ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

above-mentioned may bring such vessel or boat into port and search her cargo, and also examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and if the master or person in command shall not truly answer the questions demanded of him in the examination he shall forfeit £100; and if there be any prohibited goods on board, then such vessel or boat, with the cargo thereof, shall be forfeited."

3. That "if the vessel or boat shall be foreign, and not navigated according to the laws of Great Britain and Ireland, and shall have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, within 3 marine miles of such coasts or harbours, such vessel or boat, or cargo shall be forfeited."

It then provides for the method of procedure, &c. This provision was re-enacted in the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia by the Provincial Act of the 7th May, 1858. This re-enactment contained in its 22nd section or title 25, chapter 94, a provision suspending those parts of it relating to American fishing-vessels during the continuance of the treaty of reciprocity of 1854.

The committee has not been able to discover any orders in council made by the British King, as authorized by the Act (59 Geo. III, cap. 58); and, so far as we have been able to examine, the regulation of the entrance of American fishermen within the limits wherein they were not entitled to fish has been made by colonial statutes such as have been above recited. That of Prince Edward's Island of 1843 (6 Vic., cap. 14) the committee thinks fairly illustrates the nature of legislative regulations on the subject down to the reciprocity treaty of 1854, and so, in effect, until the expiration of that treaty in 1866. This Act provided:

1. Proper officers were authorized to go and remain on board an American fishing vessel during her continuance within the waters. where she was not entitled to fish.

2. If the vessel was bound elsewhere, and should continue hovering within the 3 mile limit for twenty-four hours after she had been required to depart, then the officer might take her into port, search her cargo, examine the master, &c.

3. If, on such examination, any goods should be found prohibited to be imported into the island, there should be a forfeiture.

4. If the vessel should have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, in prohibited waters, a forfeiture should follow.

It will be seen that this provision carefully excludes the right to seize and proceed against an American fishing vessel that had come within British waters, where fishing was not allowed, for the purposes named in the treaty, and only authorised British officers to require the vessel to depart if, instead of coming into a bay or roadstead and coming to anchor, she was "hovering" on the coast and within the prohibited limits, and provided for her forfeiture when so "hovering" only upon its being discovered, on an examination, that she had contraband goods on board, or had been violating the provisions of the treaty by abusing the privilege of her entrance and shelter by fishing, &c. And in all these cases the ordinary modes of judicial investigation and fair play were provided for, except

(a.) That the burden of proof was thrown on the claimant of the vessel in case of dispute as to whether the seizure had been lawful;

92909-S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 4—52

(b.) That no suit should be brought for an illegal seizure until one month after notice in writing had been served on the seizing officer of an intention to sue, and the grounds of action;

393

(c.) And, further, that a statute of limitations, in respect of all such illegal seizures, of three months only, was provided. The committee does not see any just ground of criticism of those parts of this Act that relate to the conduct of American fishing vessels coming within waters where fishing was prohibited; but when it comes to the matter of just and reasonable judicial determination of any question arising, the committee does think that the methods and limitations of procedure were harsh and unjust, and beyond the right of the British Government to provide, under its authority by the treaty to make only such restrictions as should be necessary to prevent the abuse by the American fishermen of their right to enter non-fishing waters.

But the foregoing species of legislation has been considerably improved upon, in an unjust direction, by the Dominion Act of the 22nd May, 1868 (31 Vic., cap. 61), which authorised the officials to require any vessel which was not hovering on the coast, but which had come within a harbour, to depart from such harbour on twentyfour hours' notice, and, on failure of such departure, to bring her into port for that mere cause, and without any suspicion or ground of suspicion that she had violated, or intended to violate, either the treaty or the laws of Canada, and without any limitation as to the length of time she might be detained in port, or any security for just and fair treatment of the American fishing vessel, which might have sought shelter in such harbour, or come there for any of the lawful causes named in the treaty.

It also provided for punishing the master if he failed to answer any question put to him touching the cargo or voyage.

It also provided that the consent of the seizing person should be necessary in order to enable the judge of the Admiralty Court to release the vessel on proper security.

It also, as in the case of the former Act, put the burden of proving innocence on the claimant.

It also provided that no suit should be brought for any illegal conduct of those officers until after a month's notice in writing, and that the notice should contain the cause of action.

It also provided that "no evidence of any cause of action shall be produced except such as shall be contained in such notice."

It also provided that every such action should be brought within three months after the cause of action had arisen.

It also provided that if, in any such suit, judgment should be given against the seizing person, and there should be a certificate of probable cause, then the plaintiff should only recover 3 cents damages and no costs, and that no fine beyond 20 cents should be imposed upon the respondent.

On the 12th May, 1870, the Dominion Act of 33 Vic., cap. 15, was passed, repealing the 3rd section of the last-mentioned Act on the subject of bringing vessels into port, &c., and provided, in lieu thereof, that any of the officers or persons before-mentioned might bring any vessel, being within any harbour in Canada, or hovering in British waters within 3 miles of the coast, into port, search her cargo, examine her master on oath &c., without any previous notice to de-.

:

part, which had been required by the former Act. So that an American vessel fishing at sea, being driven by stress of weather, want of wood or water, or need of repairing damages, which should run into a Canadian harbour, under the right reserved to it by the treaty of 1818, the moment her anchor was dropped or she was within the shelter of a headland, was, at the discretion of the Canadian official, to be immediately seized and carried into port which might be, and often would be, many miles from the place where she would have her safe shelter or could obtain her wood and water or repair her damages.

The committee thinks it is not too much to say that such a provision is, in view of the treaty, and of the common principles of comity among nations, grossly in violation of the rights secured by the treaty and of that friendly conduct of good neighborhood that should exist between civilised nations holding relations such as ought to exist between the United States and Her Majesty's dominions.

This last provision was substantially re enacted, with the Royal approval of the Queen, given on the 26th November, 1886, with the addition that if any such vessel had entered such waters for any purpose not permitted by treaty or convention, or by any law of the United Kingdom or Canada for the time being in force, she should be forfeited, &c.

From all this it would seem that it is the deliberate purpose of the British Government to leave it to the individual discretion of each one of the numerous subordinate magistrates, fishery officers, and customs officers of the Dominion of Canada to seize and bring into port any American vessels, whether fishing or other, that he finds within any harbour in Canada or hovering within Canadian waters. The statute does not even except those Canadian waters in which, along a large part of the southern coast and the whole of the western coast of Newfoundland, they are entitled to fish, to say nothing of the vast extent of the continental coast of Canada.

The committee repeats its expression of the firm opinion that this legislation is in violation of the treaty of 1818, as it respects American fishing-vessels, and in violation of the principles of comity and good neighborhood that ought to exist in respect of the commercial intercourse, or the coming of the vessels of either, having any commercial character, within the waters of the other. Had it been intended to harass and embarrass American fishing and other vessels, and to make it impracticable for them to enjoy their treaty and other common rights, such legislation would have been perfectly adapted to that end.

The instances in which this sort of legislation has been applied during the last year, to the great embarrassment and injury of American rights and interests-although in some of them it may doubtless appear that there has been some merely formal or technical violation of some Canadian Customs statute or regulation-are the following:

394 Vessels denied the Right or Privilege of purchasing Coal or Ice or of transhipping Fish at Ports of the Dominion, or refused other Rights or Privileges therein.

"Novelty" (steamship) denied the right to take in coal, or pur. chase ice, or tranship fish in bond to the United States, at Pictou,

N. S., July, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 24-25, 49-50-51. This rep., 3, 15, 105, 106.)

"Golden Hind," of Gloucester, Mass., was refused the right to take water in Port Daniel, Bay of Chaleur, July 23, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 43, 47, 192– 193. This rep., 162.)

"Mollie Adams," of Gloucester, Mass., Solomon Jacobs, master; his water supply having become exhausted by accident, Captain Jacobs put into Port Mulgrave, N. S., on the 31st August 1886, to replenish the same, but was refused the privilege of buying barrels, and was notified that if he did purchase barrels his vessel would be seized. A serious loss was occasioned through this action. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 45-46, 61-63. This rep., 88, 146.)

"A. R. Crittenden," of Gloucester, Mass., Joseph E. Graham, master. Stopped at Steep Creek, Strait of Canso, on July 21, 1886, homeward bound from the open-sea fishing grounds to obtain a supply of water, which was refused, the customs officer notifying Captain Graham that if he took in water his vessel would be seized. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 47, 48, 152. This rep., 153, 196.)

"Pearl Nelson," of Provincetown, Mass., Murdock Kemp, master. Was seized in the harbour of Arichat, N. S., September 8, 1886, and compelled to pay commercial fees, but was denied privileges which such fees are paid to secure. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 54-61, 193-197. This rep., 54, 66.)

"Laura Sayward," of Gloucester, Mass., Medeo Rose, master. Was on the 6th October, 1886, while in the port of Shelburne, N. S., refused permission to buy provisions, &c., sufficient to last the crew on the homeward trip of the vessel; the vessel's papers were retained by the collector for an undue length of time, &c. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 58-59.)

"Jeannie Šeaverns," of Gloucester, Mass., Joseph Tupper, master. While in the port of Liverpool, N. S., Captain Quigley, of the Dominion cruiser "Terror," prevented Captain Tupper from landing to visit relatives in Liverpool, and forbade Captain Tupper's relatives from going on board the "Jeannie Seaverns," placing a guard aboard of her while she was in that port. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, 58-59, and 60.)

"Jennie and Julia," of Eastport, Me., W. H. Farris, master. While in Digby harbour, N. S., April (?) 18, 1886, was denied the privilege of buying herring. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 169–170.)

"James A. Garfield," threatened with seizure on opportunity; charged with having purchased bait or ice in Dominion port or ports. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, p. 171.) "Abbie A. Snow," of Gloucester, Mass., Jeremiah Hopkins, master. Subjected to constant surveillance in harbour at Shelburne, N. S., by Captain Quigley, of Dominion cruiser" Terror," who finally boarded her with an armed guard, took Captain Hopkins ashore under armed guard, and threatened him with trouble if he revisited Shelburne. (This rep., pp. 135-36, 138.)

"Highland Light," of Provincetown, Mass. Seized off the northeast point of Prince Edward Island for catching fish within 3-mile limit. (This rep., pp. 34, 153.)

"Eliza A. Thoms," of Portland, Me., having gone ashore at Malpeque, laden with a fare of fish, the owners were not permitted to ship home either the fish, boats, or seines by vessels, but were, after delay, compelled to ship them by rail. (This rep., pp. 259–260.)

Vessels seized by Canadian Authorities on the Charge of Violating the Fishery Regulations of the Dominion.

"David J. Adams," owned at Newburyport, Mass.; Aldon Kinney, master. Seized at Digby, N. S., May 7, 1886. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 6, 13, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 150, 164, 168, 176, 177, 178, et seq. This rep., p. 151.)

"Ella M. Doughty," owned at Kennebunk, Me.; Warren A. Doughty, master. Seized at Englishtown, C. B., May 17, 1886. Released June 19, 1886; bail, $3,400. Proceedings for remission. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Èx. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146. This rep., 255.)

"City Point," owned at Booth Bay, Me.; Stephen Keene, master. Seized at Shelburne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $400 alleged fine. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 44, 178, 193. This rep., 238.)

"George W. Cushing," owned at Bath, Me.; C. B. Jewett, master. Seized at Shelburne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $400 alleged fine. (Senat Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 142, 178, 182, 184. This rep., 262.)

"C. B. Harrington," owned at Portland, Me.; John Frelick, master. Seized at Shelburne, N. S., July 3, 1886. Released on payment of $400 alleged fine. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session. This rep., 262.)

395

Vessels seized by the Canadian Authorities on the Charge of Violating Commercial or Trading Laws or Regulations of the Dominion.

"W. D. Daisley," of Gloucester, Mass. Seized at Souris, October 1886, on the charge that one of the crew had landed flour at Canso in the previous August. (This rep., p. 197.

"The Druid," of Gloucester, Mass.; John McQuinn, master. Sailing under register to buy fish, not to catch, and having on board no apparatus for fishing, was twice boarded by the captain of the Dominion cruiser "Houlett," with armed men, and once detained two nights and a day under armed guard at Malpeque on a charge of technical violation of Customs regulations; subsequently released. (This rep., pp. 129-132.)

"Moro Castle," of Gloucester, Mass.; Edwin Joyce, master. Seized at Port Mulgrave, in the Strait of Canso, September 11, 1886; stripped and held for an offence alleged to have been committed in 1884. (This rep., p. 217, et seq.)

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »