522 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



right to American fishermen to enter any of the harbors of 

 British America for the purposes of shelter, repairing 

 damages, purchasing wood and obtaining water, but " for no 

 other purposes whatever." The Dominion Government inter- 

 preted this phrase technically and strictly. The seizure of 

 the American vessel David J. Adams in Digby Harbor, May 

 7, 1886, for landing and purchasing bait and ice, was fol- 

 lowed soon after by several other seizures upon the same 

 charge. The trial of these alleged culprits brought to the 

 front the limitation of privileges in Canadian ports which 

 was imposed upon Americans by the Dominion laws as based 

 upon the treaty of 1818. 



The United States contended that while it was perfectly 

 true that the right to purchase bait in Canadian harbors, and 

 also the right to enter such harbors for any other purposes 

 than shelter, repairs, and to obtain wood and water, had been 

 expressly denied in the treaty of 1818, nevertheless, subse- 

 quent legislation on the part of both Canada and the United 

 States had so far modified that clause of the treaty that a 

 liberal interpretation of the phrase in question would give 

 full freedom to New England fishing vessels to purchase 

 all needful supplies in Canadian ports, and in general, to 

 perform, without let or hindrance, all acts necessary for 

 refitting. It was contended that in 1818, when the treaty 

 was made, commercial vessels of the United States were 

 absolutely prohibited from British American ports, and the 

 privileges granted to fishing vessels in that year were excep- 

 tions to the rigid navigation laws of Great Britain. Since 

 then, and notably by an act in 1830, and by the Imperial 

 Shipping and Navigation Act of 1849, these restrictions 

 upon American commercial vessels were removed. With 

 the removal therefore of all former disabilities upon trading 

 vessels, were not the few remaining disabilities upon fishing 

 vessels (imposed by the treaty of 1818) also removed ? 

 Great Britain replied that these disabilities had not been 

 removed, as she had then drawn, and did now draw, a 

 distinction between fishing and trading vessels. The former, 

 she contended, had no commercial privileges whatever ; and 



