DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 745 



The first clause of article X provides that American fishing vessels 

 entering the bays or harbours referred to in article I shall conform 

 to harbour regulations common to them and Canadian fishing vessels. 

 This, by necessary implication, concedes the right on the part of the 

 Canadians to subject United States fishing vessels resorting to a 

 British North American bay for shelter from a tempest, to the 

 municipal laws of Canada, no matter how far different those regula- 

 tions may be from the provision in the treaty of 1818 giving to the 

 British the right only to make such restrictions as should be necessary 

 to prevent an abuse of the privilege of entry for the purpose stated. 



This clause adopts the principle of the British contention in the 



Fortune Bay affair, which contention was that American vessels in 



Canadian waters, under either the treaty of 1818 or 1871, 



446 were subjected to all of the municipal laws of that country, 



This British contention was successfully resisted by Mr 



Evarts, then our Secretary of State, and the British Government 



paid an indemnity for an interference with our fishing vessels in 



respect of their being engaged in fishing in those waters contrary to 



the municipal statutes of Newfoundland. 



This clause, then, gives away important American rights, and 

 adopts the principle that under the treaty of 1818 American fishing 

 vessels are subject to the full force of foreign municipal law. But 

 this clause is, in part only, qualified by the next, which excuses them 

 from reporting, entering, or clearing when putting into such bays 

 for shelter or repairing damages, and when putting into the same 

 outside the limits of established ports of entry, for the purpose of 

 purchasing wood or obtaining water, with certain exceptions even 

 in respect of that excuse. But we think it may be safely assumed to- 

 be true that there are very few, if any, British North American 

 bays or harbours that are not within the limits of established ports 

 of entry, for doubtless (which is the case in the United States) the 

 Dominion customs laws bring every part of the seashore and all its 

 bays and harbours, within the customs limits of some port of entry. 



This modification, then, of the sweeping requirement of the first 

 clause really amounts to nothing, and, indeed, can (if it does not 

 already) by a simple legislative or administrative act of the Domin- 

 ion Government bring every bay and harbour and every part of the 

 coast within the limits of established ports of entry, and thus again 

 completely surrender the fishing vessels of the United States to every 

 commercial regulation of the Dominion Government which operates 

 against them, while it gives them almost none of the benefits of 

 commercial intercourse. 



The next clause, also, further provides that American fishing ves- 

 sels, when in these bays and harbours for shelter, etc., under the 

 treaty of 1818, shall not be liable for harbour dues, etc. This is a 

 mere statement of what results from the treaty of 1818, for it has no 

 application to these vessels other than in their purely fishing char- 

 acter, and in that character they were not subjected by the treaty of 

 1818 to any such imposition, and could not be, for none of them were 

 necessary to prevent their fishing or to prevent their smuggling. 



Article X, then, taken as a whole, is a diminution instead of an 

 enlargement of the rights of American fishing vessels under the 

 treaty of 1818, and its modifying and limiting clauses would be only 



