844 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



confident, by the act of the wise, humane, and magnanimous Govern- 

 ment you represent, but by deputies of deputies permitted to pursue, 

 not uninfluenced by local rivalry, these methods of annoyance in 

 fishing waters which our fishermen have as much right to visit on 

 lawful errands as those officials have themselves. For let it be re- 

 membered that by annoyances and expulsions such as these the door 

 of shelter is shut to American fishermen as a class. 



If a single refusal of that shelter, such as the present, is sustained, 

 it is a refusal of shelter to all fishermen pursuing their tasks on those 

 inhospitable coasts. Fishermen have not funds enough nor outfit 

 enough, nor, I may add, recklessness enough to put into harbors 

 where, perfect as is their title, they meet with such treatment as that 

 suffered by Captain Forbes. 



To sanction such treatment, therefore, is to sanction the refusal to 

 the United States fishermen as a body of that shelter to which they 

 are entitled by ancient right, by the law of nations, and by solemn 

 treaty. Nor is this all. That treaty is a part of a system of mutual 

 concessions. As was stated by a most eminent English judge in the 

 case of Sutton v. Sutton (1 Myl. & R., 675), which I have already 

 noticed, it was the principle of the treaty of peace, and of the trea- 

 ties which followed between Great Britain and the United States, that 

 the " subjects of the two parts of the divided Empire should, not- 

 withstanding the separation, be protected in the mutual enjoyment " 

 of the rights those treaties affirmed. If, as I cannot permit myself 

 to believe, Great Britain should refuse to citizens of the United States 

 the enjoyment of the plainest and most undeniable of these rights, 

 the consequences would be so serious that they cannot be contem- 

 plated by this Government but with the gravest concern. 

 I have, &c., 



T. F. BAYARD. 



Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West. 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

 Washington, October 20, 1886. 



SIR : Permit me to ask you to draw the attention of your Govern- 

 ment to the case set forth in the inclosed affidavit of Murdock Kemp, 

 master of the American fishing vessel Pearl Nelson, of Provincetown, 

 Mass., which has been subjected to treatment, by the customs officials 

 at Arichat, Nova Scotia, inconsistent with the international law of 

 ordinary amity and hospitality, and also plainly violative of treaty 

 rights under the convention of 1818 between Great Britain and the 

 United States. 



The vessel in question was compelled by stress of weather to seek 

 shelter in the harbor of Arichat, Nova Scotia, and arrived late at 

 night, when the custom-house was closed. 



Before the custom-house was opened the next day the captain went 

 there, and after waiting over an hour the collector arrived, and the 

 usual inward report was made and permission asked to land the cloth- 

 ing of a sailor lost overboard, whose family resided in that vicinity. 



He was then informed that his vessel was seized for allowing his 

 crew to go ashore the night before before reporting at the custom- 

 house. 



