DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 559 



Ottawa, was immediately instructed to take such steps as might be 

 necessary to assert the claim for the penalty which had been in- 

 curred. The Collector did so. 



3. Mr. Phelps asserts that the charge of breach of the Customs law 



is not the one " which must now be principally relied on for 

 334 condemnation." It is true that condemnation does not neces- 

 sarily follow. The penalty prescribed is a forfeiture of four 

 hundred dollars, on payment of which the owners are entitled to the 

 release of the vessel. 



If Mr. Phelps means by the expression just quoted, that the Cus- 

 toms' offence cannot be relied on, in respect o the penalty claimed T 

 and that the vessel cannot be detained until that penalty is paid, it 

 can only be said that in this contention the Canadian Government 

 does not concur. Section 29 of the Customs' Act, before quoted, is 

 explicit on that point. 



4. It is also urged that the offence was at most " only an accidental 

 and clearly technical breach of a Customs House regulation, by which 

 no harm was intended and from which no harm came, and would in 

 ordinary cases be easily condoned by an apology, and, perhaps, pay- 

 ment of costs." What has already been said under the heading, " the 

 Offence (as to Custom laws)," presents the contention opposed to 

 the offence being considered as " accidental." The master of the 

 " David J. Adams " showed by his language and conduct that what 

 he did, he did with design and with the knowledge that he was vio- 

 lating the laws of the country. He could not have complied with 

 the Customs law without frustrating the purposes for which he had 

 gone into port. 



As to the breach being a " technical " one, it must be remembered 

 that with thousands of miles of coast, indented as the coasts of Can- 

 ada are, by hundreds of harbours and inlets, it is impossible to en- 

 force the fishery law without a strict enforcement of the Customs- 

 laws. This difficulty was not unforeseen by the framers of t'-e Treaty 

 of 1818, who provided that the fishermen should be " under such re- 

 strictions as might be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or 

 curing fish, * * * or in any other manner whatever abusing the 

 privileges reserved to them," No naval force which could be equipped 

 by the Dominion would of itself be sufficient for the enforcement of 

 the fishery laws. Foreign fishing vessels are allowed by the treaty 

 to enter the harbours and inlets of Canada, but they are allowed to 

 do so only for specified purposes. In order to confine them to those 

 purposes it is necessary to insist on the observance of the customs 

 laws, which are enforced by officers all along the coast. A strict 

 enforcement of the customs laws, and one consistent with the Treaty, 

 would require that, even when coming into port for the purposes for 

 which such vessels are allowed to enter our waters, a report should 

 be made at the Customs House, but this has not been insisted on in all 

 cases. When the customs laws are enforced against those who enter 

 for other than legitimate purposes, and who choose to violate both 

 the fishery laws and customs laws, the Government is far within its 

 right, and should not be asked to accept an apology and payment of 

 costs. It may be observed here, as affecting Mr. Phelps' demand for 

 restoration and damages, that the apology and costs have never been 

 tendered, and that Mr. Phelps seems to be of opinion that they are 

 not called for. 



