196 CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Such conduct cannot be defended on any just ground, and I draw 

 your attention to it in order that Her Britannic Majestj-'s Government 

 may reprunand Captain Quigley for his unwarranted and rude act. 



It was simply impossible for this officer to suppose that any invasion 

 of the fishing privileges of Canada was intended by these vessels under 

 the circumstances. 



The firing of a gun across their bows was a most unusual and wholly 

 uncalled for exhibition of hostility, and equally so was the placing of 

 armed men on board the peaceful and lawful craft of a friendly nation. '^ 



The facts as reported by the Canadian authorities were in substan- 

 tial agreement with Mr. Bayard's statement of these cases, and the 

 following additional information is found in the report of the seizing 

 officer: 



In the case of the Julia and Ellen, she came into the harbor of 

 Liverpool on the 9th of August, about 5 p. m. Being some distance 

 from me, I fired a blank musket shot to round her to. When she 

 anchored I boarded her, and the captain reported that he came in for 

 water. I told him to report his vessel in the morning, as it was then 

 after customs hours, and that he must not let his men ashore, and that 

 I would leave two men on his vessel to see that my instructions were 

 carried out, and to see that he did not otherwise break the law. 



In the morning, at 8 o'clock, I called for the captain to go to the 

 custom-house and told him his men could go on and take water while 

 he was reporting, so that he would be all ready to sail when he returned, 

 which they did, and he sailed at noon. 



In the case of the Shiloh, she came into the harbor about 6 p. m. on 

 the 9th of August, at Liverpool, and a signal was fired in her case the 

 same as the others. 



When she anchored I boarded her, and the captain reported she was 

 in for water. I told him it was then too late to report at the customs 

 till morning, and that he must not allow his crew on shore; also that 

 I would leave two men on board to see that he did not otherwise break 

 the law, and that my instructions were carried out.** 



In the course of the discussion which followed these and other 

 similar interferences with American fishing vessels, the position of 

 the United States on tliis subject was stated by Mr. Phelps, then 

 American Minister at London in his note of January 26, 1887, to 

 Lord Salisbury, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as follows: 



Aside from the question as to the right of American vessels to 

 purchase bait in Canadian ports, such a construction has been given 

 to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain as amounts 

 virtually to a declaration of almost complete non-intercourse with 

 American vessels. The usual comity between friendly nations has 

 been refused in their case, and in one instance, at least, the ordinary 

 offices of humanity. The treaty of friendship and amity which, in 

 return for very important concessions by the United States to Great 

 Britain, reserved to the American vessels certain specified privileges 



o Appendix, p. 830. & Appendix, p. 884. 



