586 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



was master, was about to enter, on the 10th September, 

 850 1886, the harbour of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, to procure water, 

 and for shelter during repairs. She was hailed when entering 

 the harbour by the Canadian cutter " Terror," by whose Captain, 

 Quigley, her papers were taken and retained. Captain Forbes on 

 arriving off the town anchored and went with Captain Quigley to 

 the Custom House, who asked him whether he reported whenever he 

 had come in. Captain Forbes answered that he had always reported 

 with the exception of a visit on the 25th of March, when he was 

 driven into the lower harbour for shelter by a storm and where he 

 remained only eight hours. The collector did not consider that this 

 made the vessel liable, but Captain Quigley refused to discharge 

 her; said he would keep her until he heard from Ottawa, put her 

 in charge of policemen and detained her until next day, when at 

 noon she was discharged by the Collector. 



But a calm having come on she could not get to sea, and by the 

 delay her bait was spoiled and the expected profits of her trip lost. 



It is scarcely necessary for me to remind you, in presenting this 

 case to the consideration of your Government, that when the north- 

 eastern coast of America was wrested from France in a large measure 

 by the valour and enterprise of New England fishermen they en- 

 joyed in common with other British subjects, the control of the fish- 

 eries with which that coast was enriched; and that by the Treaty 

 of Peace of 1783, which, as was said by an eminent English Judge 

 when treating an analogous question, was a Treaty of " Separation," 

 this right was expressly affirmed. It is true that by the Treaty of 

 1818, the United States renounced a portion of its rights in these 

 fisheries, retaining, however, the old prerogatives of visiting the bays 

 and harbours of the British north-eastern possessions for the purpose 

 of obtaining wood, water and shelter, and for objects incidental to 

 those other rights of territoriality so retained and confirmed. What 

 is the nature of these incidental prerogatives, it is not, in considering 

 this case, necessary to discuss. It is enough to say that Captain 

 Forbes entered the harbour of Shelburne to obtain shelter and water, 

 and that he had as much right to be there, under the Treaty of 1818, 

 confirming in this respect the ancient privileges of American fisher- 

 men on those coasts, as he would have had on the high seas, carrying 

 on, under shelter of the flag of the United States, legitimate com- 

 merce. The Government which you so honourably represent has with 

 its usual candour and magnanimity conceded that when a merchant 

 vessel of the United States is stopped in time of peace by a British 

 cruiser on the grounds of being a slave trader, damages are to be 

 paid to this Government, not merely to redress the injuries suffered, 

 but as an apology for the insult offered to the flag of the United 

 States. But the case now presented to you is a much stronger one 

 than that of a seizure on the high seas of a shrp unjustly suspected 

 of being a slaver. When a vessel is seized on the high seas on such 

 a suspicion, its seizure is not on waters where its rights, based on 

 prior and continuous ownership are guaranteed by the sovereign 

 making the seizure. If in such case the property of the owners is 

 injured, it is, however wrongful the act, a case of rare occurrence 

 on seas comparatively unfrequented, with consequences not very far 

 reaching; and if a blow is struck at a system of which such vessel is 



