PERIOD FROM 18*71 TO 1905. 853 



States on Canadian coasts, breaking up their voyages and mulcting 

 them with fines and costs, it is important for reasons presently to be 

 specified that this Government should be advised of the fact. 



From Her Majesty's Government redress is asked. And that re- 

 dress, as I shall have occasion to say hereafter, is not merely the 

 indemnification of the parties suffering by Captain Quigley's actions, 

 but his withdrawal from the waters where the outrages I represent to 

 you have been committed. 



T have already said that the claims thus presented could be abun- 

 dantly sustained by the law of nations, aside from treaty and other 

 rights. But I am not willing to rest the case on the law of nations. 

 It is essential that the issue between United States fishing vessels and 

 the " cruiser Terror " should be examined in all its bearings, and set- 

 tled in regard not merely to the general law of nations, but to the 

 particular rights of the parties aggrieved. 



It is a fact that the fishing vessel Marion Grimes had as much right 

 under the special relations of Great Britain and the United States to 

 enter the harbor of Shelburne as had the Canadian cruiser. The fact 

 that the Grimes was liable to penalties for the abuse of such right of 

 entrance does not disprove its existence. Captain Quigley is certainly 

 liable to penalties for his misconduct on the occasion referred to. 

 Captain Landry was not guilty of misconduct in entering and seek- 

 ing to leave that harbor, and had abused no privilege. But whether 

 liable or no for subsequent abuse of the rights, I maintain that the 

 right of free entrance into that port, to obtain shelter, and whatever 

 is incident thereto, belonged as much to the American fishing vessel 

 as to the Canadian cruiser. 



The basis of this right is thus declared by an eminent jurist and 

 statesman, Mr. R. R. Livingston, the first Secretary of State ap- 

 pointed by the Continental Congress, in instructions issued on Jan- 

 uary 7, 1782, to Dr. Franklin, then at Paris, intrusted by the United 

 States with the negotiation of articles of peace with Great Britain : 



" The arguments on which the people of America found their claim 

 to fish on the banks of Newfoundland arise, first, from their having 

 once formed a part of the British Empire, in which state they always 

 enjoyed as fully as the people of Britain themselves the right of fish- 

 ing on those banks. They have shared in all the wars for the exten- 

 sion of that right, and Britain could with no more justice have ex- 

 cluded them from the enjoyment of it (even supposing that one 

 nation could possess it to the exclusion of another) while they formed 

 a part of that Empire than they could exclude the people of London 

 or Bristol. If so, the only inquiry is, how have we lost this right? 

 If we were tenants in common with Great Britain while united with 

 her, we still continue so, unless by our own act we have relinquished 

 our title. Had we parted with mutual consent, we should doubtless 

 have made partition of pur common rights by treaty. But the op- 

 pressions of Great Britain forced us to a separation (which must be 

 admitted, or we have no right to be independent) ; and it can not 

 certainly be contended that those oppressions abridged our rights or 

 gave new ones to Britain. Our rights, then, are not invalidated by 

 this separation, more particularly as we have kept up our claim from 

 the commencement of the war, and assigned the attempt of Great 

 Britain to exclude us from the fisheries, as one of the causes of our 

 recurring to arms." 



