854 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



As I had occasion to show in my note to the British minister in the 

 case of the Everett Steele, of which a copy is hereto annexed, this 

 "tenancy in common," held by citizens of the United States in the 

 fisheries, they were to "continue to enjoy" under the preliminary 

 articles of 1782, as well as under the treaty of peace of 1783 ; and this 

 right, as a right of entrance in those waters, was reserved to them, 

 though with certain limitations in its use, by the treaty of 1818. I 

 might here content myself with noticing that the treaty of 1818, 

 herein reciting a principle of the law of nations as well as ratifying 

 a right previously possessed by fishermen of the United States, ex- 

 pressly recognizes the right of these fishermen to enter the " bays or 

 harbors " of Her Majesty's Canadian dominions, " for the purpose of 

 shelter and of repairing damages therein." The extent of other 

 recognitions of rights in the same clause need not here be discussed. 

 At present it is sufficient to say that the placing an armed cruiser at 

 the mouth of a harbor in which the United States fishing vessels are 

 accustomed and are entitled to seek shelter on their voyages, such 

 cruiser being authorized to arrest and board our fishing vessels seek- 

 ing such shelter, is an infraction not merely of the law of nations, 

 but of a solemn treaty stipulation. That, so far as concerns the fish- 

 ermen so Effected, its consequences are far-reaching and destructive, it 

 is not necessary here to argue. Fishing vessels only carry provisions 

 enough for each particular voyage. If they are detained several days 

 on their way to the fishing banks the venture is broken up. The 

 arrest and detention of one or two operates upon all. They cannot as 

 a class, with their limited capital and resources, afford to run risks so 

 ruinous. Hence, rather than subject themselves to even the chances 

 of suffering the wrongs inflicted by Captain Quigley, " of the Cana- 

 dian cruiser Terror" on some of their associates, they might prefer 

 to abandon their just claim to the shelter consecrated to them alike by 

 humanity, ancient title, the law of nations, and by treaty, and face 

 the gravest peril and the wildest seas in order to reach their fishing 

 grounds. You will therefore represent to Her Majesty's Government 

 that the placing Captain Quigley in the harbor of Shelburne to in- 

 flict wrongs and humiliation on United States fishermen there seeking 

 shelter is, in connection with other methods of annoyance and injury, 

 expelling United States fishermen from waters, access to which, of 

 great importance in the pursuit of their trade, is pledged to them by 

 Great Britain, not merely as an ancient right, but as part of a system 

 of international settlement. 



It is impossible to consider such a state of things without grave 

 anxiety. You can scarcely represent this too strongly to Her 

 Majesty's Government. 



It must be remembered, in considering this system, so imperiled, 

 that the preliminaries to the article of 1782, afterwards adopted as 

 the treaty of 1783, were negotiated at Paris by Dr. Franklin, repre- 

 senting the United States, and Mr. Richard Oswald, representing 

 Lord Shelburne, then colonial secretary, and afterwards, when the 

 treaty was finally agreed on, prime minister. It must be remem- 

 bered, also, that Lord Shelburne, while maintaining the rights of the 

 colonies when assailed by Great Britain, was nevertheless unwilling 

 that their independence should be recognized prior to the treaty of 

 peace, as if it were a concession wrung from Great Britain by the 



