142 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



the vessel that this Government is not disposed to regard such mere 

 preparation as an infraction of the obhgations of our citizens engaged 

 in the outfit and employment of fisliing vessels, and it is desirous of 

 having the point distinctly presented and adjudicated, if possible, 

 without being compHcated with other questions, so that if adversely 

 decided, a case presenting that single issue may be made for appeal 

 to the British tribunal of last resort. It is understood that the in- 

 structions of the imperial government of Great Britain do not author- 

 ize the capture of an American vessel found fishing within three miles 

 of the coasts from wliich they are prohibited, or of a fine dra^\^l across 

 the mouths of bays whose mouths do not exceed six geograpliical miles 

 in width. In any case of condemnation it is desirable to have it 

 appear with precision as well whether the vessel condemned was fish- 

 ing within the prohibited distance, as whether the actual capture was 

 made within that distance or beyond it, so as to be upon the liigh seas, 

 in the sense which this Government is disposed to attach to these 

 words, for the purpose of questions arising out of the operations of 

 our fishing vessels on the northeastern coast." 



In reply to this communication the United States Consul General 

 wrote on November 3, 1870, to the Secretary of State as foUows: 



It seems to me that the unfriendly construction given by the 

 Dominion government of the treaty of 1818 was intensified in its 

 harshness by the almost covert manner in which it was sought to be 

 enforced. It was with the greatest difficulty that our consuls could 

 ascertain from the commanders of the various armed vessels what 

 they would consider cause for seizure and condemnation. 



No adequate or suitable notice was given to the captains of Amer- 

 ican fishing vessels, and they were seized for acts which they had been 

 permitted to do from time immemorial, as well before as subsequently 

 to the above-mentioned treaty. 



Information has come to me from so many sources of declarations 

 made by the various ministers of the Dominion government, that I 

 cannot doubt, and it is openly proclaimed here and believed to be 

 true, that the enforcement of the above mentioned treaty, in the 

 manner it has been enforced, has two objects, viz: one of which is to 

 create a Canadian sentiment in antagonism to the United States, with 

 a view to check the spread of American sentiment here looking to 

 ultimate annexation; the other object is, by the close control of the 

 fishing interests to compel the United States, through her interests, 

 to make a treaty of reciprocity of trade between the United States 

 and the British provinces in North America.^ 



The contrast hetween the attitude of the Canadian and British Govern- 

 ments. 



In contrast with the provincial attitude thus disclosed on the 

 questions in dispute, attention is called to the action taken by Great 

 Britain at this time on the subject of seizures. In liis note of May 

 26, 1870, the British Minister at Washington communicated to Mr. 



o Appendix, p. 630. b Appendix, p. 632. 



