QUESTION FOUE. 71 



has divided the territory of each State by metes and bounds, usually 

 by towns, cities, or counties, into collection districts, for the purpose 

 of collecting duties on imports, and in each collection district has 

 established a port of entry and ports of delivery. In that manner all 

 our sea-coast frontier is sub-divided for revenue purposes. The ob- 

 ject of our law is to place every vessel arriving from a foreign port 

 in the custody of a customs officer immediately upon her arrival, in 

 order that no merchandise may be unladen therefrom without the 

 knowledge of the Government. The Canadian law is much the same 

 as our own in that regard, and in comparison with our own does not 

 seem to me [to] be unnecessarily severe in its general provisions. 

 Our own law provides, for example (sec. 2774, Rev. Stat.) that: 



' ' Within twenty four hours after the arrival of any vessel, from 

 any foreign port, at any port of the United States established by 

 law, at which an officer of the customs resides, or within any 

 82 harbour, inlet, or creek thereof, if the hours of the business 

 of the office of the chief officer of customs will permit, or as 

 soon thereafter as such hours will permit, the master shall report to 

 such officer, and make report to the chief officer, of the arrival of the 

 vessel; and he shall within forty-eight hours after such arrival make 

 a further report in Avriting to the collector of the district, which re- 

 port shall be in the form, and shall contain all the particulars re- 

 quired to be inserted in and verified like the manifest. Every master 

 who shall neglect or omit to make either of such reports or declara- 

 tion, or to verify any such declaration as required, or shall not fully 

 comply with the true intent and meaning of this section, shall, for 

 each offence be liable to a penalty of one thousand dollars.' 



" Condemnation does not, in the opinion of this department, justly 

 rest upon the Dominion of Canada because she has upon her statute- 

 books and enforces a law similar to the foregoing, but because she 

 refuses to permit American deep sea fishing vessels, navigating and 

 using the ocean, to enter her ports for the ordinary purposes of trade 

 and commerce, even though they have never attempted to fish within 

 the territorial limits of Canada, and intend obedience to every re- 

 quirement of the customs laws, and of every other law of the port 

 which such vessels seek to enter." 



It will be seen from this extract that it was the view of the United 

 States Secretary of the Treasury that the requirement as to entry or 

 report at customs was reasonable, but that the attitude of Canada in 

 refusing commercial privileges to American fishing-vessels on the 

 non-treaty coast was subject to condemnation. But the question of 

 commercial privileges is not material to the point now under con- 

 sideration. The only question that arises here is whether the obli- 

 gation to report at customs is in conflict with the treaty liberty 

 conferred on American fishermen. 



The dispute in 1905 need not be again referred to. The material 

 portions of the correspondence are set out in this Argument under 

 Question No. 3. The United States did not then contend that the 

 practice was an unreasonable one. but that it was an infringement 

 of the treaty right, whether reasonable or unreasonable. In fact, the 



