1578 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



Mr. FOSTER. The substance of the facts, as we understand them, will 

 be found in a dispatch from Judge Jackson to Hon. Bancroft Davis, 

 dated March 11, 1S71, which is as follows : 



UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, 



March 11, 1871. 



.SIR : I have the honor to iuform you that, after examination and inquiry, I have not 

 been able to find a single adjudicated case in this province which can be cited as legal 

 authority, arising under the Treaty of 1818, which declares the right, either under the 

 treaty or the statutes enacted for its enforcement, to confiscate American fishing-ves- 

 sel* for purchasing supplies in colonial ports. 



The veaw-ls referred to in a pamphlet (page 12) published at Ottawa, under the direc- 

 tion of the Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, entitled "A Review of President 

 Grant'* Message," as having been seized for a violation of the fishery laws, namely, the 

 chooners Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart in 1339, and schooners Papineau 

 and Mary in 1840, were condemned by the vice-admiralty court in default of the appear- 

 ance of defendants upon ex-parte affidavits. 



From the small sums for which the vessels sold, it is not improbable that they were 

 bought in for the benefit of the owners. 



Although it is stated in the affidavits on the files of the court that the masters of some 

 of the vessels had purchased bait, yet it is specially noticeable that the charge made 

 against the schooners Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart by the seizing-officer, 

 Capt. J. W. E. Darby, as the ground of such seizure, was in the following language : 

 " The deponent saith that he believes that tlie sole object of the masters of the said vessels 

 KHU to procure fak, and that they were, at the time of their seizure, preparing to fish." 



In the case of the schooners Papineau and Mary, seized in June, 1840, for a violation 

 of the fishery laws, the same seizing-officer set forth in his affidavit, as the grounds of 

 the seizure of these vessels, that the " deponent verily believed that the said vessels 

 were frequenting the coast of this province for the purpose of fishing there and for no 

 otttrr purpote whatever," 



The seizure and condemnation of these several vessels four in 1839 and two in 

 I^IO cited in the pamphlet referred to, in support of the unusual and extreme meas- 

 ures of last summer, in relation to American fishing-vessels, afford, as will be seen 

 from the facts here stated, no legal justification for such measures, and cannot be re- 

 garded in any respect authoritative adjudications upon the points in controversy 

 between the United States and Great Britain respecting the fisheries. 

 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 



M. M. JACKSOX, 

 United States Consul. 



Hon. J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS, 



.liHittant Secretary of Stale, Washington, D. C. 



Inferring to the paper which was put in by the British counsel, on 



page 12 of document No. 31, there is a memorandum of all the vessels 



seized and condemned by the vice-admiralty court of Prince Edward 



Island, and it is stated at the end of each case: "I cannot find from 



any papers in this case, at present in the registry of this court, that 



this vessel was ever interfered with by government officers for trans- 



nipping nsh or purchasing supplies." As to the New Brunswick cases, 



f which there is a statement at the top of page 10, document 21, I am 



t able to ascertain because we have not access to the papers. There 



J not many cases in New Brunswick; seven between 1822 and 1852. 



Liu-re IH also at the foot of page 6, document No. 15, a record of the 



londemuod at Halifax. Mr. J. S. D. Thompson has made a mem- 



n of each of those cases, and there is no case where a vessel 



Mted for buying bait or other supplies, or for transshipping 



atement of 59 George III is the same in substance with 



statute. By that statute vessels are libeled and forfeited in 



iralty court for no other offense than that of being found fishing, - 



h on board, or preparing to fish. The fourth article im- 



i a penalty of .Ci'oo, recoverable by action at common law, on a 



sfuwng to depart from the territorial waters when warned 



the party authorized to do so. Among the Halifax cases it will ap- 



e are marked as restored, and two others at least were 



