Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1878
No. 198.
Mr. Welsh
to Mr. Evarts.
London, November 9, 1878. (Received November 20.)
Sir: I received from Lord Salisbury, late in the evening of the 7th instant, his reply to your dispatch, No. 150, of the 28th of September last, in relation to the disturbance of American fishermen by certain inhabitants of Newfoundland. I sent you by cable yesterday, in cipher, such a summary of this reply as our limited time enabled us to prepare, and I now inclose two copies of the letter in print, with which we have been furnished through the courtesy of the foreign office.
I have, &c.,
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Welsh.
Sir: Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration the dispatch from Mr. Evarts, dated the 28th September, and communicated to me on the 12th ultimo, respecting the complaints made by the Government of the United States of the injuries sustained by American fishermen in Fortune Bay in January last.
This dispatch is in reply to my letter of the 23d August, in which I forwarded a copy of the report furnished by Captain Sulivan, of Her Majesty’s ship “Sirius,” on the occurrences in question. Mr. Evarts now remarks that the United States Government have not been put in possession of the depositions which form the basis of that report, and are unable, therefore, to say whether, upon their consideration, the view which the Government of the United States takes of these transactions upon the sworn statements of their own citizens would be at all modified.
Her Majesty’s Government have not had the opportunity of considering the statements in question; but the depositions which accompanied Captain Sulivan’s report, and which I now have the honor to forward, appeared to them, in the absence of other testimony, to be conclusive as regards the facts of the case.
Apart, however, from the facts, in respect to which there appears to be a material divergence between the evidence collected by the United States Government and that collected by the colonial authorities, Mr. Evarts takes exception to my letter of the 23d, on the ground of my statement that the United States fishermen concerned have been guilty of breaches of the law. From this he infers an opinion on my part that it is competent for a British authority to pass laws, in supersession of the treaty, binding American fishermen within the three-mile limit. In pointing out that the American fishermen had broken the law within the territorial limits of Her Majesty’s dominions, I had no intention of inferentially laying down any principles of international law; and no advantage would, I think, be gained by doing so to a greater extent than the facts in question absolutely require.
I hardly believe, however, that Mr. Evarts would in discussion adhere to the broad doctrine which some portion of his language would appear to convey, that no British authority has a right to pass any kind of laws binding Americans who are fishing in British waters; for if that contention be just, the same disability applies à fortiori to any other power, and the waters must be delivered over to anarchy. On the other hand, Her Majesty’s Government will readily admit—what is, indeed, self-evident—that British sovereignty, as regards those waters, is limited in its scope by the engagements of the treaty of Washington, which cannot be modified or affected by any municipal legislation. I cannot anticipate that with regard to these principles any difference will be found to exist between the views of the two governments.
If, however, it be admitted that the Newfoundland legislature have the right of binding Americans who fish within their waters by any laws which do not contravene existing treaties, it must further be conceded that the duty of determining the existence of any such contravention must be undertaken by the governments, and cannot be remitted to the discretion of each individual fisherman. For such a discretion, if exercised on one side, can hardly be refused on the other. If any American fisherman may violently break a law which he believes to be contrary to treaty, a Newfoundland fisherman may violently maintain it if he believes it to be in accordance with treaty. [Page 324] As the points in issue are frequently subtle, and require considerable legal knowledge, nothing but confusion and disorder could result from such a mode of deciding the interpretation of the treaty.
Her Majesty’s Government prefer the view that the law enacted by the legislature of the country, whatever it may be,—ought to be obeyed by natives and foreigners alike who are sojourning within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction; but that if a law has been inadvertently passed which is in any degree or respect at variance with rights conferred on a foreign power by treaty, the correction of the mistake so committed, at the earliest period after its existence shall have been ascertained and recognized, is a matter of international obligation.
It is not explicitly stated in Mr. Evarts’s dispatch that he considers any recent acts of the colonial legislature to be inconsistent with the rights acquired by the United States under the treaty of Washington. But if that is the case, Her Majesty’s Government will in a friendly spirit consider any representations he may think it right to make upon the subject, with the hope of coming to a satisfactory understanding.
I have, &c.,
Captain Sulivan to Vice-Admiral Sir E. Inglefield.
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, in obedience to your orders, I left Halifax on Saturday, the 8th instant, and proceeded to Fortune Bay, for the purpose of inquiring into the circumstances connected with the quarrel between the English and American fishermen in Long Harbor in January last, arriving off Brunet Island on the evening of Monday, the 10th. I anchored there for the night, the weather being thick, with fogs gathering; and on the evening of the 11th weighed and proceeded to Long Harbor, at the entrance of which the same afternoon I learnt that the “Pert” was at the head of the harbor (about 9 miles off). I therefore proceeded through the narrows and anchored in 6 fathoms about 7 miles from the entrance, and observed the “Pert” anchored about 3 miles farther in, when I recalled her, and on the following day anchored in company with her 4 miles farther down off Tickle Beach, where we found the disturbance of January last had taken place.
- 2.
- On this beach are two huts, occupied by fishermen who witnessed the affair, and having taken their evidence, which, with other evidence subsequently taken, will be forwarded with my report hereafter, we proceeded to Metter’s Cove, where a fisherman named Tharnell and another were examined on the same subject.
- 3.
- From information given by them I proceeded to St. Jacques the same afternoon, where, from Mr. Snellgrove, subcollector of customs, who was present at Tickle Beach shortly after the disturbance, and others who had witnessed the whole transaction, I obtained further important evidence, which, with my report, will be forwarded at the earliest opportunity when complete.
- 4.
- There have been at these places several complaints made to me on various subjects by some of the witnesses, disputes relative to land property and reports of barring herring, one being that a seine had been laid for this illegal purpose, and had been so for some days; in consequence of which I directed Captain Aitchison to proceed to the spot said to be barred and ascertain the truth of the information.
- 5.
- The “Pert” rejoined at Saint Jacques, and reported having found the seine as described, and taken possession of it. In other cases of complaint I was only able to take the evidence of those witnesses present at the time; but in the absence of others away fishing; I had to postpone the cases until my return from St. John’s.
- 6.
- On Monday, the 17th, I directed the “Pert” to proceed to St. John’s to coal, prior to her leaving for the east coast, and the same afternoon I left St. Jacques in this ship for St. John’s, where I arrived yesterday at 7 p.m., the mail from England for Halifax arriving a few hours afterward, and leaving early this morning.
- 7.
- I am unable to forward more than this letter, as the report on the subject of the American outrage is not complete; but the evidence is most complete, the witnesses corroborating each other, and goes completely to prove the Americans were entirely in the wrong, and brought the quarrel on themselves, first by illegally fishing and then by threatening them with a revolver.
- 8.
- I found on arrival the “Contest” at anchor, and the “Pert” arrived this morning, to await further orders.
I have, &c.,
Captain Sulivan to Rear-Admiral Sir E. Inglefield.
Sir: In obedience to your orders dated the 8th instant, in which I am directed to inquire into the differences which arose between British and United States fishermen in Fortune Bay in January last, I have the honor herewith to inclose the evidence obtained from several witnesses, together with my report on the subject; and, in further remarking thereon, desire to call your attention to those points in the evidence which have led me to the conclusions contained in that report.
It will be seen therein that there are four statutes which bear on the subject, and which have been infringed by the American fishermen, viz: Act. cap. 6, 1876, in amendment of consolidated statutes (1872); cap. 102, the proviso of the same as regards barring.
By the same act, 1876, sec. 4, and art. 18 of the treaty of Washington—
1. With respect to the first of these, the witness Silas Fudge says: “I witnessed the disturbance at Long Harbor on Sunday, the 6th January last; lam certain it was the 6th; I saw the seines in the water, two of them Americans, again. He (i. e., Jacobs, an American) had his in the boat; he had shot once and discharged his seine into Farrel’s, who was working for him.”
John Cluett stated that he was in Long Harbor on Sunday in January last. “They (the Americans) commenced hauling herring on Sunday about midday; the first American seine shot was that of Jacobs; there were two more American seines shot. He (Jacobs) had just hauled herring and shot them into Farrel’s seine, who was working for him; we remonstrated about breaking the law and fishing Sundays.”
All the evidence of the other witnesses is corroborative of the above; and the fact is even acknowledged by the Americans in their own evidence, as appears by the statements inclosed in the correspondence on this subject. It is therefore evident that they were illegally fishing, using seines, and hauling herring in January last contrary to the above-quoted statute, which prohibits the same between the 20th October and 25th April in any year.
2. That the American captains were setting and putting out seines and hauling and taking herring on Sunday, the 6th January, in direct violation of sec. 4, cap. 6. This is proved by the evidence of all the witnesses.
John Saunders says: “In January last—one Sunday, I don’t know the date—the Americans laid out their seines, assisted by the English employed by them; the Newfoundlanders told them to take them up, as it was not legal their fishing on Sundays; there was no other reason for destroying nets but for fishing on Sundays. They went to McCauley, who had laid his seine out for barring herring; the Newfoundlanders said it should not be done on a Sabbath day.”
3. That the Americans were barring herring, that is, confining them in the seines for a considerable time, instead of forthwith, hauling them. By the evidence of Silas Fudge “He (Captain Jacobs) had shot once and discharged his seine into Tom Farrel’s, who was working for him.”
John Saunders says: “Jacobs upset his seine into Farrel’s seine, who was employed by him. Farrel was barring for the Americans, and was not allowed by Jacobs to haul his seine.”
Mark Bolt says: “The Americans do not bar fish; this was the first time I ever knew them to do so.”
Richard Hendriken says: “Samuel Jacobs would persist in hauling, and hauled once and barred them in Farrel’s net. Farrel was working for them, and had been barring herring for several days, perhaps about a fortnight, by the Americans’ orders. I believe it is illegal barring herring, but we have no power to stop it; it is no good telling a magistrate; they take no notice of him.”
4. That they were interfering with the rights of British fishermen in their peacable use of that part of the coast occupied by them, &c. By all the evidence given, it occurred on Tickle Beach, Long Harbor, on which, as was seen by us, was a Newfoundland fishing settlement, the land being granted by government, as stated by Mark Bolt, who says: “I have been in the neighborhood fourteen or fifteen years. The ground I occupy, 150 feet, was granted me for life by government, and for which I now pay a fee; there are two families on the beach; there were three in the winter; our living is dependent on our fishing off this settlement.”
The above are the main points in the evidence on which my report is founded.
In conclusion, I beg to inform you that I have forwarded a copy of the report to his excellency the governor of Newfoundland and the duplicate direct to their lordships, in order to insure their receiving it at the same time as the colonial office will.
I have, &c.,
Report on differences that arose between British and United States fishermen in January, 1878, by Captain Sulivan, of Her Majesty’s ship “Sirius.”
Having carefully weighed the evidence given on oath before me by Newfoundland fishermen present at the time, together with that inclosed in the correspondence forwarded for my perusal, I am of opinion—
- 1.
- That the Americans were using seines for eatching herring on the 6th January, 1878, in direct violation of title XXVII, chap. 102, sec. 1, of the consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, viz: “No person shall haul or take herring by or in a seine, or other such contrivance, on or near any part of the coast of this colony or of its dependencies, or in any of the bays, harbors, or other places therein, at any time between the 20th day of October and the 25th day of April.”
- 2.
- That the American captains were setting and putting out seines and hauling and taking herring on Sunday, the 6th January, in direct violation of sec. 4, chap. 7, of the act passed 26th April, 1876, entitled, “An act to amend the law relating to the coast fisheries,” viz: “No person shall, between the hours of twelve o’clock on Saturday night and twelve o’clock on Sunday night haul or take any herring, caplin, or squid, with net seines, bunts, or any such contrivance, or set or put out any such net, seine, bunt, or contrivance, for the purpose of such hauling or taking.”
- 3.
- That they were barring fish in direct violation of the continuance of the same act, title XXVII, chap. 102, sec. 1, of the consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, “or at any time use a seine or other contrivance for the catching or taking of herrings, except by the way of shooting and forthwith hauling the same.”
- 4.
- That, contrary to the terms of the treaty of Washington, in which it is expressly provided that they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose (see Article XVIII of the above-named treaty), they were fishing illegally, interfering with the rights of British fishermen and their peaceable use of that part of the coast then occupied by them, and of which they were actually in possession, their seines and boats, their huts, gardens, and land granted them by government being situated thereon (see Mark Bolt’s evidence).
- 5.
- It is distinctly shown in the evidence that the cause of the difference commenced with the Americans by their persisting in shooting their seines on the Sunday, as the Englishmen who worked for them would not do it on that day, not only on account of its being illegal, but of their religious regard for the Sabbath, which is always strictly kept by them; and although it must be observed that the result of this illegal fishing would have been that the Americans would have secured the whole of the herring in the bay on that day to the exclusion of the rights and fair chances of all the others during the week, yet there is no evidence to prove that this, or anything else but the fact of its being Sunday, and the law and custom among themselves regarding it, prompted them to demand that the seines should be withdrawn.
- 6.
- It is shown by the evidence of all those witnesses present at the time that the Americans were remonstrated with, and told to take their seines up prior to any serious steps being taken, and it is also distinctly proved that no violence was resorted to until after the exasperating conduct of Captain Jacobs, the American master of a schooner, concerned in this illegal fishing, who threatened them with a revolver if they prevented him or interfered with his seine.
- 7.
- It does not appear that the native fishermen were aware of the illegality of hauling a seine in the month of January; it is therefore to be presumed that the Americans were also ignorant of that law, although their ignorance cannot exonerate them from the breach, nor does it exonerate John Hickey, an Englishman, who is charged with the same offense, and who it is my intention to summon before me to answer to that charge.
- 8.
- The statement of the Americans, that they were compelled to leave the harbor and leave off fishing, is entirely without foundation, which is proved by the evidence of those examined before me, among whom was Mr. Snellgrove, collector of customs, who was there a week after the occurrence, and commuicated with them, and by the evidence of others to the effect that they remained for about a fortnight or more, “until the herrings slacked,” and with respect to their loss of the haul of herring by the seine being emptied, the fish were not their lawful property, having been illegally caught.
In support of this view of the conduct of the Americans, I am not only borne out by the evidence of the Fortune Bay fishermen, who made their statements in a remarkably frank and straightforward manner, but by the self-convicting evidence of those very Americans themselves, whose depositions, given on oath, show them to have been illegally fishing, and who were liable thereby to the forfeiture of their seines, nets, &c., by chap. 102, sec. 12, of the consolidated statutes.
Captain and Senior Officer.
Deposition of John Saunders.
The examination of John Saunders, of Tickle Beach, Long Harbor, taken upon oath, and who saith:
In January last there were a great number, close on one hundred, schooners and boats fishing for herring, both American and Newfoundlanders. The Americans were employing the English to haul their seines for them. There were some English schooners who had seines also. One Sunday, I do not know the date, John Hickey laid out a seine and was told by the English or Newfoundlanders to take it up, as it was Sunday, which he did. The Americans laid out their seines, assisted by the English employed by them. The Newfoundlanders told them to take them up, as it was not legal, their fishing on that day, being Sunday. J. McDonald took his up. Jacobs upset his net into Farrel’s seine, who was employed by him. Farrel was barring for the Americans, and was not allowed by Jacobs to haul his seine until the hard weather came. After Jacobs had upset his seine into Farrel’s he took it up to shoot again, and threatened with the revolver any one who interfered. Then they told McCauley to take his up, but he didn’t, so the people hauled it in and tore it up.
I don’t know any man concerned in the destruction of the net that I could swear to but one, John Pitman, a servant to Samuel Pardy, who was at “Jack Fountain.”
There was no other reason that I know of destroying nets but for fishing on Sunday, and because they would not take them up when they were told. The Americans never hauled a seine before that day; they always employed the English to use their seines and bought fish from the English. The only reason that the Americans laid their seines out on that day was because there were plenty of herrings, and no Englishman would haul them, being Sunday, excepting Hickey, who had been compelled to take his seine up.
Question. Where does Philip Farrel live?—Answer. In Bay-de-North, and so does Thomas Farrel.
Q. Was any obstruction or hinderance placed in the way of the Americans before or after that Sunday?—A. No.
Q. Did they remain in the harbor until the close of the season; until the herrings slacked away were any Americans compelled to leave the coast after this circumstance?—A. No; there was nothing to prevent their remaining, and they remained for some days, until the weather become soft, and there were no more herrings in the bay. Most of them left, but one American schooner remained about three weeks after that, when another lot of herrings came into the bay, and he filled up and went away the next fair wind. Jim Boy was the captain’s name.
Q. Do you know any American of the name of Dago?—A. Yes; he has part in this seine. The Americans hauled their seine on the beach immediately in front of my property.
Q. Do you know the names of the schooners?—A. No.
Q. Do you know the names of the owners of the seine?—A. Yes; Captain Dago and McCauley.
Q. Do you know anything the Americans did by way of revenge?—A. The Americans, in revenge for the destruction of the net, afterwards drifted their vessels all about the bay or river with their anchors hanging, and so hooked and destroyed many nets, about fifty or sixty, I should think. The name of one of these captains was Smith—but I don’t know the name of his vessel—and the other was Pool. We all believe that this was done in revenge. They were pretending to be at anchor, where there was about fifty fathoms of water, but were drifting all over the bay and hooking the nets; there was no weather to cause them to drift. Our small boats were anchored off the beach. We had never any difficulty with the Americans before this, but were always on good terms with them.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of Mark Bolt.
The examination of Mark Bolt, of Tickle Beach, Long Harbor, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I am a native of Dorsetshire, England. I have been in this country twenty-one [Page 328] years, and have been fishing all that time. I have lived in this neighborhood fourteen or fifteen years, and at Tickle Beach since last fall. The ground I occupy (150 feet) was granted me for life by government, and for which I have to pay a fee. There are two families on the beach; there were three in the winter. Our living is dependent on our fishing off this settlement. If these large American seines are allowed to be hauled, it forces me away from the place.
One Sunday in January last, John Hickey, Newfoundlander, came first, and hove his seine out. Five Newfoundlanders came and told him to take it up, and he did not; then others came and insisted upon it; then betook it up. If he had then refused to take it up it would have been torn up.
Then Jacobs, an American, came and laid his seine out and hauled about 100 barrels of herring in the big American seine, and capsized into Tom Farrel’s seine, a Newfoundland fisherman employed by Jacobs and fishing for him.
Philip Farrel was also fishing for the Americans, being master of McCauley’s seine. The Newfoundlanders then capsized Tom Farrel’s seine of fish, who was only fishing for the Americans. After this Jim Macdonald, another American, threw out his seine. Then the people went and told Macdonald that he was not allowed to fish on Sundays, and he must take his seine up, and he took up his seine and carried it on board his vessel. Jacobs would not allow his seine to be touched, but drew a revolver. They then went to McCauley, an American, who had laid his seine out for barring herring; this American also employed a Newfoundlander to lay his seine out. The Newfoundlanders said it should not be done on a Sabbath day, and they resolved to tear up all the seines they could get hold of. They managed to seize McCauley’s and tore it up. They would have torn up any they could have got at if laid out, whether English or American, because it was Sunday. The Americans do not bar first. This was the first time I ever knew them to do so; they usually buy the fish from the Newfoundlanders, and also barter flour and pork for them, and I have never known anything to complain of against them previous to this.
Question. Did the American schooners continue to fish after the destruction of McCauley’s seine?—Answer. Yes; they (the Americans) continued to fish, and left about the usual time, the 10th of March. I do not know any reason for the conduct towards the Americans except that they were fishing on Sunday. I do not know what become of the nets that were torn up; it was left on the beach for some days and then taken away. I do not know who took it away; the Americans, perhaps, but I don’t know.
The Americans were often set afterwards, but not on Sunday; the Americans did not leave off catching herring after this on other days. The English did not prevent the Americans hauling their seines, but the Americans usually employed the English to haul them, as their crews were not sufficient in number and are not acquainted with the work. The American crews are employed salting and freezing the fish, while the English employed by them with the American seines are catching them. The seine torn up was being worked by an Englishman for McCauley, the American, namely, Philip Farrel.
Jacobs’s seine was in the water a night and a day. I was not aware that it was illegal to haul or catch herring by or in a seine at that time of the year, nor that barring is prohibited at all seasons, nor that the seine must be shot and forthwith hauled, but have heard some reports to that effect.
The nearest magistrate is at St. Jacques, about 25 or 30 miles from this, and there is no means of communicating with him excepting by a sailing-boat.
The seine that was destroyed belonged to men called Dago and McCauley, who, I believe, were each of them captains of schooners, but the names of the vessels I do not know.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of Richard Hendriken.
The examination of Richard Hendriken, of Hope Cove, Long Harbor, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I have been nine years in Long Harbor. I was here in January last, when the American seine was destroyed. It was destroyed on account of barring herring on Sunday. I was watching their proceedings from the point opposite; they laid their seine out and went to haul it in, because the English would not haul it in on Sunday, and the bay was full of fish. The fish would have remained. The Americans generally employ [Page 329] some Englishmen to work with their own crew; they don’t generally lay out their own seines. Captain Dago and Samuel Jacobs would persist hauling, and hauled once and barred them in Farrel’s net. Farrel was working for him, and had been barring herrings for several days, perhaps about a fortnight, by the American’s orders. I believe it is illegal to bar herrings; it destroys the fish, but we have no power to stop it. It is no good telling a magistrate; the Americans take no notice of them. The nearest magistrate to this place is at Harbor Briton, 25 or 30 miles off. The only thing to let people know what is right and what is wrong is to have a notice board in each harbor, and some heavy fine imposed on law-breakers. James Tamel is harbor-master. I don’t know if he is a special constable or not, but Mr. Enburn told me he was to see the Yankees did not heave their ballast over, and that their measures were correct, but they would not listen to him. They hove their ballast overboard, and had tubs 22 inches in depth instead of 16 inches; in these tubs they measured the fish they bought from the Newfoundlanders, and they would not alter them. The fish are sold to the Americans by the barrel; for 100 barrels it is usual to pay for 90, which is considered fair, but a flour barrel cut down to 16 inches in depth is the proper measure; they only cut them to 22 inches or more, and insist on having them filled. The vessels from St. John’s and Halifax always take the proper size tubs, but the Americans constantly overreach us, and choose the most ignorant to deal with, or those who are not so sharp as themselves. They generally otherwise behave well, and we have never had any quarrel with them before, but have always been on good terms. If the natives did not see the laws carried out themselves there might as well be no laws, for there is often no one else to enforce it. It is the only way I know, and is pretty well understood by both foreigners and natives.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of Ambrose Pope.
The examination of Ambrose Pope, of Stone Cove, Long Harbor, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I was at Tickle Beach on a Sunday in January last, I don’t know the date. I saw the Newfoundlanders hauling a seine and leave it on the beach; it was torn in hauling it on shore. It was evening when I saw the seine hauled on the beach, and it was laying there when I left the beach.
I don’t know if any was carried away. I don’t know anything more about it. The Americans, we thought, had no right to haul their seines on Sunday.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of James Tharnell.
The examination of James Tharnell, of Anderson’s Cove, Long Harbor, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I am a special constable for this neighborhood. I did not see anything of the alleged outrage last January, but I heard something about it. I believe some of the men named Pope were on the beach, but which I do not know.
Question. Have you formed any opinion as constable as to the cause of the dispute?—Answer. Mr. Snellgrove, of the customs, and myself, from what we were informed of the circumstances, were of opinion that the Americans were acting illegally in shooting their seines, but notwithstanding that, nothing would have been said to them for that had it not been on the Sabbath day. The men forbid them hauling seines on the Sabbath day, and told them to take them up or they would take them up for them, and what annoyed them so much was that the Americans drew their revolvers; [Page 330] probably if it had not been for the threat of the revolvers the seines would only have been taken up and not torn. They asked him three times to take them up before they did so themselves.
The people were not aware that it was illegal to set the seines that time of the year, and were only prompted to their act by the fact that it was Sunday. We all consider it to be the greatest loss to us for the Americans to bring those large seines to catch herring. The seines will hold 2,000 or 3,000 barrels, of herring, and, if the soft weather continues, they are obliged to keep them in the seines for, sometimes, two or three weeks, until the frost comes, and by this means they deprive the poor fisherman of the bay of their chance of catching any with their small nets, and then, when they have secured a sufficient quantity of their own, they refuse to buy of the natives.
If the Americans had been allowed to secure all the herrings in the bay for themselves, which they could have done that day, they would have filled all their vessels, and the neighboring fishermen would have lost all chance on the following week-days. The people believed that they (the Americans) were acting illegally in thus robbing them of their fish. If the natives had not defended themselves by enforcing the law, there was no one else to do it. I was sworn in as a special constable by Mr. Herbert, the magistrate of Harbor Briton, last October.
On the arrival of the Americans I showed my authority, signed by Mr. Herbert; and they laughed at it, and said it had no stamp, and they didn’t, therefore, recognize it.
I told them the lawful size of a tub—sixteen gallons—and they said they required a brand on it. I have no means of branding tubs; there is no means to brand on the coast, and it is not the custom. I don’t know if it is the custom at St. John’s to brand them. I have cautioned the Americans about throwing ballast out inside of Hoodey’s Island, where it is very shallow, but they have continually done so, notwithstanding, up to this. There are now several shallow places there and in the cove where the Americans have been in the habit of throwing out their ballast, and small vessels now, of twenty-eight to thirty tons, repeatedly ground on this ballast there thrown out by the Americans. I believe there was less thrown out last winter after I spoke to them about it, but I have no power, moral or otherwise, to enforce any rules, and they don’t seem to care much about me.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of George Snellgrove.
The examination of George Snellgrove, of St. Jacques, Fortune Bay, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I am subcollector of customs for the district of Fortune Bay. I went to Long Harbor on the 8th January, two days after the dispute between the Americans and Newfoundland fishermen had taken place.
Captains Jacobs and Dago informed me that an American seine had been taken up by the Newfoundland fishermen on the Sunday previous and destroyed; that the seine belonged to Dago and McCauley, and that they had other seines out, but they had taken them up when they found that the other was destroyed. One of these captains said that the fishermen had threatened to take up the seine if they didn’t themselves. Captain Jacobs showed me a revolver and said that he had threatened them with it. I remonstrated with him for doing so, when he replied that I couldn’t suppose that he was really going to use it; that he only did it to frighten them; he had taken care there were no charges in it. I said to him: “Do you suppose that you would have got off that beach alive if you had used it?” and he said he never intended to use it.
Captain Warren told me that on the fishermen coming to haul in the seine that Captain Dago hailed them to say that they would take the seine in themselves if they waited; and that he (Warren) said to Dago: “It is too late now; you ought to have done it when they told you first; they are too excited now.”
I then communicated with the natives of the place, who related the circumstances, and gave their reasons that the Americans were fishing illegally, and would have secured the whole of the fish, which they considered part of their property, and that they would have been distressed for the winter. They told me that they had at first told them to take up their seines, and they refused; that Captain Jacobs had threatened them with a revolver, but notwithstanding this, they had taken up one and destroyed it.
[Page 331]I saw Captain Jacobs several times afterwards, and in the course of conversation with him I said, “If I had been there you would not have been allowed to shoot your seine.” “What!” he said, “could you prevent me?” I said, “Yes; I should have seen the law carried out and taken your seine and boat, which you forfeited for breaking the law”; and I told him “I would take the fine as well of $200”; at which he said, “Do you think I care about paying the fine? I could pay the fine”; by which I understood him to mean that the fine was not worth considering, as the quantity of fish would have more than paid for it.
Question. Was there any one in Long Harbor on the Sunday referred to who could have enforced the law and protected the interests of the fishermen?—A. No.
Q. Is it not illegal shooting seines at all at that time of the year?—A. There is an act to that effect, but it has never been carried out in Fortune Bay, nor are the natives aware of its illegality at that time of the year, nor would they have molested the Americans had it not been Sunday, and which they knew it to be not only the law but the infallible custom to desist from fishing on that day.
Q. Has there ever been to your knowledge before quarrelsome disputes or ill-feeling between the Americans and native fishermen?—A. No, never; always on the best terms.
Q. How long did you remain in Long Harbor?—A. I remained till the 12th January.
Q. Did you observe during your stay in Long Harbor whether the three American captains remained and continued to fish or not?—A. I did, and I know that they continued to fish; they were not molested as far as I know.
Q. Was there anything to cause them to leave the harbor or to cease fishing?—A. No, and they had not left it when I left; there were no further disputes to my knowledge afterwards.
Subcollector of Her Majesty’s Customs.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of Silas Fudge.
The examination of Silas Fudge, of Bellaram, Fortune Bay, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I am mate of my father’s schooner. I witnessed the disturbance at Long Harbor on Sunday, the 6th January last. I am certain that it was on the 6th January it happened. I saw the seines in the water; two of them American and one English. We told them to take them up. John Hickey, the Englishman, took his up; McCauley, the American, who owned the other, refused to take his up. There was another seine, which I did not see, in the water, belonging to Captain Jacobs. He had his in the boat at the time. He had shot once and discharged his seine into Thomas Farrel’s, who was working for him, and was going to shoot his seine out again. I saw it in the boat ready for shooting when the crowd came over. They first spoke to McDonald and asked him if he would take his seine up, and he said, “Yes, if I am forced”; and they then went to Hickey and told him to take his up, and he took it up; then they went to McCauley and asked him to take his up, and he said he would not. They then told him that if he didn’t they would take it up for him. They then went to Jacobs and told him they would let go the herring out of the seine of Tom Farrel, who was an Englishman. Jacobs then drew a revolver and threatened to shoot any man who touched his property. The crowd were very excited. I saw them haul McCauley’s seine in and tear it up. That was the end of the row that day. Farrel had, during the previous week, secured herring in the American seine, and then had placed his own round them, and taken up the American’s. This was done before Sunday. It was in this seine of Farrel’s that Jacobs emptied his own seine.
Question. You knew that the American fish were in the Englishman’s seine; why was Farrel’s seine allowed to remain?—Answer. Because he had not shot it on the Sunday, but on the week-day.
Q. Are you aware that it was illegal to use seines to catch herrings that time of the year?—A. No; I don’t know.
Q. Did you believe it to be lawful to use seines for herring that time of the year?— A. Yes, I thought so, as far as I could understand. I suppose the Americans thought, with reference to the destruction of the seine, that we did it in envy of them, but it wasn’t; but it was from regard to the Sabbath, on which day we never fish.
Q. How far from the beach were the American seines shot?—A. Close to the beach; the hauling-lines were on the beach.
[Page 332]The Americans remained in the hay after the occurrence for several days; they were never molested or interfered with afterwards; they continued to fish until they left the harbor; they were not compelled to leave the harbor, but I believe they were unsuccessful on account of the bad weather and for want of frost.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.
Deposition of John Cluett.
The examination of John Cluett, of Belloram, Fortune Bay, taken upon oath, and who saith:
I was in Long Harbor one Sunday in January last.
Question. Did you see anything of the quarrel between the Americans and other fishermen?—Answer. I did.
Q. Tell me what you know of it.—A. They commenced hauling herrings on Sunday, about midday. The first American seine shot was Captain Jacobs’s; there were two more American seines shot. There was an Englishman working for the Americans who had a seine moored there for several days, but it was not shot or attempted to be hauled on the Sunday. The first seine we came to was Captain McDonald’s; they asked him if he was going to take his seine up. He said, “If we are forced to take it up we will,” and we told him if he didn’t take it up we would take it up for him. The next we came to was a man belonging to Fortune Bay, called John Hickey, an Englishman, and we told him to take up the seine, and he said he would take it up, and he did. The next we came to was Peter McCauley, and we told him the same as the others, and he refused to take it up. Then we went on to Captain Jacobs, and when we got to him he was in his skiff, a little off the shore; he had just hauled herring and shot them into Farrel’s seine, who was working for him; they remonstrated about breaking the law and fishing on Sunday; there was an altercation between us; he said he would defend his seine if they touched it in a threatening way. I don’t know what he said; there was a great crowd, and he was in an awful rage, and I heard that he drew a revolver, but I didn’t see it; he then took his seine on board; then all the seines were taken up but Farrel’s and McCauley’s. Farrel’s seine was not touched, because it was not laid on that day, and they therefore let it alone, although Jacobs’s fish were in it; but McCauley’s seine was taken up and destroyed, and that is all I know.
Q. Did the American captain remain in the harbor after?—A. Yes; I think about a fortnight, but perhaps more. They continued to fish and haul herring on week-days but not on Sunday again.
Q. Were they ever molested or interfered with in any way subsequently or not?—A. Not to my knowledge; they remained there as long as they chose, and there was never any more dispute. I don’t know that it is illegal to haul seines that time of the year. I have heard of the law, but I have never seen it carried out; it had nothing to do with this dispute. The only cause of it was on account of its being Sabbath. I never saw herrings hauled on a Sunday before, either by American or Englishman.
The Americans, by hauling herring that day when the Englishmen could not, were robbing them of their lawful and just chance of securing their share in them, and, further, had they secured all they had barred, they could have, I believe, filled every vessel of theirs in the bay. They would have probably frightened the rest away, and it would have been useless for the English to stay, for the little left for them to take they could not have sold.
The Americans would have a better chance than the English any day on account of the size of their nets, but the English would have had their fair chance the next day, and they thought they were justified, in the absence of any proper authority or power to enforce the law, to defend their fights themselves. There is no power or authority to enforce the law on all parts of the coast, and none nearer to Long Harbor than about 30 or 40 miles.
If there was not a good feeling and mutual understanding between all fishermen, whether foreigners or Englishmen, there would be no law carried out or upheld at all, but there was always prior to this a very good feeling and a mutual understanding between the Americans and ourselves, and I don’t know anything to prevent the sam in future. After the destruction of McCauley’s seine some of the American schooners, one of which was Peter Smith’s, drifted about the harbor among the fishermen’s nets when blowing hard, with their anchors hanging to their bows, and destroyed several [Page 333] nets. I don’t know if this was done out of revenge or not. I don’t think it was done purposely.
Captain and Senior Officer on the Coast of Newfoundland.