DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 523 



in that province, a day or two before, a small quantity of bait to be 

 used in fishing in the deep sea, outside the three-mile limit. 



The question presented is whether under the terms of the Treaty, 

 and the construction placed upon them in practice for many years 

 by the British Government, and in view of the existing relations be- 

 tween the United States and Great Britain, that transaction affords a 

 sufficient reason for making such a seizure, and for proceeding under 

 it to the confiscation of the vessel and its contents. 



I am not unaware that the Canadian authorities, conscious, appar- 

 ently, that the affirmative of this proposition could not easily be 

 maintained, deemed it advisable to supplement it with a charge 

 against the vessel of a violation of the Canadian Customs Act of 

 1883, in not reporting her arrival at Digby to the Customs officer. 

 But this charge is not the one on which the vessel was seized, or 

 which must now be principally relied on for its condemnation, and 

 standing alone could hardly, even if well founded, be the source of 

 any serious controversy. It would be at most, under the circum- 

 stances, only an accidental and purely technical breach of a Cus- 

 tom-house Regulations, by which no harm was intended, and from 

 which no harm carae, and would, in ordinary cases, be easily con- 

 doned by an apology, and perhaps the payment of costs: 



But trivial as it is, this charge does not appear to be well founded 

 in point of fact. Digby is a small fishing settlement, and its harbour 

 not defined. The vessel had moved about and anchored in the outer 

 part of the harbour, having no business at or communication with 

 Digby, and no reason for reporting to the officer of Customs. 



It appears by the Report of the Consul-General to be conceded by 

 the Customs authorities there, that fishing vessels have for forty years 

 been accustomed to go in and out of the bay at pleasure, and have 

 never been required to send ashore and report when they had no 

 business with the port, and made no landing, and that no seizure had 

 ever before been made or claimed against them for so doing. 



Can it be reasonably insisted under these circumstances that by 

 the sudden adoption, without notice, of a new rule, a vessel of a 

 friendly nation should be seized and forfeited for doing what all 

 similar vessels had for so long a period been allowed to do without 

 question ? 



It is sufficiently evident that the claim of a violation of the Cus- 

 toms Act was an afterthought brought forward to give whatever 

 added strength it might to the principal claim on which the seizure 

 had been made. 



Recurring, then, to the only real question in the case, whether the 

 vessel is to be forfeited for purchasing bait of an inhabitant of 

 Xova Scotia to be used in lawful fishing, it may be readily 

 313 admitted that, if the language of the Treaty of 1818 is to be 

 interpreted literally, rather than according to its spirit and 

 plain intent, a vessel engaged in fishing would be prohibited from 

 entering a Canadian port " for any purpose whatever," except to 

 obtain wood or water, to repair damages, or to seek shelter. Whether 

 it would be liable to the extreme penalty of confiscation for a breach 

 of this prohibition, in a trifling and harmless instance, might be 

 quite another question. 



Such a literal construction is best refuted by considering its pre- 

 posterous consequences. If a vessel enters a port to post a letter, or 



