QUESTION FOUE. 69 



and 1887 in connection with the seizures, or threatened seizures, 

 for violation of the customs laws, and that made in the diplomatic 

 correspondence between Great Britain and the United States which 

 commenced in 1905. 



In the dispute in 1886 and 188T, the United States did not take 

 the position that colonial legislation requiring American fishing- 

 vessels to enter or report at customs was unreasonable. The real 

 charge made by the United States, at that time, was that the action 

 of the Canadian customs officers was violent and hostile, not that 

 the customs legislation was unwarranted (British Counter-Case, 

 p. 40). 



The contention that the United States made will be found in letters 

 addressed by Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps of the 19th October and 6th 

 November, 1887. The position taken by the Canadian Government 

 is shown in an Order-in-Council (15th January, 1887), the principal 

 part of which reads as follows (British Case, App., pp. 352, 374) : 



" 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 harbours for the 

 purposes allowed by the Treaty of 1818. It is needless to say that 



this assumption is entirely incorrect. 



80 " Canada has a very large extent of sea coast with numerous 



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 be prevented. 



" These Customs regulations, 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 commerce that they should be allowed access to our ports 

 without the same strict supervision as is exercised over all other for- 

 eign vessels. Otherwise there would be no guarantee 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 puropse of obtaining shelter, repairs, and procuring wood and 

 water, but in exercising this right, they are not and cannot be inde- 

 pendent of the Customs Laws. 



" They have the right to enter for the purposes set forth, but there 

 is onty one legal way in which to enter and that is by conformity to 

 the Customs regulations. 



"When Mr. Bayard asserts that Captain Forbes had as much 

 right to be in Shelburne Harbour seeking shelter and water ' as he 

 would have had on the high seas carrying on under the shelter of the 

 flag of the United States legitimate commerce,' he is undoubtedly 

 right, but when he declares as he in reality does, that to compel 



