638 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



On 7th of June, 1886, the Canadian Governor General advised the 

 Minister of Foreign Affairs at London : 



No attempt has been made either by the authorities entrusted with the en- 

 forcement of the existing law or by the Parliament of the Dominion to inter- 

 fere with vessels engaged in bona-fide commercial transactions upon the coasts 

 of the dominion. The two vessels which have been seized are both of them 

 beyond all question fishing vessels, and not traders, and therefore liable, 

 subject to the findings of the courts, to any penalties imposed by law for the 

 enforcement of the convention of 1818 on parties violating the terms of that 

 convention. 



On 14th June, 1886, a committee of the Privy Council for Canada 

 put forth the following opinions and conclusions, which were ap- 

 proved by the Governor General : 



It is not, however, the case that the convention of 1818 affected only the 

 inshore fisheries of the British provinces; it was framed with the object of 

 affording a complete and exclusive definition of the rights and liberties which 

 the fishermen of the United States were thenceforward to enjoy in following 

 their vocation, so far as those rights could be affected by facilities for access 

 to the shores of waters or [or waters of] the British provinces, or for inter- 

 course with their people. It is, therefore, no undue expansion of the scope of 

 that convention to interpret strictly those of its provisions by which such 

 access is denied, except to vessels requiring it for the purposes specifically 

 described. 



Such an undue expansion would, upon the other hand, certainly take place, 

 if, under cover of its provisions or of any agreement relating to general com- 

 mercial intercourse which may have since been made, permission were ac- 

 corded to United States' fishermen to resort habitually to the harbours of the 

 dominion, not for the sake of seeking safety for their vessels, or of avoiding 

 risk to human life, but in order to use these harbours as a general base of 

 operations from which to prosecute and organize with greater advantage to 

 themselves the industry in which they are engaged 



It was in order to guard against such an abuse of the provisions of the treaty 

 that amongst them was included the stipulation that not only should the inshore 

 fisheries be reserved to British fishermen, but that the United States, should 

 renounce the right of their fishermen to enter the bays or harbours, excepting 

 for the four specified purposes, which do not include the purchase of bait or 

 other appliances, whether intended for the deep-sea fisheries or not. 



The undersigned, therefore, cannot concur in Mr. Bayard's contention that 

 " to prevent the purchase of bait, or any other supply needed for deep-sea fish- 

 ing, would be to expand, the convention to objects wholly beyond the purview, 

 scope, and intent of the treaty, and to give to it an effect never contemplated." 



Mr. Bayard suggests that the possession by a fishing vessel of a permit to 

 " touch and trade " should give to her a right to enter Canadian ports for other 

 than the purposes named in the treaty, or, in other words, should give her 

 perfect immunity from its provisions. This would amount to a practical repeal 

 of the treaty, because it would enable a United States' collector of customs, by 

 issuing a licence originally only intended for purposes of domestic customs 

 regulation, to give exemption from the treaty to every United States' fishing 

 vessel. The observation that similar vessels under the British flag have the 

 right to enter the ports of the United States for the purchase of supplies loses 

 its force when it is remembered that the convention of 1818 contained no restric- 

 tion on British vessels and no renunciation of any privileges in regard to them. 



On August 14, 1886, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said : 



There seems no doubt, therefore, that the " Novelty " was in character and 

 in purpose a fishing vessel, and as such comes under the provisions of the 

 381 treaty of 1818, which allows United States' fishing vessels to enter Cana- 

 dian ports " for the purpose of shelter and repairing damages therein, 

 and of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose what- 

 ever." 



The object of the captain was to obtain supplies for the prosecution of his 

 fishing, and to tranship his cargoes of fish at a Canadian port, both of which 

 are contrary to the letter and spirit of the convention of 1818. 



