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 Seaverns," 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. Ex. 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. (Senate 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.)

Vessels detained by Canadian Authorities on the Charge of Violating of Fishery or Trading Regulations of the Dominion of Canada.

"Joseph Story," owned at Essex, Mass. Seized at Baddeck, Cape Breton, April 24, 1886; released April 25, 1886. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.)

66

Matthew Keany," owned at Bath, Me. Detained twenty-four hours. (Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.) "Hereward," owned at Essex, Mass.; McDonald, master. Seized July 3, 1886, at Canso. (Sen. Éx. Doc. No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session; H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, p. 190.)

"Everett Steele," of Gloucester, Mass.; Charles E. Forbes, master. Detained in the port of Shelburne, N. S., 10th September, 1886, by Captain Quigley, of the "Terror," who boarded the "Steele," took her papers, and put her in charge of a policeman till the following day, when she was discharged by the collector. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 52, 53, 54, 56, 153. This rep., 216.)

Vessels warned off by Canadian Authorities on the ground that they were about to Violate the Fishery or Trading Laws or Regulations of the Dominion.

"Annie M. (or H.) Jordon," of Gloucester, Mass., was refused entry at the port of St. Andrews, N. B., although licensed to touch. and trade. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 15, 171-172, 175-176. This rep., 461.)

"Martha A. Bradley," "Rattler," "Eliza Boynton," and "Pioneer," of Gloucester, Mass., were warned by the sub-collector of customs at Canso to keep outside an imaginary line drawn from a point 3 miles outside Canso Head to a point outside St. Esprit, on the Cape Breton coast, a distance of 40 miles. This line, for nearly its entire continuance, is distant 12 to 25 miles from the coast. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 16, 42, 44, 48-49, 56-57, 120-123, 190-191. This rep., 153, 195.)

"Thomas F. Bayard," of Gloucester, Mass.; James McDonald, master. Warned off by customs officials at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, July 12, 1886. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 26-27, 46-47, 146-147, 150-151, 187–189.)

"Mascot," of Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander McEachern, master. Warned by customs officials at Port Amherst, Magdalen Islands, June 10, 1886, that if fresh bait was purchased vessel would be seized. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 46-47, 118-119-120, 146-147, 150-152.)

Vessels subjected to Hostile Treatment by Dominion Officials.

The "Shiloh" and the "Julia Ellen." While these vessels were entering the harbour of Liverpool, N. S., Captain Quigley, of the Canadian cruiser "Terror," fired a gun across their bows to hasten their coming to, and placed a guard of two armed men on board each vessel, which guard remained on board until the vessels left the harbour. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 44, 122-123. This rep., 168.)

"Marion Grimes," of Gloucester, Mass.; Alexander Landry, master. Was in port of Shelburne, N. S., October 11, 1886, under detention for alleged infraction of customs regulations, and while so there Captain Quigley, of the Dominion cruiser "Terror," compelled Captain Landry to haul down his (the United States') flag; upon its being run up a second time, Captain Quigley went on board the “Grimes" and hauled the flag down with his own hands. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 124-125, 153-163.)

It will be seen from the correspondence and papers submitted by the President, in his Message on the subject of the 8th December last (Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session), and from the testimony taken by the committee, that some of these instances of seizure or detention, or of driving vessels away by threats, &c., were in clear violation of the treaty of 1818, and that others were on such slender and technical grounds, either as applied to fishing rights or commercial rights, as to make it impossible to believe that they were

made with the large and just object of protecting substantial 396 rights against real and substantial invasion, but must have been

made either under the stimulus of the cupidity of the seizing officer, sharpened and made safe by the extraordinary legislation to which the committee has referred, whereby the seizing officer, no matter how unjust or illegal his procedure may have been, is made practically secure from the necessity of making substantial redress to the party wronged, or of punishment, or else they must have arisen from a systematic disposition on the part of the Dominion authorities to vex and harass American fishing and other vessels so as to produce such a state of embarrassment and inconvenience with respect to intercourse with the provinces as to coerce the United States into arrangements of general reciprocity with the Dominion.

In respect of general reciprocity, the experience of the United States during the existence of the treaty of 1854 was such as to lead Congress, with great unanimity, to terminate it; and the experience of the United States, under such so-called reciprocity as was provided for by the treaty of 1871, was such as to lead both Houses, with very great unanimity, to terminate that. Each of these instances continued long enough to show fully the general working of the arrangement. The great balance of gain and advantage appeared to be in favour of the Canadians, while the great balance of loss and disadvantage fell on the people of the United States.

Indeed, the treaty of 1871, so far as it related to the fisheries, &c., was based upon the idea that the right of American fishermen to fish within 3 miles of the Dominion shores was of some considerable value, which the United States thought would be fully compensated by admitting Dominion fishermen to the waters of the United States and admitting their fish free of duty. Notwithstanding this, by the methods and results of setting the balance of pecuniary advantages by the Halifax Commission, the United States paid on the award of that commission (waiving the serious question of its irregularity) $5,500,000. So strong was the opinion of the United States, even at that time, that this award was wholly unjust in fact that it is understood that steps were taken to invite the British Government to terminate the fisheries clauses of the treaty of 1871 immediately and

before the positive period of ten years had expired, but it could not be accomplished.

From the investigations made by the committee during the last summer and fall, and as the result of the great mass of testimony taken by it and herewith returned, the committee believe it to be clear, beyond all dispute, that the right to fish within 3 miles of the Dominion shores is of no practical advantage whatever to American fishermen. The cod and halibut fishing has been for many years almost entirely carried on at long distances from the shores, in the deep waters, on banks, &c.; and it is believed that were there absolute liberty for Americans to fish, without restriction or regulation of any kind, within 3 miles of the Dominion shores, no such fishermen would ever think of going there for the purpose of catching cod or halibut. As regards the obtaining of bait for this class of fishing, the testimony taken by the committee in its enquiries clearly demonstrates that there is no necessity whatever for American fishermen to resort to Canadian waters for that purpose. Clam bait is found in immense quantities in our own waters, and there have been instances, so frequent and continuous as to amount to a habit, of the Canadians themselves resorting to American waters or ports for the purpose of obtaining it. The squid bait is found on the very banks where the fishing goes on. So that the instances would be extremely rare when any American fishing-vessel would wish to resort to a Dominion port for the purpose of buying bait for this kind of fishing.

It was also proved before the committee that, with the rarest exception, it would be absolutely injurious to the pecuniary interests of all concerned for American vessels to resort to Dominion ports or waters, except in need or distress, for the time taken in such departures from the cod and halibut grounds, or from direct sailing to and from them, is so great, that with or without the difference of port expenses, time and money are both lost in such visits.

In respect of the mackerel fishery the committee finds, as will be seen from the evidence referred to, that its course and methods have of late years entirely changed. While it used to be carried on by vessels fishing with hook and line, and sometimes near the shores, it is now almost entirely carried on by the use of immense seines, called purse-seines, of great length and descending many fathoms into the water. This gear is very expensive, and a fishing vessel does not usually carry more than one or two. The danger of fishing near the shore with such seines is so great, on account of striking rocks and reefs, that it is regraded as extremely hazardous ever to undertake it. Besides this, the large schools of mackerel, to the taking of which this great apparatus is best adapted, are almost always found more than 3 miles from land, either in great bays and gulfs, or entirely

out at sea.

There will be found accompanying this report (see Appendix) statements showing the total catch of mackerel during certain years, and the parts of the seas where they have been taken; and it will also be seen from the evidence that in general the mackerel fisheries by Americans in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and in the Bay of Chaleur have not been remunerative.

In view of all these facts, well known to the great body of the citi zens of the United States engaged in fisheries, and embracing every variety of interest connected therewith, from the wholesale dealer,