls of the fishermen 
“employed by your factory are not to be set to the southward of 
, line drawn from your factory to the extreme point of White 
«Jsland.” The treaties say that the British shall not “interrupt ” 
the Piench by their competition, and, waiving here all question 
> > what may constitute such an actual interruption as the 
reaties refer to, it is apparent that neither of Captain Walker’s 
ters was based upon an interruption of any character, but 
n i y upon his desire to prevent possible trouble, He was only 
