AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3385 



moderation of Governments,- it is obvious that confidence is placed in 

 it by the authorities and by the people of the United States ; and it is 

 a fact honorable to both parties, that the naval forces employed on the 

 fishing grounds in the past seasons, have acted in perfect harmony, and 

 carried out the provisions of the Treaty in good faith. The organs of 

 public opinion, indeed, in the United States, of the highest stamp, have 

 denounced open and deliberate violation of the Treaty in terms as de- 

 cided as we ourselves could use. 



" These considerations have prepared us for a review of the pleadings 

 and of the evidence taken in this case. The libel contains six articles. 

 The first sets out in the briefest possible terms, the first article already 

 cited of the Treaty of 20th Oct., 1818. The second gives the title of the 

 Imperial Act 59 Geo. 3, chap. 38. The third that of the British North 

 American Act 1867, the 30th and 31st Vic. chap. The fourth, those of 

 the Efominiou Acts of 1868 and 1870, the 31st Vic., chap. 61 and the 33 

 Vic. chap. 15. The fifth alleges that on the 27th of June last, the 

 Wampatuck, her master and crew, within the limits reserved in the 

 Treaty, were discovered fishing at Aspy Bay in British waters, within 

 three marine miles of the coast, without license for that purpose, and 

 that the vessel and cargo were thereupon seized by Capt. Tory, being a 

 fishery officer in command of the Ida E., a vessel in the service of the 

 Government of Canada, for a breach of the provisions of the Conven- 

 tion, or of the Statutes in that behalf, and delivered into the custody of 

 the principal officer of Customs at Sydney, Cape Breton. The conclud- 

 ing article prays for a condemnation of the vessel and cargo, as forfeited 

 to the Crown. 



u The responsive allegation admits the Convention, and the several 

 Statutes as pleaded, raising no question thereon. It admits that the 

 Wampatuck, being an American vessel, left the port of Plymouth on a 

 fishing voyage to the Grand Bank, beyond the limits of any rights re- 

 served by the Convention of 1818, and alleges that she was not intended 

 to fish on the coasts or in the bays of British North America ; that on 

 the 27th day of June, while pursuing her said voyage, becoming short 

 of water, she ran into Aspy Bay for the purpose of procuring a supply 

 thereof, and for no other purpose whatsoever ; that the master, with 

 two of the crew, rowed ashore to get a supply of water as aforesaid, 

 and directed the crew on board to work the vessel inshore to a con- 

 venient distance for watering, and that the master and crew were not 

 discovered fishing within three marine miles of the coast as alleged. 

 The sixth article, repeating the same allegations, proceeds to state fur- 

 ther that ' as the owners are informed, while the said master was on 

 shore as aforesaid, the steward of the said vessel, and being one of the 

 crew of the same, while the said vessel was lying becalmed in the said 

 bay, did with a fishing-line, being part of the tackle of the said vessel, 

 catch seven codfish for the purpose of cooking them, then and there, for 

 the food of the crew of the said vessel, and not for the purpose of 

 curing or preserving them, as part of the cargo of the said vessel ; 

 that the said fish were so caught without the knowledge, against the 

 will, and in the absence of the master of the said vessel and part of 

 her crew,' and for this offense only the vessel and cargo had been seized. 



" I observe that this last allegation was repeated in an affidavit of 

 one of the owners on file, and, as we must infer, was consistent with his 

 belief at the time, and probably led to the claim being put in under the 

 llth and 12th sections of the Act of 1868. Had the evidence sustained 

 it, the case would have assumed a very different complexion ; but, as 



