770 APPENDIX TO BKITISH CASE. 



63. Ethel Maud (schooner). Gloucester, Mass.; George H. Martin, master. 



Provided with a United States permit to touch and trade, entered Tignish, 

 Prince Edward Island, to purchase salt and barrels. Was prohibited 

 from buying anything. Collector was offered permit, but declared it to 

 be worthless, and would not examine it. Vessel obliged to return home 

 for articles mentioned. On second trip was not permitted to get any food. 

 (From statements of George H. Martin, owner and master, East Glou- 

 cester, Mass.) 



64. John W. Bray (schooner). Gloucester, Mass.; George McLean, master. 



" On account of extreme prohibitory measures of the Canadian Govern- 

 ment in refusing shelter, supplies, and other conveniences, was obliged to 

 abandon her voyage and come home without fish." (From statements of 

 John F. Wonsou & Co., owners, Gloucester, Mass.) 



65. Henry W. Longfellow (schooner). Gloucester, Mass.; W. W. King, master. 



Obliged to leave the Gulf of St. Lawrence with only 62 barrels of mack- 

 erel, on account of restrictions imposed by Canadian Government in pre- 

 venting captain from procuring necessary supplies to continue tishing. 

 (From statements of John F. Wonson & Co., owners, Gloucester, Mass.) 



66. Rushlight (schooner). Gloucester, Mass.; James L. Kenney, master. 



Compelled to leave Gulf of St. Lawrence with only 90 barrels of mackerel, 

 because of restrictions imposed by Canadian Government in prohibiting 

 462 captain from purchasing supplies needed to continue fishing. (From 

 statements of John F. Wonson & Co., owners, Gloucester, Mass.) 



67. Belle Franklin (schooner). Gloucester, Mass.; Henry D. Kendrick, master. 



Obliged to leave Gulf of St. Lawrence with 156 barrels of mackerel, on 

 account of restrictions imposed by Canadian Government in denying to 

 captain the right to procure necessary supplies to continue fishing. 

 (From statements of John F. Wonson & Co., owners, Gloucester, Mass.) 



68. Ncponset (schooner). Boston, Mass.; E. S. Frye, master. August 27, 1886, 



anchored in Port Hawkesbury, C.B., and immediately reported at custom- 

 house. Being short of provisions, master asked collector for permission 

 to buy, but was twice refused. The master, expressing his intention of 

 seeing the United States consul at Port Hastings, C.B., 3 miles distant, the 

 customs officer forbade him landing at that port to see the consul. He 

 did so, however, saw the consul, but could get no aid, the consul stating 

 that if provisions were furnished the vessel would be seized. Master 

 being sick and wishing to return home by rail, at the suggestion of the 

 consul he lauded secretly and travelled through the woods to the station, 

 3 miles distant. (From statements of E. S. Frye, owner and master, Bos- 

 ton, Mass.) 



In 1886 700 vessels were boarded, and 1,362 in 1887, to investigate 

 their conduct, of which 30 were brought to the attention of the British 

 Government. 



These lists comprise, in all, nearly 400 vessels that have been in- 

 volved in seizures and other interferences growing out of disputed 

 constructions of the treaty of 1818. 



That so many cases have arisen out of this conflict of opinion is, in 

 part, fairly attributable to an aggressive temper on the part of the 

 Canadians, which has not been successfully restrained by the Govern- 

 ment of Great Britain, and to an obstinate adherence to the letter of 

 the treaty, to the sacrifice of its spirit and to the prejudice of the 

 " liberties " and " privileges " secured by its terms to American fisher- 

 men, as our Government understands the matter. 



The treaty had reference to extensive lines of sea-coast upon 

 which the bays, harbours, and creeks were as well known by name 

 and location in 1818 as they are now, but they were not exactly 

 described in that instrument. 



It can not be assumed, at least in our diplomacy, that it is irrational 

 or uncandid for the British Government to contend that the entrance 

 of these places, so well known, was intended to designate a base-line 

 from which to measure the 3-mile limit, within which we forever 

 renounced the right to take or cure or dry fish. 



