1594 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



from such limits was regarded as important to our fishermen. You will 

 remember that one of our oldest witnesses, Ezra Turner, testified that 

 the captain of the cruiser "told me what his orders were from Halifax, 

 and h<> showed me his marks on the chart. I well recollect three marks. 

 One was from Margaree to Cape St. George, and then a straight line 

 from Ksist Point to Cape St. George, and then another straight line from. 

 Hunt Point to North Cape. The captain said, ' If you come within three 

 miles of these lines, fishing, or attempting to fish, I will consider you a 

 prize.' ^ And a committee of the Nova Scotia legislature, as late as 1851, 

 in their report, say : " The American citizens, under the treaty, have no 

 right, for the purposes of the fishery, to enter any part of the Bay of St. 

 George, lying between the headlands formed by Cape George on the 

 one side and Port Hood Island on the other." 



Such were the claims made, and how were those claims enforced ? 

 They were enforced by the repeated seizure of our vessels, their deten- 

 tion until the fishing season was over, and th-n their release. It appears 

 by the returns that have been made in how many instances our fishing- 

 vessels were released without a trial after they had been detained until 

 their voyages were ruined, and. as our skippers said in their testimony, 

 it made no difference whether the seizure was lawful or unlawful, the 

 voyage was spoilt, and the value of the vessel almost entirely destroyed. 

 There were repeated instances of which you have testimony of cruisers 

 levying black-mail upon skippers, taking a portion of their fish by way 

 of tribute from them, and letting them go on their way. 

 Mr. THOMSON. Instead of seizing the wholeU 



Mr. FOSTER. Yes; instead of seizing the whole. No doubt the poor 

 and ignorant skippers were thankful to escape from the lion's jaws with 

 with so little loss as that. Let me give an instance : There is a letter 

 from Mr. Forsyth, the United States Secretary of State, to Mr. Fox, the 

 British minister at Washington, dated the 24th of July, 1859, in which 

 Mr. Forsyth requests the good offices of Her Majesty's minister at Wash- 

 ington with the authorities at Halifax, to secure to a fisherman, too poor 

 to contend in the admiralty court, the restoration of 10 barrels of her- 

 rinps taken from him by the officer who had seized his vessel and with- 

 held the herring after the vessel itself was released. 



Well, what were the laws enacted to enforce these pretensions? A 



Nova Scotia statute of 1836, after providing for the forfeiture of any 



veanel found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing within 



three miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, and providing that if 



the master, or person in command, should not truly answer the questions 



put to him in examination by the boarding officer, he should forfeit the 



Hum of 100, goes on to provide that if any goods shipped on the vessel 



were seized for any cause of forfeiture under this act, and any dispute 



whether they have been lawfully seized, the burden of proof to 



how the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant of 



:<xds, ship, or vessel, and not on the officer or person who shall 



stop the same. The burden of proof to show that the seizure 



* unlawful was on the man whose schooner had been brought to by 



HII.S of the cutter. He was to be taken into a foreign port, and 



vqmn el affirmatively to make out that his vessel and its contents 



liable to forfeiture. If he attempted any defense, he was not 



itted to do so until he had given sufficient security in the sum of 



its. Ho must commence no suit until he had given one 



.r month's notice in writing of his intention to do so, in order that 



Bingoffioer might make amends if he chose : and he must bring his 



Hum three mouths after the cause of action accrued, and if he 





