470 MISCELLANEOUS 



the late Sir Michael Herbert on behalf of His Majesty's Government. 

 It provided, as did the former convention, for the free admission of 

 fishery products of this country into United States markets in ex- 

 change for baiting privileges in this colony. That convention was 

 held in abeyance for some considerable time by the Foreign Relations 

 Committee of the United States of America, but in the year 1904 it 

 was reported by that committee to the United States Senate, where 

 it was virtually amended out of existence at the instance of the 

 fishery interests of Gloucester. 



Between 1902 and 1904 the privileges that had been freely extended 

 to the United States during the twelve years previous were continued, 

 but after the action of the United States Senate became known to 

 this government, in the interests of the trade and commerce of this 

 colony it was determined that the policy of the government of 1885 

 which had been so forcibly and ably advocated by the then governor, 

 Sir G. W. DesVpeux should be enforced against American fishermen. 



When the legislature met on the 30th of March, 1905, his excellency 

 the governor, in the speech from the throne, said : 



" I would observe that the serious loss occasioned the fishermen of 

 this colony last season by the difficulty of obtaining a full supply of 

 bait fishes rendered it imperative for my ministers to consider whether 

 the very valuable bait privileges conceded to the fishermen of the 

 United States by the government of this colony, in expectation of the 

 ratification of the convention, could be continued without detriment 

 to our fishery interest. After very careful enquiry and consideration 

 it was decided that, under existing circumstances, local interests 

 would be best conserved by withholding those privileges." 



In order to more effectively carry out the provisions of the Bait 

 Act, which had been in force for nearly twenty years against French 

 fishermen, but which, for the reasons I have set forth, were not en- 

 forced in their entirety against American citizens, the government 

 introduced the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1905, whereby it was 

 provided, amongst other things, that it shall be unlawful for the 

 master of any foreign fishing vessel " to engage any person to form 

 part of the crew of said vessel in any port or on any part of the 

 coasts of this island." 



The method adopted by American fishermen of conducting the 

 herring fishery on the west coast of this colony had ever been by pur- 

 chase or barter. The Bait Act, as it stood, enabled us to prevent a 

 continuation of that practice, but the government appreciated that 

 the Americans would attempt to overcome the difficulty occasioned by 

 the enforcement of the Bait Act by engaging local fishermen to form 

 part of their crews and to catch the fish they required. It was for 

 the purpose, then, of preventing this evasion of the spirit and inten- 

 tion of the Bait Act that the clause that I have referred to was in- 

 serted in the act of 1905. 



At the close of the session of 1905, this Foreign Fishing Vessels 

 Act was assented to by his excellency the governor and became the 

 law of the land. 



In October of that year the autumn herring fishery on the west 

 coast commenced, when it was found that American fishermen were 

 determined to ignore the provisions of the Bait Act as well as the 

 Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1905. The position was further 

 aggravated by their refusing to comply with our customs and reve- 



