m i ii i i L ' 



201 



of the iiwuUrs of the sniil rcnneh was to jirocurc finh, ainl lliiil tlity wui'c at the time of tlieir seizure 

 prepuriiij; to fish.' 



" ill tlie case of the achoonci's ' I'apiiieau ' and ' Mavy,' seized in .Iiiiie 1 'i'AQ for a violation of the 

 Fialiery I*i\vs, the Siuiie seizinj; oHicer set forth in his ii|ji(hivit, iis the f^nmiidi of the seizure of these 

 vessels, that ' the (lejiniieiit verily helicved that the sniil vessels were frei[uei.'tin,!^ tlie coast of this 

 Proviiieeyii/' tin /iiir/i'inf af fii/iinri ll(fri\imi\ for iii> otiifr jhu'/hi-ic. vli'iti'rcr.' 



''The seizure and enmU^ninalion (if ilies'' several ves-cl.s — four in 18.'J'.\ and two in It<fl) — cited in 

 the jMunjihlet referred to, in support of the \inusnal and evirenie nieasines of last snninuM', in rLlation to 

 American lisliinj,' vessels, allord, as will U- seen Iron i the fa'ls lic;c stated — no lei,'al jns'.ilication I'nr 

 stadi measures, and cannot lie rejrarded, in any respect, a\illiorilative adjudications u[):in the ]ioiut^ in 

 controvei-sy Itelween the United States and (ireal llritain resjiectin;,' the fisheries. 



" I have, ^c. 

 (.si,i,'nedi "M. M. .lACKSOX, 



" United StittM ('■hi-iv.L 

 '■ Hon. .1. ('. I'ancroft Davis, 



•'Assistant Sceietary of Slate, \V»sliin;,'ton, Tuited State-;." 



Referring; to the paper wliich was put in by the Britisli counsel, on page 12 ol" 

 document No. 31, there is !i Mcmoiiuuiuin oi' all the vessels seized and condciTincd 

 l)v tile Vice-Admiralty Court of Prince Kihvard Island, audit is stated at the end 

 oi' each case: "1 cannot (ind I'roni any pa|)ers in this case, at present in the 

 registry oC this Court, that this vessel was ever interl'iM-ed with by Government 

 ollicers for transshipping tish, or purchasing sniij)lies." As to the New IJrunswick 

 cases, of which there is a statement at the toj) of page 10, document 21, I am not 

 able to ascertain, because we have not access to the papers. There were not many 

 cases in New Brunswick; seven between 1822 and 18r;2. There is also at the foot 

 of page (i, document No. 15, a record of the cases condemned at Halifax. Mr. 

 J. S. b. Thompson has made a Memorandum of each of those cases, and there 

 is no CISC where a vessel was forfeited for buying bait or other supi)lies, <jr for 

 transshipping cargo. The statement of ")!) George ill is the same in substance 

 with the Colonial Statute. By that Statute vessels are iibelled and forfeited in the 

 Admiralty Court, for no other offence than that of being found fisliing, or having 

 fish on board, or preparing to lish. The fourth Article imposes a penalty of 200/.. 

 recoverable by action at common law, on a fisherman refusing to depart from the 

 territorial waters when warned by tlie party authorized to do so. Among the 

 Halifax cases it will appear that some are marked as restored, and two others, at 

 least, were restored upon payment of the ex|)enses, namely, the "Shetland" and 

 " Eliza." The " Washington " was paid for; and in no instance, as I am informed, 

 was there a condemnation for anything except fishing or preparing to fish; and 

 acts indicative of preparing to fish, arc always shown to be some acts of immediate 



? reparation, like having bait ready on board. Then we come in 1871 to Sir Wiliani 

 oung's decision, where he forfeited a vessel for buying bail, holditig that buying 

 bait was a preparation to fish. That was the case of the " Nickerson." The 

 vessel was seized in 1871, and forfeited the following year. About the same time a 

 similar case was tried in New Brunswick by Judge Hazen, who held the reverse of 

 Sir William Young's decision. Judge Hazen held that the purchase of bait, unless 

 it was proved to have been purchased to use in illegal fishing, was not a preparation 

 to lish illegally, and that a vessel that came into Halifax or St. John to buy bait to 

 fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, was not violating any Treaty. It was always 

 felt by the United States that the distinguished Judge. Sir William Young, had 

 overlooked the fact, that in the case before him the vessel that bought the bait did 

 not buy it to fish for mackerel in territorial waters, but on the coast of Newfound- 

 land. There is that one authority for holding that it was contrary to law to come 

 in here for cod, and buy bait for outside fishing, and, so far as I am aware, there arc 

 only these two cases on the question, and opinions are equally balanced. 



Mr. Thomson. — In the c.ise of the "White Fawn,'' tried by Judge Hazen, the 

 vessel was libelled for taking bait in our waters, with the intention of fisliing there. 

 She was not charged with the offt'ucc against the Treaty, of purchasing bait within 

 three miles of the shore, but she was distinctly cliargeil with obtaining bait with 

 the view of fishing there, and Judge Hazen held— and, I apprehend, projierlv held, 

 for he is an able lawyer and sound judge — that the evidence did not support the 

 allegation. The evidence probably showed that the intention was to take the vessel 

 and lish on the Banks of Newfoundland, where it hnd :io doubt a right to fish, and 

 therefore the case failed, because while the offence was complete, the allegation did 

 not sup[)ort it. 



J/r. Foster asked for further explanations. 



Mr. Thomson, — What I say is this: that while this was a distinct ofTence unde 



