AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1587 



prevailing, and have been taken into the colonial ports, their voyages broken up, aud 

 the vessels condemned. There is reason to believe that this unfriendly and vexatious 

 treatment was designed tn bear harshly upon the hardy fishermeu of the United States, 

 with a view to political effect upon the government. 



That is not all. The President went further, and made a second com- 

 plaint in this language : 



The statutes of the Dominion of Canada assume- a still broader and more untenable 

 jurisdiction over the vessels of the United States ; they authorize officers or persons to 

 bring vessels hovering within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or 

 harbors of Canada into port, to search the cargo, to examine the master on oath touch- 

 ing the cargo and voyage, aud to inflict upon him a heavy pecuniary penalty if true 

 answers are not given, and if such a vessel is found preparing to tish within three ma- 

 rine miles of any of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, without a license, or after 

 the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to it, they provide that 

 the vessel with her tackle, &c., shall be forfeited. It is not known that any condem- 

 nations have been made under this statute. Should the authorities of Canada attempt 

 to enforce it it will become my duty to take such steps as may be necessary to protect 

 the rights of the citizens of the United States. 



The President further goes on to say : 



It has been claimed by Her Majesty's officials that the fishing- vessels of the United 

 States have no right to enter the open ports of the British possessions in North Amer- 

 ica, except for the purpose of shelter aud repairing damages, of purchasing wood and 

 obtaining water ; that they have no right to enter at the British custom-houses, or to 

 trade there, except for the purchase of wood or water, and that they must depart with- 

 in twenty-four hours after notice to leave. It is not known that any seizure of a fish- 

 ing-vessel carrying the flag of the United States has been made under this claim. 



These were complaints which were made in the annual message of 

 President Grant in 1870; and he concludes by suggesting to Congress 

 the course that should be taken in reference to this matter, in the fol- 

 lowing words : 



Anticipating that an attempt may possibly be made by the Canadian authorities in 

 the comiugseason to repeat their nnneighborly acts towards our fi.shermen, I recommend 

 you to confer upon the Executive the power to suspend by proclamation the operation 

 of the laws authorizing the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond across the 

 territory of the United States to Canada; and further, should such an extreme meas- 

 ure become necessary, to suspend the operation of any laws whereby the vessels of the 

 Dominion of Canada are permitted to enter the waters of the United States. 



It is, therefore, plainly evident that disagreements were in existence 

 at that time with regard to the fisheries, and that the fear that they 

 ftould produce serious complications between the two countries was 

 present in the mind.s of the President and Government of the United 

 States. Well, the history of the case goes on to show that these com- 

 plaints made by President Grant were the foundation of the negotia- 

 tions which led to the adoption of the Washington Treaty ; aud it is 

 important to observe, on examining that treaty, that the means whereby 

 President Grant proposed to Congress to insure the repeal of these so 

 called unfriendly acts on the part of Canada, by repealing the bonded 

 system, and by putting on other restrictions, which President Grant 

 proposed to apply to that particular purpose, are, by the clauses 

 of the Washington Treaty, dealt with for the term of that treaty in 

 another way, aud for other considerations; therefore, to my mind, it 

 leaves me in this position, in endeavoring to interpret the intentions of 

 the parties to the Washington Treaty, that it must necessarily have been 

 supposed that, as in the case of the Reciprocity Treaty, so in the case of 

 the Washington Treaty, the rights of traffic and of obtaining bait and 

 supplies were conferred, being incidental to the fishing privilege. It 

 could scarcely be otherwise, because in the case of the Keciprocity Treaty 

 commercial advantages were the compensation which the United States 

 oflered to Great Britain for the concession of the privilege of fishing in 



