213 



Krcion. IL is niiirkcd there in red on the map. The cvidenee of that chiim, which 

 was tlie hasis of the seizure of the "Argus," is to be found in the correspondence 

 hetwceii Mr. Kverett and Lord Aberdeen on the subject. (Sec Mr. F>erett's letter 

 to Lord Al)ordecn. quoted from in the United States' Brief, on page 2L^ They like- 

 wise claimed to draw a lino from Margaree to Cape St. (leorge. You will find that 

 down there. Those ( 'nims were not merely made on the quarter-deck, but they 

 were made, some of tl ni, in diplomatic correspondence, some of them in resolutions 

 of the Nova Scotia 1. lature. They were made, and tliey were insisted upon; 

 and understanding tins, I think you will be prepared to understand why it was that 

 exclusion from such limits was regarded as important to our fishermen. You will 

 remember that one of our oldest witnesses, Kzra Turner, testilicd that the Captain 

 of the crnizcr '• told me what his t)rders were from Halifax, and he showed me his 

 marks on the chart. 1 well recollect three marks. One was from Margaree to 

 Cape St. (leorgc, and then a straight line from Kast Point to Cape St. George, and 

 then another straight line from Kast Point to North Cape. 'I'iic Captain said, ' If 

 you come witiiiii three miles of these lines, fishing, or attempting to fish, I will 

 consider you a prize' " And a Committee of the Nova Scotia Legislature, as late 

 as 1851, in tlioir report, say : " The American citizens, under the Treaty, have no 

 right, lor the purposes of the fishery, to enter any part of the Bay of St. George, 

 lying between the headlands formed by Cape George, on the one side, and Port 

 Hood Island on the other." 



Such were the claims made, and how weie those claims enforced? They were 

 enforced by the repeated seizure of our vessels, their detention until the fishing 

 season was over, and then their release. It appears by the returns that have 

 been made, in how many instances our fishing vessels were released without a trial, 

 after they had been detained until their voyages were ruined, and as our skippers 

 said in their testimony, it made no difference whether the seizure was lawful or 

 unlawful, the voyage was spoilt, and the value of the ves.sel almost entirely des- 

 troyed. There were repeated instances of which you have testimony, of cruizers 

 levying black mail upon skippers, taking a portion of their (isli by way of tribute 

 from them, and letting them go on their way. 



Mr. Thomnon. — Instead of seizing the whole? 



Mr. Foster. — Yes, instead of seizing the whole. No doubt the poor and ignorant 

 skipjiers wore thaiikfid to escape from the lioirs jaws with solittle loss as that. Let 

 me ^ive an inst.uice. There is a letter fnmi !Mr. Forsyth, the United States' Secre- 

 tary of State, to Mr. Fox, the British Minister at Washington, dated the 24th July, 

 18')!), in which .Mr. Forsyth requests the good offices of Her Majesty's Minister at 

 Waslungtim with the autliorities at Halifax, to secure to a fisherman too poor to 

 contend in the Admiralty C'uirt, the restoration of ten barrels of herrings, taken 

 from him by tiie ofiicer who liad seized his vessel, and withheld the herring after 

 the vessel itself was released. 



Weil, what were the laws enacted to enforce these pretensions .' A Nova Scotia 

 Statute ol ]x'Mi, alter providing lor the forfeiture of any vessel found fishing, or 

 preparing to fisli, or to have l)ecn fishing, within three miles of the coasts, bays, 

 creeks, or liarbours, and providing that il tiie master, or person in command, 

 siiould not truly answer the (|uestions put to him in examination by the boarding 

 olHccr, he sliotdd forfeit the sum of 100/., goes on to provide that if any goods 

 shipped on tiie vessel were seized for any cause of forfeiture under this Act, and any 

 dispute arises whether they have been Jawlully seizetl, the burden of proof to show 

 tiie illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant of the goods, ship, 

 or vessel, and not on the officer or person who shall seize and stop the same. 

 Tlte burden of |)roof to sliow that the seizure was unlawful, was on the man 

 whose schooner had been brought to by the guns of the cutter. He was to be 

 taken into a foreign port, and there required affirmatively to make out that his 

 vessel and its ccmtents were not liable to forfeiture. If he attem|)ted any defence, 

 he was not permitted to do so, until he had given sufficient security in the sum of 

 fiO/. lor the costs. He must commence no suit until !ie had given one calendar 

 month's notice in writinc: of his intention to do so, i'l order that the seizing officer 

 might make amends if he chose; and he must i)ring his suit within three months 

 after the cause of action accrued, and if lie failed in the suit, treble costs were to 

 l)c awarded against him; while, if he succeeded in llu- suit, and the presiding 

 .ludge certified that there was probable c.misc for the (.(i/.ure, he was to be entitled to 

 no costs, and the officer making the seizure was not lolie liable to any action. That 

 Act, <mly vcrv slightly modified, but with most of its oHenaivc provisions still 

 [280] ■ J U 



