PERIOD FROM 1854 TO 1871. 139 



amendment of it adopted on May 12, 1870," led to a report on the 

 subject by the United States Consul at llaUfax untler date of October 

 3, 1870, in which he says: 



Fishery laws. — The existing laws relating to the fisheries consist of 

 the treaty of 1818, between the United States and Great Britain; the 

 imperial act framed June 14, 1819, for the purpose of carrying the 

 provisions of the treaty into effect; the British Xort!i American act 

 framed March 29, 1867, giving authority to the Canadian govern- 

 ment over the sea-coast and inland fisheries; and the Dominion acts 

 framed respectively May 22, 1868, and May 12, 1870, relating to 

 tlsliing by foreign vessels. 



All these acts, Canadian as well as imperial, purport to be founded 

 upon the treaty of 1818, and designed to enforce its provisions. 

 Some of the provisions of the colonial acts respecting the fisheries 

 are borrowed from imperial statutes relating to trade and navigation, 

 and although enacted to protect the in-shore fisheries, are not 

 strictly applicable to fishing vessels. 



Supplies. — In no act is there any prohibition against fishing vessels 

 visiting colonial ports for supplies. The silence of all the acts upon 

 this point, and the practice of more than half a century under im- 

 perial laws, framed expressly for the purpose of carrying into effect 

 the provisions of the treaty, justify the conclusion that no such pro- 

 hibition was contemplated by it. This view of the subject derives 

 additional support from the fact that at the time of the adoption of 

 the treaty the mackerel fishing, as now carried on, was comparatively 

 Miiknowm. 



During the intervening years between 1818 and 1870, throughout 

 all the controversies between the United States and Great Britain 

 on the subject of the fisheries, no question until the present had 

 arisen in reference to supplies. They were always readily procured 

 in colonial ports, and the trade being profitable to the people of the 

 colonies, was facilitated by the local authorities. 



The controversies which preceded the adoption of the reciprocity 

 treaty related principally to our right to fish in certain bays, and to 

 the exact limits within which American fishermen, by the convention 

 of 1818, were entitled to fish on the coasts of British North America. 



The rights insisted upon by citizens of the United States were 

 practically decided in their favor by the commissioners appointed 

 under the convention of 1853, between the United States and Great 

 Britain, in the case of the schooner Washington. That schooner, 

 while fishing in the Bay of Fund}' in 1843, ten miles distant from 

 the shore, was seized by the British authorities, taken into Yar- 

 mouth, Nova Scotia, and there condemned for a violation of the 

 fishery laws. 



In 1853, after the adoption of the reciprocity treaty, the case 

 was brought before the commissioners on a claim of the owners of 

 the schooner for damages; and after a full and careful examination 

 was decided in favor of the claimants, to whom damages were awarded 

 for the illegal seizure and condemnation. Since that time what is 

 termed the ''headland" interpretation of the treaty, theretofore at 



a Appendix, p. 136. 



