1528 NORTH ATI/ANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



ances, and is dated Treasury Department, 20th February, 1852, and 

 is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 



On p. 152 near the bottom, paragraph marked 2, it says, no fishing 

 vessel is entitled to the allowance of bounty unless it is shown by 

 sufficient proof that the master and three- fourths of her crew are 

 citizens of the United States. 



At p. 151 it appears at the middle of the page, in Mr. Sabine's 

 language, that the question of bounty allowances to vessels employed 

 in the fisheries will next engage our attention. The Act now in 

 force was passed by Congress in 1819, and its provisions, the construc- 

 tion given to it, as well as the rules to be observed by the collectors 

 of the customs, will be found in the circular of the Secretary of the 

 Treasury of the 20th February, 1852, from which I have just read a 

 portion. 



It would seem from the circular itself that this provision really 

 antedated 1819. At the top of p. 164 it says, from the original Act 

 of the 16th February, 1792, changing the drawback on dried fish ex- 

 ported, to a bounty on the tonnage of vessels employed in the bank or 

 other cod fisheries, it has always been held that to entitle any fishing 

 vessel to the bounty, and so on. That is not the qualification, because 

 he does not repeat the statement with regard to the three- fourths, but 

 apparently the Act of 1819 was a continuation of the previous law 

 with regard to bounties. 



It is to be said that Great Britain recognised that our crews were 

 made up compositely prior to the war of 1812, and one of the occa- 

 sions of the war of 1812 was the search of our vessels for persons al- 

 leged to be British subjects. That is a matter of common knowledge, 

 but it is stated in the British Case, at p. 7, near the top. It was to 

 prevent depletion of her force of sailors that Great Britain insisted 

 upon the right to stop United States vessels on the high seas in order 

 to search for British seamen, and it was the enforcement of that claim 

 which was one of the causes of the war of 1812. 



That, it will be remembered, was not merely a seizure of persons 

 alleged to have deserted, but a. claim of right to search vessels for 

 British subjects who had improperly sought to denationalize them- 

 selves. And we beg to say that that well known composite character 

 of crews at the time of this treaty was and must have been in the 

 minds of the negotiators, and they must have framed the treaty with 

 that full understanding. 



It is not confined, however, to that period. The employment of 

 foreigners on our vessels has gone on to the present time, with Eng- 

 land's full knowledge. 



I refer to the United States Counter-Case Appendix, at p. 211. 

 This is a report of Mr. Paul Crowell upon the fisheries in the British 

 colonies, the 10th February, 1852. He is speaking of illegal trade on 



