PERIOD FROM 1871 TO 1905. 919 



vessels in Canadian waters or any sufficient case for the protest of 

 Mr. Bayard. 



The minister states that in the case of the Pearl Nelson no question 

 was raised as to her being a fishing vessel or her enjoyment of any 

 privileges guarantied by the treaty of 1818. Her captain was 

 charged with a violation of the customs law, and of that alone, by 

 having, on the day before reporting to the collector of customs at 

 Arichat, landed ten of his crew. 



This he admitted upon oath. When the facts were reported to the 

 minister of customs he ordered that the vessel might proceed upon 

 depositing $200, pending a fuller examination. This was done, and 

 the fuller examination resulted in establishing the violation of the 

 law and in finding that the penalty was legally enforceable. The 

 minister, however, in consideration of the alleged ignorance of the 

 captain as to what constituted an infraction of the law, ordered the 

 deposit to be refunded. 



In this case there was a clear violation of Canadian law; there 

 was no lengthened detention of the vessel ; the deposit was ultimately 

 remitted, and the United States consul-general at Halifax expressed 

 himself by letter to the minister as highly pleased at the result. 



The minister observes that in this case he is at a loss to discover any 

 well-founded grievance or any attempted denial of or interference 

 with any privileges guarantied to United States fishermen by the 

 treaty of 1818. 



The minister further observes that the whole argument and protest 

 of Mr. Bayard appears to proceed upon the assumption that these 

 two vessels were subjected to unwarrantable interference in that they 

 were called upon to submit to the requirements of Canadian customs 

 law, and that this interference was prompted by a desire to curtail 

 or deny the privileges of resort to Canadian harbors for the purposes 

 allowed by the treaty of 1818. 



It is needless to say that this assumption is entirely incorrect. 



Canada has a very large extent of sea-coast with numberless ports, 

 into which foreign vessels are constantly entering for purposes of 

 trade. It becomes necessary in the interests of legitimate commerce 

 that stringent regulations should be made by compulsory conformity 

 to which illicit traffic should bo prevented. These customs regula- 

 tions all vessels of all countries are obliged to obey, and these they 

 do obey, without in any way considering it a hardship. United 

 States fishing vessels come directly from a foreign and not distant 

 country, and it is not in the interests of legitimate Canadian com- 

 merce that they should be allowed access to our ports without the 

 same strict supervision as is exercised over all other foreign vessels, 

 otherwise there would be no guaranty against illicit traffic of large 

 dimensions to the injury of honest trade and the serious diminution 

 of the Canadian revenue. United States fishing vessels are cheerfully 

 accorded the right to enter Canadian ports for the purpose of obtain- 

 ing shelter, repairs, and procuring wood and water ; but in exercising 

 this right they are not, and can not be, independent of the customs 

 laws. They have the right to enter for the purposes set forth, but 

 there is only one legal way in which to enter, and that is by conform- 

 ity to the customs regulations. 



'When Mr. Bayard asserts that Captain Forbes had as much right 

 to be in Shelburne Harbor seeking shelter and water " as he would 



