588 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



to which they are entitled by ancient right, by the law of nations, and 

 by solemn treaty. Nor is this all. That treaty is part of a system 

 of mutual concessions, as was stated by a most eminent English judge 

 in the case of Sutton v. Sutton (1 Nyl v. r. 675), which I have already 

 noticed, it was the principle of the Treaty of Peace and of the treaties 

 which followed between Great Britain and the United States, that 

 the " subjects of the two parts of the divided empire should be, not- 

 withstanding the separation, protected in the mutual enjoyment " of 

 the rights these treaties affirmed. If, as I cannot permit myself to 

 believe, Great Britain should refuse to citizens of the United States 

 the enjoyment of the plainest and most undeniable of these rights, 

 the consequences would be so serious that they cannot be contemplated 

 by this Government but with the gravest concern. 

 I have, &c., 



(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD. 



The Honourable Sir L. WEST, K. C. M. G., 



&c., &c., &c. 



No. 217. 1886, October 20th: Letter from Mr. Bayard (United 

 States Secretary of State) to Sir L. S. S. West (British Minister). 



WASHINGTON, 20th October, 1886. 



SIR, Permit me to ask you to draw the attention of your Govern- 

 ment to the case set forth in the enclosed affidavit of Murdoch Kemp, 

 master of the American fishing vessel " Pearl Nelson," of Province- 

 town, Mass., which has been subjected to treatment by the Customs 

 officials at Arichat, Nova Scotia, inconsistent with the international 

 law of ordinary amity and hospitality, and also plainly violative of 

 treaty rights under the Convention of 1818, between Great Britain 

 and the United States. 



The vessel in question was compelled by stress of weather to seek 

 shelter in the harbour of Arichat, N. S., and arrived late at night 

 when the Custom House was closed. Before the Custom House was 

 opened the next day the captain went there, and after waiting over 

 an hour, the Collector arrived and the usual inward report was made 

 and permission asked to land the clothing of a sailor lost overboard, 

 whose family resided in that vicinity. 



He was then informed that his vessel was seized for allowing his 

 crew to go ashore the night before, before reporting at the Custom 

 House. 



The cruel irony of this was apparent when the Collector knew 

 such report was impossible and that the landing of the crew was 

 usual and customary, and that no charge of smuggling had been 

 suggested or was possible under the circumstances. 



To compel the payment of a fine or a deposit of $200, which is 

 practically the same in its results, was harsh and unwarranted and 

 was adding a price and a penalty to the privilege of shelter guar- 

 anteed to American fishermen by treaty. 



This vessel was a fishing vessel and although seeking to exercise 

 no commercial privileges was compelled to pay commercial fees, such 



