628 APPENDIX TO BKITISH CASE. 



In this case there was a clear violation of Canadian law, there was 

 no lengthened detention of the vessel, the deposit was ultimately 

 remitted, and the United States' Consul General at Halifax, ex- 

 pressed himself by letter to the Minister as highly pleased at the 

 result. 



The Minister observes that in this case he is at a loss to discover 

 any well-founded grievance or any attempted denial of or inter- 

 ference with any privileges guaranteed to United States' fishermen 

 by the Treaty of 1818. 



The Minister further observes that the whole argument and pro- 

 test of Mr. Bayard appears to proceed upon the assumption that 

 these two vessels were subjected to unwarrantable interference, in 

 that they were called upon to submit to the requirements of Canadian 

 Customs Law, and that this interference was prompted by a desire 

 to curtail or deny the privileges of resort to Canadian harbours for 

 the purposes allowed by the Treaty of 1818. It is needless to say 

 that this assumption is entirely incorrect. 



Canada has a very large extent of sea coast with numerous ports 

 into which foreign vessels are constantly entering for purposes of 

 trade. It becomes necessary in the interests of legitimate commerce 

 that stringent regulations should be made by compulsory conformity 

 to which, illicit traffic should be prevented. 



These Customs' regulations all vessels of all countries are obliged 

 to obey, and these they do obey without in any way considering it a 

 hardship. United States fishing vessels come directly from a foreign 

 and not distant country, and it is not in the interests of legitimate 

 Canadian commerce that they should be allowed access to our ports 

 without the same strict supervision as is exercised over all other 

 foreign vessels. Otherwise there would be no guarantee against 

 illicit traffic of large dimensions to the injury of honest trade and 

 the serious diminution of the Canadian revenue. United States' 

 fishing vessels are cheerfully accorded the right to enter Canadian 

 ports for the purpose of obtaining shelter, repairs, and procuring 

 wood and water, but in exercising this right, they are not and cannot 

 be independent of the Customs' Laws. 



They have the right to enter for the purposes set forth, but there 

 is only one legal way in which to enter and that is by conformity to 

 the Customs' regulations. 



When Mr. Bayard asserts that Captain Forbes had as much right 

 to be in Shelburne Harbour seeking shelter and water u as he would 

 have had on the high seas carrying on under the shelter of the flag 

 of the United States legitimate commerce," he is undoubtedly right, 

 but when he declares as he in reality does, that to compel Captain 

 Forbes in Shelburne Harbour to conform to Canadian Customs' 

 regulations, or to punish him for their violation, is a more unwar- 

 rantable stretch of power than " that of a seizure on the high seas 

 of a ship unjustly suspected of being a slaver," he makes a statement 

 which carries with it its own refutation. Customs' regulations are 

 made by each country for the protection of its own trade and com- 

 merce, and are enforced entirely within its own territorial jurisdic- 

 tion; while the seizure of a vessel upon the high seas, except under 

 extraordinary and abnormal circumstances, is an unjustifiable inter- 

 ference with the free right of navigation common to all nations. 



