QUESTION SEVEN. 59 



68 " ' I am also in possession of the affidavit of Alex. T. Vachem, 



master of the American fishing schooner "Mascotte," who 

 entered Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, and was there threatened 

 by the Customs official with seizure of his vessel, if he attempted to 

 obtain bait for fishing or take a pilot.' 



"And from a Report of the Customs officer at Magdalen Islands, 

 a copy of which, so far as it relates to the case in point, is hereto 

 annexed, it appears that no grounds exist for the complaint made 

 by the master of the ' Mascotte.' 



"The Minister states that Captain Vachem was served with a 

 printed copy of the ' warning,' and was, in addition, informed by the 

 Collector that under the treaty of 1818 he had no right to buy" bait 

 or to ship men. He was not forbidden to take fish, but, on the con- 

 trary, the Collector pointed out to him on the chart the places in 

 which, by the convention of 1818, he, as a United States fisherman, 

 had the right to inshore fishing, and one of the places so pointed 

 out to him was the Magdalen Islands. 



" Notwithstanding the ' warning ' and the personal explanation of 

 the Collector, it appears that Captain Vachem did go up the country 

 and attempt to hire men, and upon his return informed the Col- 

 lector that he could not get any. For this, clearly an illegal act 

 he was not interefered with by the Collector. 



" The Minister further observes that the convention of 1818, while 

 it grants to United States fishermen the right of fishing in common 

 with British subjects on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, does 

 not confer upon them privileges of trading or of shipping men, and 

 it was against possible acts of the latter kind, and not against fishing 

 inshore, or seeking the rights of hospitality guaranteed under the 

 treaty, that Captain Vachem was warned by the Collector." 



When, therefore, Lord Iddesleigh wrote the letter to Mr. Phelps 

 of the 30th November, 1886, above referred to, he had in mind that 

 he had, a few days before, instructed the British Ambassador at 

 Washington to communicate the position taken by Canada, on the 

 question of purchase of bait, as shown by the Order in Council. 

 Under these circumstances, it is quite impossible to construe his 

 letter of the 30th November, 1886, as an acknowledgment that, in 

 his opinion, American fishermen were entitled to purchase bait 

 under the treaty of 1818. Indeed, the language of other parts of his 

 letter indicates that he was endeavouring to ascertain what the United 

 States contention was, rather than admitting that its contention was 

 correct. 



And Mr. Phelps' reply of the 26th January, 1887, indicates that 

 he so understood Lord Iddesleigh. He said : 



" In view of the very grave questions that exists as to the ex- 

 69 tent of those rights, in respect to which the views of the United 

 States Government differ so widely from those insisted upon 

 by Her Majesty's Government, it does not seem to me an unreason- 

 able proposal that the two Governments, by a temporary and mutual 

 concession, without prejudice, should endeavour to reach some middle 



