906 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



can be no question that the master, by permitting his men to land, 

 was guilty of a violation of sections 25 and 180 of the customs act. 

 There seems to be reason to doubt his statement that he was driven 

 into Arichat by stress of weather; but, be this as it may, the fact of 

 his having entered the harbor for a lawful purpose would not carry 

 with it a right to evade the law to which all vessels frequenting 

 Canadian ports are amenable. In this case, as in that of the Everett 

 Steele, already referred to, the statement of the master that his offense 

 was due to inadvertence was accepted, and the fine imposed at once 

 remitted. 



I observe that in his dispatch relating to the first of these cases 

 Mr. Bayard insists with much earnestness upon the fact that certain 

 " prerogatives " of access to the territorial waters of the Dominion 

 were specially reserved under the convention of 1818 to the fishermen 

 of the United States, and that a vessel entering a Canadian harbor 

 for any purpose coming within the terms of Article 1 of that conven- 

 tion has as much right to be in that harbor as she would have to be 

 upon the high seas, and he proceeds to institute a comparison between 

 the detention of the Everett Steele and the wrongful seizure of a 

 vessel on the high seas upon the suspicion of being engaged in the 

 slave trade. Mr. Bayard further calls attention to the special con- 

 sideration to which, from the circumstances of their profession, the 

 fishermen of the United States are, in his opinion, entitled, and he 

 dwells upon the extent of injury which would result to them if they 

 were debarred from the exercise of any of the rights assured to them 

 by treaty or convention. 



I observe that in Sir Julian Pauncefote's letter inclosed in your 

 dispatch it is stated that the secretary of state for foreign affairs 

 wishes to urge upon the Dominion Government the great importance 

 of issuing stringent instructions to its officials not to interfere with 

 any of the privileges expressly reserved to United States fishermen 

 under Article 1 of the convention of 1818. 



I trust that the explanations which I have already been able to give 

 in regard to the cases of these vessels will have satisfied you that the 

 facts disclosed do not show any necessity for the issuing of instruc- 

 tions other than those already circulated to the local officials intrusted 

 with the execution of the customs as fishery law. 



There is certainly no desire on the part of my Government (nor, 

 I believe, does the conduct of the local officials justify the assumption 

 that such a desire exists) to curtail in any respect the privileges 

 enjoyed by United States fishermen in Canadian waters. It can not 

 on the other hand be contended that because these privileges exist, 

 and are admitted by the Government of the Dominion, those who 

 enjoy them are to be allowed immunity from the regulations to which 

 all vessels resorting to Canadian waters are without exception sub- 

 jected under the customs act of 1883 and the different statutes relating 

 to the fisheries of the Dominion. 



In both of the cases under consideration there was a clear and un- 

 doubted violation of the law, and the local officials would have been 

 culpable if they had omitted to notice it. That there was no animus 

 on their part or on that of the Canadian Government is, I think, 

 clearly proved by the promptitude with which the circumstances were 

 investigated and the readiness shown to overlook the offense, and to 

 remit the penalty incurred, as soon as proof was forthcoming that the 



