Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1880

No. 361.
Mr. Evarts to Mr. Welsh.

Department of State,
Washington, August 1, 1879.

No. 347.]

Sir: You will readily understand that the pressure of current business, especially during the regular and special sessions of Congress, has prevented so immediate attention to the claims of the Fortune Bay fishermen, as definitely laid before me in their proofs completed during the session, as would enable me to give, in reply, a full consideration to the dispatch of Lord Salisbury of the date of November 7, 1878, in reply to mine to you of 28th September, 1878.

But other and stronger reasons have also induced me to postpone until now any discussion of the questions arising out of the occurrences to which these dispatches referred.

It so happened that the transactions of which certain citizens of the United States complain were brought fully to the attention of the government about the same time at which it became my duty to lay before Her Britannic Majesty’s Government the views of the United States Government as to the award then recently made by the Commission on the Fisheries, which had just closed its sittings at Halifax. While the character of the complaint and the interests of the citizens of the United States rendered it necessary that the subject should be submitted to the consideration of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government at the earliest possible moment, in order to the prevention of any further and graver misunderstanding and the avoidance of any serious interruption to an important industry, I was exceedingly unwilling that the questions arising under the award and those provoked by the occurrences in Newfoundland should be confused with each other, and least of all would I have been willing that the simultaneous presentment of the views of this government should be construed as indicating any desire on our part to connect the settlement of these complaints with the satisfaction or abrogation of the Halifax award.

I also deemed it not unadvisable in the interests of such a solution as I am sure is desired by the good sense and good temper of both governments that time should be allowed for the extinguishment of the local irritation, both here and in Newfoundland, which these transactions seem to have excited, and that another fishing season should more clearly indicate whether the rights to which the citizens of the United States were entitled under the treaty were denied or diminished by the pretensions and acts of the colonial authorities or whether their infraction was accidental and temporary. As soon as the violence to which citizens of the United States had been subjected in Newfoundland was brought to the attention of this Department, I instructed you, on 2d March, 1878, to represent the matter to Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, and upon such representation you were informed that a prompt investigation would be ordered for the information of that government.

On August 23, 1878, Lord Salisbury conveyed to you, to be transmitted to your government, the result of that investigation, in the shape of a report from Captain Sulivan, of Her Majesty’s ship Sirius. In furnishing you with this report, Lord Salisbury, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, said:

You will perceive that the report in question appears to demonstrate conclusively that the United States fishermen on this occasion had committed three distinct breaches of the law, and that no violence was used by the Newfoundland fishermen, except in the case of one vessel, whose master refused to comply with the request which was made to him that he should desist from fishing on Sunday in violation of the law of the colony and of the local custom, and who threatened the Newfoundland fishermen with a revolver, as detailed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Captain Sulivan’s report.

The three breaches of the law thus reported by Captain Sulivan and assumed by Lord Salisbury as conclusively established, were: 1. The use of seines and the use of them also at a time prohibited by a colonial statute. 2. Fishing upon a day—Sundays—forbidden by the same local law; and 3. Barring fish in violation of the same local legislation. In addition Captain Sulivan reported that the United States fishermen were, contrary to the terms of the treaty of Washington—

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 and gardens and land granted by government being situated thereon.

Yours, containing this dispatch and the accompanying report, was received on 4th September, 1878, and on the 28th of the same month you were instructed that it was impossible for this government duly to appreciate the value of Captain Sulivan’s report until it was permitted to see the testimony upon which the conclusions of that report professed to rest. And you were further directed to say that, putting aside for after-examination the variations of fact, it seemed to this government that the assumption of the report was that the United States fishermen were fishing illegally, because their fishing was being conducted at a time and by methods forbidden by certain colonial statutes; that the language of Lord Salisbury, in communicating the report with his approval, indicated the intention of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government to maintain the position that the treaty privileges secured to United States fishermen by the treaty of 1871 were held subject to such limitations as might be imposed upon their exercise by colonial legislation; and “that so grave a question in its bearing upon the obligations of this government under the treaty, makes it necessary that the President should ask from Her Majesty’s Government a frank avowal or disavowal of the paramount authority of provincial legislation to regulate the enjoyment by our people of the inshore fishery, which seems to be intimated, if not asserted, in Lord Salisbury’s note.”

In reply to this communication, Lord Salisbury, 7th November, 1878, transmitted to you the depositions which accompanied Captain Sulivan’s report, and said:

In pointing out that the American fishermen had broken the law within the territorial limits of Her Majesty’s domains, I had no intention of inferentially laying down any principles of international law, and no advantage would, I think, he gained by doing so to a greater extent than the facts in question absolutely require. * * * 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.

It is with the greatest pleasure that the United States Government receives this language as “the frank disavowal” which it asked “of the paramount authority of provincial legislation to regulate the enjoyment by our people of the inshore fishery.”

Removing, as this explicit language does, the only sericus difficulty which threatened to embarrass this discussion, I am now at liberty to resume the consideration of these differences in the same spirit and with the same hopes so fully and properly expressed in the concluding paragraph of Lord Salisbury’s dispatch. He says:

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.

It is the purpose, therefore, of the present dispatch to convey to you, in order that they may be submitted to Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, the conclusions which have been reached by the Government of the United States as to the rights secured to its citizens under the treaty of 1871 in the herring fishery upon the Newfoundland coast, and the extent to which those rights have been infringed by the transactions in Fortune Bay on January 6, 1878.

Before doing so, however, I deem it proper, in order to clear the argument of all unnecessary issues, to correct what I consider certain misapprehensions of the views of this government contained in Lord Salisbury’s dispatch of 7th of November, 1878. The secretary for foreign affairs of Her Britannic Majesty says:

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 be further conceded that the duty of determining the existence of such contravention must be undertaken by the governments, and cannot be remitted to the discretion of each individual fisherman. For such 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.

His lordship can scarcely have intended this last proposition to be taken in its literal significance. An infraction of law may be accompanied by violence which affects the person or property of an individual, and that individual may be warraned in resisting such illegal violence, so far as it directly affects him, without reference to the relation of the act of violence to the law which it infringes, but simply as a forcible invasion of his rights of person or property. But that the infraction of a general municipal law, with or without violence, can be corrected and punished by a mob, without official character or direction, and who assume both to interpret and administer the law in controversy, is a proposition which does not require the reply of elaborate argument between two governments whose daily life depends upon the steady application of the sound and safe principles of English jurisprudence. However this may be, the Government of the United States cannot for a moment admit that the conduct of the United States fishermen in Fortune Bay was in any—the remotest degree—a violent breach of law.

Granting any and all the force which may be claimed for the colonial legislation, the action of the United States fishermen was the peaceable prosecution of an innocent industry, to which they thought they were entitled. Its pursuit invaded no man’s rights, committed violence upon no man’s person, and if trespassing beyond its lawful limits could have been promptly and quietly stopped by the interference and representations of the lawfully constituted authorities. They were acting under the provisions of the very statute which they are alleged to have violated, for it seems to have escaped the attention of Lord Salisbury that section 28 of the title of the consolidated acts referred to contains the provision that “Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any state or power in amity with Her Majesty.” They were engaged, as I shall hereafter demonstrate, in a lawful industry, guaranteed by the treaty of 1871, in a method which was recognized as legitimate by the award of the Halifax Commission, the privilege to exercise which their government had agreed to pay for. They were forcibly stopped, not by legal authority, but by mob violence. They made no resistance, withdrew from the fishing grounds, and represented the outrage to their government, thus acting in entire conformity with the principle as justly stated by Lord Salisbury himself, that—

If it be admitted, however, 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 be further conceded that the duty of determining the existence of such contravention must be undertaken by the governments, and cannot be remitted to the judgment of each individual fisherman.

There is another passage of Lord Salisbury’s dispatch to which I should call your attention. Lord Salisbury says:

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 a fortiori to any other powers, and the waters must be delivered over to anarchy.

I certainly cannot recall any language of mine in this correspondence which is capable of so extraordinary a construction. I have nowhere taken any position larger or broader than that which Lord Salisbury says:

Her Majesty’s Government will readily admit what is, indeed, self evident, that British sovereignty, as regards these waters, is limited in its scope by the engagements of the treaty of Washington, which cannot be affected or modified by any municipal legislature.

I have never denied the full authority and jurisdiction either of the imperial or colonial governments over their territorial waters, except so far as by treaty that authority and jurisdiction have been deliberately limited by these governments themselves. Under no claim or authority suggested or advocated by me could any other government demand exemption from the provisions of British or colonial law, unless that exemption was secured by treaty; and if these waters must be delivered over to anarchy, it will not be in consequence of any pretensions of the United States Government, but because the British Government has, by its own treaties, to use Lord Salisbury’s phrase, limited the scope of British sovereignty. I am not aware of any such treaty engagements with other powers, but if there are, it would be neither my privilege nor duty to consider or criticise their consequences where the interests of the United States are not concerned.

After a careful comparison of all the depositions furnished to both governments, the United States Government is of opinion that the following facts will not be disputed:

1. That twenty-two vessels belonging to citizens of the United States, viz, Fred P. Frye, Mary M., Lizzie and Namari, Edward E. Webster, W. E. McDonald, Crest of the Wave, F. A. Smith, Hereward, Moses Adams, Charles E. Warren, Moro Castle, Wildfire, Maud and Erne, Isaac Rich, Bunker Hill, Bonanza, H. M. Rogers, Moses Knowlton, John W. Bray, Maud B. Wetherell, New England, and Ontario, went from Gloucester, a town in Massachusetts, United States, to Fortune Bay, in Newfoundland, in the winter of 1877–’78, for the purpose of procuring herring.

2. That these vessels waited at Fortune Bay for several weeks (from about December 15, 1877, to January 6, 1878); for the expected arrival of schools of herring in that harbor.

3. That on Sunday, January 6, 1878, the herring entered the bay in great numbers, and that four of the vessels sent their boats with seines to commence fishing operations, and the others were proceeding to follow.

4. That the parties thus seining were compelled, by a large and violent mob of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, to take up their seines discharge the fish already inclosed, and abandon their fishery, and that in one case, at least, the seine was absolutely destroyed.

5. That these seines were being used in the interest of all the United States vessels waiting for cargoes in the harbor, and that the catch undisturbed would have been sufficient to load all of them with profitable cargoes. The great quantity of fish in the harbor, and the fact that the United States vessels if permitted to fish would all have obtained full cargoes, is admitted in the British depositions.

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 day. (Deposition of James Sarwell.)

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 would, I believe, have filled every vessel of theirs in the bay. (Deposition of John Chutt.)

See also affidavits of the United States captains.

6. That in consequence of this violence all the vessels abandoned the fishing-grounds, some without cargoes, some with very small cargoes, purchased from the natives, and their voyages were a loss to their owners.

7. That the seining was conducted at a distance from any land or fishing privilege or the occupation of any British subject. (See affidavits of Willard G. Rode, Charles Doyle, and Michael B. Murray.)

8. That none of the United States vessels made any further attempts to fish, but three or four which were delayed in the neighborhood purchased small supplies of herring. (See British depositions of John Saunders and Silas Fudge, wherein is stated that the United States vessels only remained a few days, and that after January 6 no fish came into the harbor.)

All the United States affidavits show that the United States vessels were afraid to use their seines after this, and that they left almost immediately, most of them coming home in ballast.

The provisions of the treaty of Washington (1871), by which the right to prosecute this fishery was secured to the citizens of the United States, are very simple and very explicit.

The language of the treaty is as follows:

XVIII. It is agreed by the high contracting parties that in addition to the liberties secured to the United States fishermen by the convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at London on the 20bh day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea coast and shores and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the provinces of Quebec, &c.

XXXII. It is further agreed that the provisons and stipulations of Articles XVIII to XXV of this treaty, inclusive, shall extend to the colony of Newfoundland, so far as they are applicable.

Title XXVII, chapter 102, of the consolidated acts of Newfoundland, provides:

• Section 1. That no person shall take herring on the coast of Newfoundland by a seine or other such contrivance, at any time between the 20th day of October and the 12th day of April, in any year, or at any time use a seine except by way of shooting and forthwith hauling the same.
• Sec. 2. That no person shall at any time, between the 20th day of December and the 1st day of April, in any year, catch or take herring with seines of less than 2⅜ inches mesh, &c.
• Sec. 4. No person shall, between the 20th day of April and the 20th day of October, in any year, haul, catch, or take herring or other bait for exportation, within one mile, measured by the shore or across the water, of any settlement situated between Cape Chapeau Rouge and Point Enragée, near Cape Ray.

The act of 1876 provides that—

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, seine, bunts, or any such contrivance for the purpose of such hauling or taking.

It seems scarcely necessary to do more than place the provisions of the treaty and the provisions of these laws in contrast, and apply the principle so precisely and justly announced by Lord Salisbury as 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.” For it will not be denied that the treaty privilege of “taking fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea coast and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks” of Newfoundland, is both seriously “modified” and injuriously affected by municipal legislation, which closes such fishery absolutely for seven months of the year, prescribes a special method of exercise, forbids exportation for five months, and, in certain localities, absolutely limits the three-mile area, which it was the express purpose of the treaty to open.

But this is not all. When the treaty of 1871 was negotiated, the British Government contended that the privilege extended to United States fishermen of free fishing within the three-mile territorial limit was so much more valuable than the equivalent offered in the treaty that a money compensation should be added to equalize the exchange. The Halifax Commission was appointed for the special purpose of determining that compensation, and, in order to do so, instituted an exhaustive examination of the history and value of the colonial fisheries, including the herring fishery of Newfoundland.

Before that commission, the United States Government contended that the frozen-herring fishery in Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, the very fishery now under discussion, was not a fishery, but a traffic; that the United States vessels which went there for herring always took out trading permits from the United States custom-house, which no other fishermen did; that the herring were caught by the natives in their nets and sold to the vessels, the captains of which froze the herrings after purchase, and transported them to market, and that consequently this was a trade, a commerce beneficial to the Newfoundlanders, and not to be debited to the United States account of advantages gained by the treaty. To this the British Government replied, that whatever the character of the business had been, the treaty now gave the United States fishermen the right to catch as well as purchase herring; that the superior character of the United States vessels, the larger capacity and more efficient instrumentality of the seines used by the United States fishermen, together with their enterprise and energy, would all induce the United States fishermen to catch herring for themselves, and thus the treaty gave certain privileges to the United States fishermen which inflicted upon the original proprietor a certain amount of loss and damage, from this dangerous competition, which., in justice to their interests, required compensation. The exercise of these privileges, therefore, as stated in the British case, as evidenced in the British testimony, as maintained in the British argument, for which the British Government demanded and received compensation, is the British construction of the extent of the liberty to fish in common, guaranteed by the treaty.

Mr. Whiteway, then attorney general of Newfoundland, and one of the British counsel before the commission, said in his argument:

And now one word with regard to the winter herring-fishery in Fortune Bay. It appears that from 40 to 50 United States vessels proceed there between the months of November and February, taking from thence cargoes of frozen herring of from 500 to 800 or 1,000 barrels. According to the evidence, these herrings have hitherto generally been obtained by purchase. It is hardly possible, then, to conceive that the Americans will continue to buy, possessing as they now do the right to catch.

The British case states the argument as to the Newfoundland fisheries in the following language:

It is asserted on the part of Her Majesty’s Government that the actual use which may be made of this privilege at the present moment is not so much in question as the actual value of it to those who may, if they will, use it. It is possible, and even probable, that the United States fishermen may at any moment avail themselves of the privilege of fishing in Newfoundland inshore waters to a much larger extent than they do at present; but even if they should not do so, it would not relieve them from the obligation of making the just payment for a right which they have acquired subject to the condition of making that payment. The case may be not inaptly illustrated by the somewhat analogous one of a tenancy of shooting or fishing privileges; it is not because the tenant fails to exercise the rights which he has acquired-by virtue of his lease that the proprietor should be debarred from the recovery of his rent.

There is a marked contrast to the advantage of the United States citizens between the privilege of access to fisheries the most valuable and productive in the world and the barren right accorded to the inhabitants of Newfoundland, of fishing in the exhausted and preoccupied waters of the United States, north of the 39th parallel of north latitude, in which there is no field for lucrative operations, even if British subjects desired to resort to them; and there are strong grounds for believing that year by year, as United States fishermen resort in greater numbers to the coasts of Newfoundland, for the purpose of procuring bait and supplies, they will become more intimately acquainted with the resources of the inshore fisheries and their unlimited capacity for extension and development. As a matter of fact United States vessels have, since the Washington treaty came into operation, been successfully engaged in these fisheries; and it is but reasonable to anticipate that as the advantages to be derived from them become more widely known larger numbers of United States fishermen will engage in them.

A participation by fishermen of the United States in the freedom of these waters must, notwithstanding their wonderfully reproductive capacity, tell materially on the local catch, and, while affording to the United States fishermen a profitable employment, mist seriously interfere with local success. The extra amount of bait also which is required for the supply of the United States demand for the bank fishery must have the effect of diminishing the supply of cod for the inshores, as it is well known that the presence of that fish is caused by the attraction offered by a large quantity of bait fishes, and as this quantity diminishes the cod will resort in fewer numbers to the coast.

The effect of this diminution may not in all probability be apparent for some years to come, and whilst United States fishermen will have the liberty of enjoying the fisheries for several years in their present teeming and remunerative state, the effects of overfishing may, after their right to participate in them has lapsed, become seriously prejudicial to the interests of the local fishermen.

II. The privilege of procuring bait and supplies, refitting, drying, transshipping, &c.

Apart from the immense value to United States fishermen of participation in the Newfoundland inshore fisheries must be estimated the important privilege of procuring bait for the prosecution of the bank and deep-sea fisheries, which are capable of unlimited expansion. With Newfoundland as a basis of operations, the right of procuring bait, refitting their vessels, drying and curing fish, procuring ice in abundance for the preservation of bait, liberty of transshipping their cargoes, &c., an almost continuous prosecution of the bank fishery is secured to them. By means of these advantages, United States fishermen have acquired by the treaty of Washington all the requisite facilities for increasing their fishing operations to such an extent as to enable them to supply the demand for fish food in the United States markets, and largely to furnish the other fish markets of the world, and thereby exercise a competition which must inevitably prejudice Newfoundland exporters. It must be remembered, in contrast with the foregoing, that United States fishing craft, before the conclusion of the treaty of Washington, could only avail themselves of the coast of Newfoundland for obtaining a supply of wood and water, for shelter, and for necessary repairs in case of accident, and for no other purpose whatever. They therefore prosecuted the bank fishery under great disadvantages, notwithstanding which, owing to the failure of the United States local fisheries, and the consequent necessity of providing new fishing grounds, the bank fisheries have developed into a lucrative source of employment to the fishermen of the United States.

That this position is appreciated by those actively engaged in the bank fishery is attested by the statement of competent witnesses, whose evidence will be laid before the commission.

And in the reply of the British Government, referring to the same Newfoundland fisheries, is the following declaration:

As regards the herring fishery on the coast of Newfoundland, it is availed of to a considerable extent by the United States fishermen, and evidence will be adduced of large exportations by them in American vessels, particularly from Fortune Bay and the neighborhood, both to European and their own markets.

The presence of the United States fishermen upon the coast of Newfoundland, so far from being an advantage, as is assumed in the answer, operates most prejudicially to Newfoundland fishermen. Bait is not thrown overboard to attract the fish, as asserted, but the United States bank-fishing vessels, visiting the coast in such large numbers as they do for the purpose of obtaining bait, sweep the coast, creeks, and inlets, thereby diminishing the supply of bait for local catch and scaring it from the grounds, where it would otherwise be an attraction for cod.

In support of these views, the most abundant testimony was produced by the British Government, showing the extent of the United States herring fishery, the character and construction of the seines used, the time when the vessels came and left, and the employment of the native fishermen by the United States vessels. And it follows unanswerably that upon the existence of that fishery between the months of October and April (the very time prohibited by the colonial law), and upon the use of just such seines as were used by the complainants in this case (the very seines forbidden by the colonial law), and because the increasing direct fishery of the United States vessels was interfering with native methods and native profits, the British Government demanded and received compensation for the damages thus alleged to proceed from “the liberty to take fish of every kind” secured by the treaty.

This Government cannot anticipate that the British Government will now contend that the time and method for which it asked and received compensation are forbidden by the terms of the very treaty under which it made the claim and received the payment. Indeed, the language of Lord Salisbury justifies the Government of the United States in drawing the conclusion that between itself and Her Britannic Majesty’s Govenment there is no substantial difference in the construction of the privileges of the treaty of 1871, and that in the future the colonial regulation of the fisheries with which, as far as their own interests are concerned, we have neither right nor desire to intermeddle, will not be allowed to modify or affect the rights which have been guaranteed to citizens of the United States.

You will therefore say to Lord Salisbury that the Government of the United States considers the engagements of the treaty of 1871 contravened by the local legislation of Newfoundland, by the prohibition of the use of seines, by the closing of the fishery with seines between October and April, by the forbidding of fishing for the purpose of exportation between December and April, by the prohibition to fish on Sunday, by the allowance of nets of only a specified mesh, and by the limitation of the area of fishing between Gape Bay and Cape Chapeau Bouge. Of course, this is only upon the supposition that such laws are considered as applying to United States fishermen; as local regulations for native fishermen, we have no concern with them. The contravention consists in excluding United States fishermen during the very times in which they have been used to pursue this industry, and forbidding the methods by which alone it can be profitably carried on. The exclusion of the time from October to April covers the only season in which frozen herring can be procured, while the prohibition of the seines would interfere with the vessels, who, occupied in cod-fishing during the summer, go to Fortune Bay in the winter, and would consequently have to make a complete change in their fishing gear, or depend entirely upon purchase from the natives for their supply. The prohibition of work on Sunday is impossible under the conditions of the fishery. The vessels must be at Fortune Bay at a certain time, and leave for market at a certain time. The entrance of the schools of herring is uncertain, and the time they stay equally so. Whenever they come they must be caught, and the evidence in this very case shows that after Sunday, the 6th of January, there was no other influx of these fish, and that prohibition on that day would have been equivalent to shutting out the fishermen for the season.

If I am correct in the views hitherto expressed, it follows that the United States Government must consider the United States fishermen as engaged in a lawful industry from which they were driven by lawless violence at great loss and damage to them; and that as this was in violation of rights guaranteed by the treaty of Washington, between Great Britain and the United States, they have reasonable ground to expect at the hands of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government proper compensation for the loss they have sustained. The United States Government of course desires to avoid an exaggerated estimate of the loss which has been actually sustained, but thinks you will find the elements for a fair calculation in the sworn statements of the owners, copies of which are herewith sent. You will find in the printed pamphlet which accompanies this, and which is the statement submitted to this Department on behalf of twenty of the vessels, the expense of each vessel in preparation for the fishery and her estimated loss and damage. The same statement with regard to the two vessels New England and Ontario, not included in this list of twenty, you will find attached hereto, thus making a complete statement for the twenty-two vessels which were in Fortune Bay on the 6th January, 1878, and the Government of the United States sees no reason to doubt the accuracy of these estimates. I find upon examining the testimony of one of the most intelligent of the Nowfoundland witnesses called before the Halifax Commission by the British Government, Judge Bennett, formerly Speaker of the Colonial House, and himself largely interested in the business, that he estimates the Fortune Bay business in frozen herring, in the former years of purchase, at 20,000 to 25,000 barrels for the season and that it was increasing, and this is confirmed by others.

The evidence in this case shows that the catch which the United States fishing fleet had on this occasion actually realized was exceptionally large, and would have supplied profitable cargoes for all of them. When to this is added the fact that the whole winter was lost and these vessels compelled to return home in ballast; that this violence had such an effect on this special fishery that in the winter of 1878–’79 it has been almost entirely abandoned, and the former fleet of twenty-six vessels has been reduced to eight, none of whom went provided with seines, but were compelled to purchase their fish of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, the United States Government is of opinion that $105,305.02 may be presented as an estimate of the loss as claimed, and you will consider that amount as being what this Government will regard as adequate compensation for loss and damage.

In conclusion, I would not be doing justice to the wishes and opinions of the United States Government if I did not express its profound regret at the apparent conflict of interests which the exercise of its treaty privileges appears to have developed. There is no intention on the part of this government that these privileges should be abused, and no desire that their full and free enjoyment should harm the colonial fishermen. While the differing interests and methods of the shore fishery and the vessel fishery make it impossible that the regulation of the one should be entirely given to the other, yet if the mutual obligations of the treaty of 1871 are to be maintained, the United States Government would gladly co-operate with the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in any effort to make those regulations a matter of reciprocal convenience and right; a means of preserving the fisheries at their highest point of production, and of conciliating a community of interest by a just proportion of advantages and profits.

I am, &c.,

WM. M. EVARTS.

[Appendix A to No. 347.]

Messrs. Foster and Trescott to the Secretary of State.

To the Hon. The Secretary of State:

Sir: We have to acknowledge the receipt of Lord Salisbury’s replies to your communications in reference to the attack upon the United States fishing-vessels in Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, with the affidavits inclosed.

After the most careful examination of these affidavits and a scrutinizing review of the affidavits made by the United States fishermen in support of their complaint, we cannot discover any facts or contradictions which discredit their history of the transaction.

There seems to be no dispute as to the following facts:

1. That twenty-two vessels, viz: Fred. P. Frye, Mary M., Lizzie and Namari, Edward E. Webster, W. E. MacDonald, Crest of the Wave, F. A. Smith, Hereward, Moses Adams, Charles E. Warren, Moro Castle, Wildfire, Maud and Erne, Isaac Rich, Bunker Hill, Bonanza, H. M. Rogers, Moses Knowlton, John W. Bray, Maud B. Wetherell, New England, and Ontario, went from Gloucester to Fortune Bay in the winter of 1877–’78 for the purpose of procuring herring, as was their usual custom, and a they were entitled to do under the treaty of 1871.

2. That previous to that winter the United States fishermen had always purchased their herring of the Newfoundlanders, paying them in money or provisions, and a large and profitable trade had sprung up between the Americans and the inhabitants. The value of this trade to the inhabitants of Newfoundland clearly appears in the following extract from the British case before the Halifax Commission:

“It is not at all probable that, possessing as they now do the right to take herring and caplin for themselves on all parts of the Newfoundland coasts, they will continue to purchase as heretofore, and they will thus prevent the local fishermen, especially those of Fortune Bay, from engaging in a very lucrative employment, which formerly occupied them during a portion of the winter season for the supply of the United States market.”

Furthermore, in the affidavits of the Newfoundland fishermen forwarded by Lord Salisbury, it is plainly admitted that the only way in which the local fishermen can dispose of their herring is by selling them to the Americans.

In January, 1878, however, for the first time, the American vessels carried with them larger seines, in order to take their own herring and save the expense of purchasing from the Newfoundlanders.

Captain Malonson, of the schooner Crest of the Wave, in his affidavit, says:

“The Newfoundland fishermen have for years been in the habit of selling all the herring to American vessels. I have been there eight years, and I have always bought my herring or engaged the Newfoundlanders to take them for me, paying them in cash. This has been the universal practice of American vessels. This year we carried the large mackerel seines we used in summer for taking mackerel. These seines will take from two to five thousand barrels at a haul, and the herring are better taken in this way. As most of the Newfoundlanders fish with gill-nets, our manner of seining would take away from them the monopoly of the herring trade.”

The truth of Captain Malonson’s affidavit, and that of the other American captains, is shown by the British affidavits:

“The Americans never used a seine before that day; they always employed the English to use their seines, and bought fish from the English.” (Deposition of John Saunders.)

“The Americans do not bar fish. 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.” (Deposition of Mark Bolt.)

“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 fishermen of the bay of their chance of catching any with their small nets, and thus, when they have secured a sufficient quantity of their own, they refuse to buy of the natives.” (Deposition of John Tharnelly.)

“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.” (Deposition of John Cluett.)

The evidence offered by Her Majesty’s Government before the Halifax Commission fully bears out the above affidavits and shows that previously to 1877 the so-called Newfoundland herring fishery was merely a purchase by the Americans of fish caught by the Newfoundlanders, and no attempt had ever been made by the Americans to take the fish themselves; that in the winter of 1877–’78 the American vessels, taking advantage of their rights under the treaty of Washington, carried down with them seines in order to take their own herring, and that the consequent loss of a valuable trade to the inhabitants, as foreseen by the British agent at the Halifax Commmission, had taken place.

3. That these vessels waited for several weeks (from about December 15, 1877, to January 6, 1878) for the expected arrival of schools of herring in Fortune Bay.

4. That on Sunday, January 6, 1878, the herring entered the bay in great numbers, and that four of the vessels sent their boats with seines to commence fishing operations, and the others were proceeding to follow.

5. That the parties thus seining were compelled, by a large and violent mob of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, to take up their seines, discharge the fish already inclosed, and abandon their fishery; and that in one case, at least, the seine was absolutely destroyed. Both the British and American affidavits give substantially the same account of this transaction.

6. That these seines were being used in the interest of all United States vessels waiting for cargoes in the harbor, and that the catch undisturbed would have been sufficient to load them all with profitable cargoes. The great quantity of fish in the harbor, and the fact that the American vessels, if permitted to fish, would have all obtained full cargoes, is admitted in the British deposition.

“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 day.” (Deposition of James Searwell.)

“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 would, I believe, have filled every vessel of theirs in the bay.” (Deposition of John duett.)

See also the affidavits of the American captains.

7. That in consequence of this violence all the vessels abandoned the fishing grounds; some without cargoes, some with very small cargoes purchased from the natives, and that their voyages were a loss to their owners.

8. That the seining was conducted at a distance from any land or fishing privilege in the occupation of any British subject. (See affidavits Willard G. Rode, Charles Dagle, and Michael B. Murray.)

9. That none of the vessels of the United States made any further attempts to fish, but three or four which were delayed in the neighborhood purchased small supplies of herring. (See British depositions of John Saunders and. Silas Fudge, wherein it is stated that the American vessels only remained a few days, and that after January 6 no fish came into the harbor.) All the American affidavits show that the United States vessels were afraid to use their seines after this, and that they left almost immediately, most of them coming home in ballast.

10. That this violence has had such an effect on this special fishing industry that in the present winter of 1878–’79 it has been almost entirely abandoned, and last winter’s fleet of twenty-six (26) has been reduced to eight (8), and none of these have gone provided with seines, but they will all be compelled to purchase their fish of the inhabitants of Newfoundland. (See statement of the collector of the port of Gloucester.)

In support of these facts we append hereto—

1. A list of the vessels whose owners we represent.

2. The affidavits of the masters and crews of the same vessels.

3. Sworn statements of the owners as to the actual expenses of each vessel upon the interrupted voyage, the average profit of their previous voyages, and the loss of cargoes consequent upon their forcible expulsion in this case.

4. Statements of the collector of the port of Gloucester, giving the number of vessels engaged in the Newfoundland herring-fishery in the winters of 1877–’78 and 1878–’79.

In the dispatch of Lord Salisbury, dated August 23, 1878, the British Government assert that “the United States fishermen on this occasion had committed three distinct breaches of the law,” as stated in the report of Captain Sullivan, viz:

• “1. That the Americans were using seines for catching herring on the 6th of January, 1878, in direct violation of Title XXVII, chapter 102, section 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 of January, in direct violation of section 4, chapter 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 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, chapter 102, section 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 way of shooting and forthwith hauling the same.’”

Leaving to your own consideration the general question whether or not colonial legislatures can enact any laws or local regulations which will in any way control or limit the United States fisherman while pursuing his avocation under the treaty of Washington, we desire to call your attention to the full text of the laws alleged to be infringed (copies of which, as well as of an amendment passed April, 1877, are herewith inclosed).

Title XXXVII, chap. 102, of the consolidated acts of Newfoundland, provides—

• “Section 1. That no person shall take herring on the coast of Newfoundland by a seine or other such contrivance at any time between the 20th day of October and the 12th day of April in any year, or at any time use a seine except by way of shooting and forthwith hauling the same.
• “Sec. 2. That no person shall, any time between the 20th day of December and the 1st day of April, in any year, catch or take herring with seines of less than 2f inches mesh, &c.
• “Sec. 4. No person shall, between the 20th day of April and the 20th day of October, in any year, haul, catch, or take herring or other bait for exportation within one mile, measured by the shore or across the water, of any settlement situated between Gape Chapeau Rouge and Point Enragée, near Gape Ray.”

Section 28 provides that—

“Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any state or power in amity with Her Majesty.”

The twenty-eighth section of this act is not referred to by Captain Sulivan in his report, and seems to have escaped the notice of Lord Salisbury. The enforcement of this act would deprive us of all the privileges which the British Government valued so highly, and for which the United States has paid the immense sum of five million five hundred thousand dollars, one million of which is understood to be allowed to Newfoundland.

By sections 1 and 2 we are prohibited from securing herring in any way from October to April, and limited as to the manner and method of fishing at all other times of the year. The American fishing vessel, being employed in the mackerel fishery in the summer and in the herring fishery in the winter, uses the same seines for both, and cannot and should not be compelled to comply with local regulations as to the size, shape, and manner of using these seines, whether they are or are not just and proper when applied to the native fishermen living near the fishing grounds. But it appears, from Captain Sulivan’s report and from the British depositions that these laws were unknown as well as unenforced in Fortune Bay.

There is another section of this act which does not concern the present case, but which, if enforced, would almost totally deprive the United States cod-fishing vessels of their rights under the treaty of 1871. The right to obtain fresh bait on the coast of Newfoundland for use on the Grand Banks during the summer months was claimed by the British Government to be of immense value to our fishermen, and was so considered by the arbitrators in making their award. But section 4 prohibits the taking of bait for exportation during the summer months for a long distance along the southern coast of the island, comprising the whole of Placentia Bay, the nearest and most favorite resort of our fishermen from the Grand Banks after bait. It is true this law has not as yet been enforced, but there is no guaranty that it may not be at any time. During the past session the Newfoundland legislature have had under consideration a law prohibiting the sale of bait to the American fishermen, and placing a heavy duty on all ice sold to them for the purpose of preserving bait.

The section IV, act of April 26, 1876, quoted by Lord Salisbury and Captain Sulivan, is as follows:

“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 nets, 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.”

This law only prohibits the taking of certain kinds of fish on Sunday, viz, herring, caplin, or squid, and does not apply to cod or halibut, which the British evidence before the Halifax Commission endeavored to show were taken almost entirely within a short distance from the shore. By the amendment of 1877, this act was extended so as to apply to the taking of all fish for bait.

We deem it unnecessary to add to this statement any discussion as to the principles involved in Lord Salisbury’s dispatches. The only fact to which we would further ask your attention is, that the very use of the fisheries for which we now contend was admitted to be ours under the treaty by the British Government before the Halifax Commission, and made the basis of the award of that tribunal.

The language of the treaty is as follows:

“It is agreed by the high contracting parties that in addition to the liberties secured to the United States fishermen by the convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at London on 20th day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Art. XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind except shell-fish on the sea-coast and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the provinces of Quebec,” &c.

It must be borne in mind that “liberty in common” has been valued by the Halifax Commission at $5,500,000, and the price of its enjoyment has been paid. That award and that payment were made upon the representation of the British Government that the treaty gave certain privileges to the United States fishermen, the exercise of which inflicted upon the original proprietor a certain amount of loss and damage which in justice to their interests required such compensation. This exercise, therefore, as stated in the British case, as evidenced in the British testimony, as maintained in the British argument, for which the British Government demanded and received compensation, is the British construction of the extent of “the liberty in common” guaranteed by the treaty.

The British case states the argument as to the Newfoundland fisheries in the following language:

“It is asserted on the part of Her Majesty’s Government that the actual use which may be made of this privilege at the present moment is not so much in question as the actual value of it to those who may, if they will, use it. It is possible, and even probable, that the United States fishermen may at any moment avail themselves of the privilege of fishing in Newfoundland inshore waters to a much larger extent than they do at present; but even if they should not do so, it would not relieve them from the obligation of making the just payment for a right which they have acquired subject to the condition of making that payment. The case maybe not inaptly illustrated by the somewhat analogous one of a tenancy of shooting or fishing privileges; it is not because the tenant fails to exercise the rights which he has acquired by virtue of his lease that the proprietor should be debarred from the recovery of his rent.

“There is a marked contrast, to the advantage of the United States citizens, between the privilege of access to fisheries the most valuable and productive in the world and the barren right accorded to the inhabitants of Newfoundland of fishing in the exhausted and preoccupied waters of the United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude, in which there is no field for lucrative operations, even if British subjects desired to resort to them , and there are strong grounds for believing that year by year, as United States fishermen resort in greater numbers to the coasts of Newfoundland for the purpose of procuring bait and supplies, they will become more intimately acquainted with the resources of the inshore fisheries and their unlimited capacity for extension and development. As a matter of fact, United States vessels have, since the Washington treaty came into operation, been successfully engaged in these fisheries; and it is but reasonable to anticipate that, as the advantages to be derived from them become more widely known, larger numbers of United States fishermen will engage in them.

“A participation by fishermen of the United States in the freedom of these waters must, notwithstanding their wonderfully reproductive capacity, tell materially on the local catch, and, while affording to the United States fishermen a profitable employment, must seriously interfere with local success. The extra amount of bait also which is required for the supply of the United States demand for the bank fishery must have the effect of diminishing the supply of cod for the inshores, as it is well known that the presence of that fish is caused by the attraction offered by a large quantity of bait fishes, and as this quantity diminishes the cod will resort in fewer number to the coast. The effect of this diminution may not in all probability be apparent for some years to come, and whilst United States fishermen will have the liberty of enjoying the fisheries for several years in their present teeming and remunerative state, the effects of overfishing may, after their right to participate in them has lapsed, become seriously prejudicial to the interest of the local fishermen.

“II. The privilege of procuring bait and supplies, refitting, drying, transshipping, &c.

“Apart from the immense value to United States fishermen of participation in Newfoundland inshore fisheries must be estimated the important privilege of procuring bait for the prosecution of the bank and deep-sea fisheries, which are capable of unlimited expansion. With Newfoundland as a basis of operations, the right of procuring bait, refitting their vessels, drying and curing fish, procuring ice in abundance for the preservation of bait, liberty of transshiping their cargoes, &c., an almost continuous prosecution of the bank fishery is secured to them. By means of these advantages United States fishermen have acquired by the treaty of Washington all the requisite facilities for increasing their fishing operations to such an extent as to enable them to supply the demand for fish food in the United States markets, and largely to furnish the other fish markets of the world, and thereby exercise a competition which must inevitably prejudice Newfoundland exporters. It must be remembered, in contrast with the foregoing, that United States fishing craft before the conclusion of the treaty of Washington could only avail themselves of the coast of Newfoundland for obtaining a supply of wood and water, for shelter, and for necessary repairs in case of accident, and for no other purpose whatever; they therefore prosecuted the bank fishery under great disadvantages, notwithstanding which, owing to the failure of the United States local fisheries and the consequent necessity of providing new fishing grounds, the bank fisheries have developed into a lucrative source of employment to the fishermen of the United States. That this position is appreciated by those actively engaged in the bank fisheries is attested by the statements of competent witnesses, whose evidence will be laid before the commission.”

And in reply of the British Government, refer ing to the same Newfoundland fisheries, is the following declaration:

“As regards the herring fishery on the coast of Newfoundland, it is availed of to a considerable extent by the United States fishermen, and evidence will be adduced of large exportations by them in American vessels, particularly from Fortune Bay and the neighborhood, both to European and their own markets.

“The presence of United States fishermen upon the coast of Newfoundland, so far from being an advantage, as is assumed in the answer, operates most prejudically to Newfoundland fishermen. Bait is not thrown overboard to attract the fish, as asserted, but the United States bank fishing vessels, visiting the coast in such large numbers as they do for the purpose of obtaining bait, sweep the coast, creeks, and inlets, thereby diminishing the supply of bait for local catch, and scaring it from the grounds where it would otherwise be an attraction for cod.”

In support of these views, the most abundant and complete testimony was produced by the British Government, showing the extent of the United States herring fishery, the character and construction of the seines used, the time when the vessels came and left, and the employment of the native fishermen by the United States vessels. And it follows unanswerably that upon the existence of that fishery between the months of October and April, and upon the use of just such seines as were used by the complainants in this case, and because the increasing direct fishery of the United States vessels was interfering with native methods and native profits, the British Government demanded and received compensation for the damages thus alleged to proceed from “the liberty in common to take fish of every kind” secured by the treaty. With what justice can the British Government now contend that the time and the method for which they asked and received compensation are forbidden by the terms of the very treaty under which they made the claim and received the payment?

In conclusion, and in reference to the suggestion of Lord Salisbury that the United States fishermen were bound to abstain from the use of the fishery until due representation had been made to Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, we would say, without argument as to the correctness of any such assumption, that as a fact this is just what the United States fishermen did. They were engaged in the prosecution of a lawful industry, in a method which was recognized as lawful by the award of the Halifax Commission, the privilege to exercise which their government had agreed to pay for. They were forcibly stopped, not by legal authority, but by mob violence. They made no resistance; withdrew from the fishing grounds; represented the outrage to their government; have not returned to Newfoundland, and are waiting in perfect confidence that the government will vindicate their rights, and see that just compensation is made for their losses.

Respectfully,

• DWIGHT FOSTER,
• WM. HENRY TRESCOT,
  Counsel for Claimants.

Annexes to the foregoing letter of Messrs. Foster and Trescot.

A.

List of vessels.

No.	Vessels.	Owners.
1.	Fred. P. Frye	Brown, Seavy & Co.
2.	Mary M.	Brown, Seavy & Co.
3.	Lizzie and Namari	John F. Wonson & Co.
4.	Edward E. Webster	Dennis and Ayer.
5.	William E. Donald	William Parsons, 2d, & Co.
6.	Creast of the Wave	William B. Coombs.
7.	F. A. Smith	Plummer & Friend.
8.	Hereward	James Mansfield’s Sons.
9.	Moses Adams	Samuel Lane & Bro.
10.	Charles E. Warren	Peter Smith.
11.	Moro Castle	Hardy & Allen.
12.	Wildfire	Andrew Leighton.
13.	Maud and Effie	W. H. Gardner & S. G. Bole.
14.	Isaac Rich	Walen & Allen.
15.	Bunker Hill	Walen & Allen.
16.	Bonanza	H. C. Allen.
17.	Moses Knowlton	John Low.
18.	H. M. Rogers	Rowe & Jordan.
19.	John W. Bray	J. F. Wonson & Co.
20.	Maud B. Wetherell	Geo. Dennis & Co.

B.

Expenses and claims.

No.	Vessels.	Expenses.	Claims.
1.	Fred D. Frye	$1,700 00	$3,700 00
2.	Mary M	2,180 53	5,680 50
3.	Lizzie and Namari	3,133 65	5,564 40
4.	Edward E. Webster.	1,754 50	4,654 50
5.	William E. MacDonald.	2,153 95	4,953 95
6.	Creast of the Wave	2,619 04	4,619 04
7.	F. A. Smith	2,495 50	4,895 50
8.	Hereward	3,800 00	5,748 05
9.	Moses Adams	1,586 05	4,586 05
	This vessel also makes an additional claim for value of herring in her net, beside her full cargo		4,000 00
10.	Charles E. Warren	2,180 00	4,680 00
11.	Moro Castle	2,153 18	4,134 19
12.	Wildfire	1,530 97	6,309 82
13.	Maud and Effie	2,379 13	4,379 13
14.	Isaac Rich	1,150 09	2,491 09
15.	Bunker Hill	1,217 50	2,677 00
16.	Bonanza	2,855 94	3,022 17
17.	Moses Knowlton	2,661 60	5,356 60
18.	H. M. Rogers	1,946 13	5,876 30
19.	John W. Bray	2,714 52	3,589 07
20.	Maud B. Wetherell	2,618 64	2,521 34

C.

statements of losses.

1. Schooner Fred. P. Frye.

This vessel was chartered by Brown, Seavy & Co. for a trip to Fortune Bay for herring, in January, 1878.

They paid the owners of the schooner for the charter	$800 00
Expenses of the voyage, crew’s wages, provisions, &c., amounted to.	1,350 00
Making the amount actually paid out in cash	2,150 00
Credit partial cargo of herring sold	450 00
	1,700 00
Add probable profit calculated from preceding trips	2,000 00
	3,700 00

BROWN, SEAVEY & CO.,

By WM. SEAVEY.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Suffolk, ss:

December 28, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above-named William Seavey and made oath that the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true, before me.

ALFEED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

2. Schooner Mary M.

Bill of expense on a voyage to Newfoundland for herring from December 6, 1877, to February 26, 1878.

Dr.

Ship stores	$295 35
Lumber at Lahave	85 25
Custom-house fees	58 75
Ballast	58 50
Officers’ and crew’s wages	677 68
Insurance	525 00
Cargo for trade	400 00
Riggers’ and blacksmith bill	80 00
Average profits of Newfoundland voyages made by schooner Mary M., Captain Murray, for ten seasons (except the year 1876)	2,180 53
	3,500 00
	5,680 50

Cr.

By return cargo	$200 00
	5,480 50

MICHAEL B. MURRAY.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared M. B. Murray and made oath to the truth of the statement signed by him, before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

3. Schooner Lizzie and Namari.

Actual expense of voyage to Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, January, 1878.

Port charges	$44 26
Store account	273 01
Outfits for voyage	1,245 48
Charter of vessel	683 33
Wood and coal	22 30
Crew’s wages	526 34
Captain’s wages	273 06
Insurance on outfits	65 87
	3,133 65
Profit compared with previous years	3,000 00
	6,135 65
Deduct merchandise and cash returned	569 25
	5,564 40

This vessel was hired by us, and we actually paid in cash the amount placed in the above account as charter.

JOHN F. WONSON & CO.

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared Frank A. Wonson, a member of the firm of J. F. Wonson & Co., and made oath to the truth of the statement signed by him.

Before me.

[l. s.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

4. Schooner Edward E. Webster.

Expenses, actual money paid out in voyage to Fortune Bay, January, 1878.

Captain, mate, and crew’s wages	$720 00
Insurance	560 00
Ballast	60 00
Lumber for platform and stage	62 50
Provisions	250 00
Refitting in Newfoundland	100 00
	1,754 50
A preceding trip of this vessel to Fortune Bay for herring in the year 1875 netted	5,400 00
The expenses were	2,500 00
Leaving a profit of	2,900 00

This vessel was driven off without obtaining any herring, and her voyage resulted in a loss of—

(1.) The actual expenses	1,754 50
(2.) Profit on voyage, provided the vessel did no better than the previous year	2,900 00
	4,654 50

DENNIS & SON.

Per J. G. DENNIS.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 20, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above-named George Dennis and made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement before me.

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

5. Schooner William E. MacDonald.

Actual expenses, money paid out for trip to Fortune Bay, January, 1878:

Store bill	297 83
Railway and carpenter	34 86
Sailmaker	465 50
Painting.	34 76
Blacksmith	4 45
Captain’s bill	159 98
Wages	670 50
Insurance	412 00
Sundry bills	74 07
Total actual expenses	2,153 95
Probable profit, calculated on an average of preceding years	2,800 00
Total loss	4,953 95

WM. PARSONS, 2d, &c.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared William Parsons, 2d, and made oath the statement made and signed by him is true.

Before me,

[l. s.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

6. Schooner Crest of the Wave.

Actual expenses of the trip to Fortune Bay for herring in the month of January, 1878:

Total loss	4,953 95
Store bill	$575 19
Crew’s wages	674 00
Insurance	350 00
Outfit for vessel, &c	944 85
Ballast	75 00
	2,619 04
The probable profit on a trip for herring to Newfoundland, calculated from preceding years	$2,000 00
Add actual expenses	2,619 04
	4,619 04

WILLIAM B. COOMBS.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 20, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above named William B. Coombs and made oath that the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true.

Before me,

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

7. Schooner F. A. Smith.

Actual expenses of voyage to Fortune Bay for herring, in January, 1878; money paid out:

Captain and crew’s wages	$710 00
Insurance	470 00
Ballast	55 00
Lumber	60 50
Provisions	260 00
Refitting at Newfoundland	90 00
	1,645 50
This vessel was hired for the trip and $850.00 was actually paid for the charter	850 00
	2,495 50
Profit of a fair average voyage, calculated on previous voyages	2,400 00
	4,895 50

JOSEPH FRIEND.

GEORGE W. PLUMMER.

B. T. FRIEND.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 20, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above-named Joseph Friend and made oath that the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true.

Before me,

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

8. Schooner Hereward.

The actual expenses of this vessel in the voyage to Fortune Bay, in January, 1878 were:

Outfit for voyage	$1,900 00
Wages four months	1,000 00
Provisions	400 00
Outfit for vessel, fitting out, &c	400 00
Insurance	600 00
	4,300 00
Less part of outfit returned	500 00
	3,800 00
If this vessel had made a fairly prosperous voyage, her profit would have been	2,000 00
	5,800 00
Less small amount of herring brought back	62 00
	5,748 00

A seine was carried down by this vessel which was destroyed by the natives who were hired to set it.

JAMES MANSFIELD & SONS,

By ALFRED MANSFIELD.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 20, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above-named Alfred Mansfield and made oath that the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true.

Before me,

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

9. Account of the schooner Moses Adams’ herring voyage to Newfoundland in 1877.

Outfits for voyage	$1,003 83
Cash paid out in British Provinces for sundries	110 00
Cash paid for herring	199 00
Insurance	549 60
Wages paid captain and crew	744 87
		82,607 30
Cash received for herring sold		1,021 25
		1,586 05
Probable profit if arrived home with a full cargo		3,000 00
		4,586 05
Value of herring lost by mob tripping the seine which would have been sold to other vessels waiting to purchase		4,000 00
Total loss to the schooner caused by the mob		8,586 05

memorandum.

This schooner’s seine was filled with herring when the mob tripped it, and they then endeavored to destroy the seine, but were prevented by the captain and crew, at the peril of their lives.

We had this schooner built for mackerel fishing in summer, and Newfoundland herring fishing in winter. She is all furnished with herring seines and boats for such business, but having been deprived the privilege of seining herring in Newfoundland, and by mobs, we have been obliged to abandon the enterprise, causing a great loss to us.

SAMUEL LANE & BRO.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

January 3, 1879.

Sworn to before me this 3d day of January, A. D. 1879.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

10. Expenses of the schooner Chas. E. Warren on a voyage to Newfoundland in the winter of 1877–’78.

Outfits.

160 hogsheads salt	$270 00
900 barrels	700 00
Outfits for voyage	1,400 00
Crew’s wages	1,400 00
Insurance	250 00
Port charges	30 00
	4,050 00
400 barrels herring (cash paid)	560 00
	4,610 00
Deduct return cargo:
800 barrels herring	2,400 00
30 hogsheads salt	30 00
	2,430 00
Expense, loss	2,180 00
500 barrels herring	2,500 00
Net loss	4,680

PETER SMITH.

State of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 14, 1878.

Personally appeared Peter Smith, and made oath to the truth of the foregoing account signed by him.

Before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

11. Schooner Moro Castle.

Store bill, &c	$191 46
Crew’s wages	521 72
Ballast	30 00
Insurance	420 00
Cargo or outfits	990 00
	2,153 18
Profit 1874-’75	1,981 01
	4,134 19

Schooner Moro Castle, Newfoundland voyage, 1877–’78.

MCKENZIE, HARDY & CO.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

December 12, 1878.

Personally appeared S. N. Hardy, and made oath to the truth of above statement before me.

[seal.]

AAEON PARSONS, Notary Public.

Account of Newfoundland voyage schooner Moro Castle, 1874–’75.

Store bill	$183 01
Outfits	1,080 55
Customs fees, &c	14 50
Oakes V. Stevens’ bill	2 97
Baskets	6 80
Bill of ballast	11 20
Bill of lumber	5 65
Shovels	2 50
J. G. Tarr & Bro’s bill	20 17
Wood and coal	21 50
Telegraphing	3 36
Insurance	420 00
Crew’s wages	479 65
Captain’s wages	315 00
Capt. Nass’ bill	174 68
Expenses to New York	14 00
Use of chain	15 00
Commission on sales	550 00
	3,320 34

Cr.

For sales of herring, &c	5,301 55
	1,981 01

12. Schooner Wildfire.

Actual expenses in voyage to Fortune Bay in January, 1878.

Wages of captain and crew	$628 27
Insurance	570 00
Ballast	58 00
Lumber and cost of erecting platform and stage	70 37
Provisions	204 33
	1,530 97
The last preceding voyage of this vessel to Fortune Bay, January, 1875, she brought back a cargo of herring, which sold for	6,414 70
The expenses of that trip were	1,535 85
Leaving a profit of	4,878 85

As this vessel was driven away by the people of Newfoundland without obtaining a load of herring, the voyage resulted in a loss of—

(1.) Money actually paid as expenses	$1,530 97
(2.) Estimated profit, if the vessel did no better than last year	4,878 85
	6,309 82

ANDREW LEIGHTON.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 20, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above-named Andrew Leighton, and made oath that the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true.

Before me.

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

13. Schooner Maud and Effie.

Actual expenses as paid out on account of voyage to Fortune Bay, January, 1878.

Port charges, Newfoundland	$20 40
Store account	253 16
Outfits for voyage	1,405 02
Lumber for scaffold	15 00
Ballast	40 00
Crew’s wages	650 00
Captain’s wages	375 00
Pilotage, Halifax	10 00
Insurance	375 00
Wood and coal	20 00
Railway	19 55
Loss on seine and gear	150 00
	3,333 13
Deduct merchandise and cash returned	954 00
Loss on voyage	2,379 13

On account of the disturbance made by the British fishermen of Fortune Bay, in January, 1878, resulted in a loss, as follows:

Loss on voyage as expenses	$3,379 13
Profit on voyage as should have been, as compared with previous years	2,000 00
Making an actual loss of	5,379 13

Gloucester Fish Company.

WILLIAM H. GARDNER.

SAMUEL G. POOL.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 2, 1878.

Then personally appeared the above-named W. H. Gardner and Samuel Pool, and made oath that the foregoing statement by them subscribed was true.

Before me.

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

14. Schooner Isaac Rich.

Newfoundland Trip, January, 1878.

Wages	$795 80
Insurance	400 00
Store bill	213 71
Salt	322 88
Cash	103 23
Bill of herring	120 22
Cargo for trade	1,030 25
	2,986 09
Sale of herring, 918 barrels, at $2	1,836 00
	1,150 09
The cargo of the vessel had been contracted for at $3 per barrel, but on account of the delay they only brought $2 per barrel, leaving a loss of	$918 00
Full cargo would have been 1,200 barrels, but on account of the disturbance did not obtain but 918, leaving a deficiency 282, which would have cost $423, were sold for $846, a loss of	428 00
	2,491 09

MICHAEL WALEN.

Massachusetts,
Essex:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared Michael Walen, and made oath to the truth of the two foregoing statements signed by him.

Before me.

[l. s.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

15. Schooner Bunker Hill.

Newfoundland Trip, January, 1878.

Wages	$797 25
Insurance	450 00
Salt	375 00
Cash	413 00
Cargo for trade	954 20
Store bill	190 05
	3,179 50
Sale of 981 barrels of herring, at $2	1,962 00
	1,217 50
The cargo of the vessel had been contracted for at rate of $3 per barrel, but on account of the dealy they brought $2 barrel, leaving a loss of	981 00
Full cargo would have been 1,300 barrels, but on account of disturbance did not obtain but 981 barrels, leaving a deficiency of 319, which would have cost $478.50, were sold for $957, leaving a loss of	478 50
Total	2,677 00

WALEN & ALLEN.

16. Schooner Bonanza.

The actual expenses of this vessel, including cash paid for wages on the voyage to Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, tor herring, in January, 1878, were	$2,855 94
The last preceding trip of this vessel to Fortune Bay netted by sales of herring	4,606 25
The expenses of the trip were	3,465 02
Leaving a profit of	1,141 23

This vessel was driven off in 1878, and only obtained a partial cargo—

(1.) Actual expense, 1878	$2,855 94
(2.) Profit on voyage provided the vessel did no better than on her previous voyage	1,141 23
	3,997 17
Deduct value of partial cargo	975 00
Leaving a loss of	3,022 17

JOSEPH O. PROCTOR,
For self and other owners.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 21, 1878.

Personally appeared Joseph O. Proctor, and made oath to the truth of the above statement.

Before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

17. Schooner Moses Knowlton.

Actual expenses of the trip to Fortune Bay for herring in the year 1877–’78:

Wages of crew	1834 60
Ballast	100 00
Light-money	27 00
Store bill, provisions for crew, &c	350 00
Lumber for stage and fitting vessel	350 00
	1,661 60
I am not the owner of this vessel, but hired her for this trip, paying for the charter	1,000 00
Actual expenses	2,661 60
Add probable profit, calculated average of previous years	3,000 00
Loss on trip.	5,661 60
Credit 180 barrels purchased of the inhabitants of Newfoundland (spoilt by delay)	305 00
	5,356 60

JOHN LOW.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, Mass., December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared said John Low, and made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement signed by him before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

18. Schooner Herbert M. Rogers.

Actual expenses, money paid out on account of voyage to Fortune Bay, January, 1878.

Customs	14 10
Store account	222 83
Outfit for voyage	1,278 00
Lumber for platform	6 00
Crew’s wages	613 65
Captain’s wages	360 00
Insurance	362 60
Wood and coal	17 50
Railway	18 50
Mainmast and setting up rigging	168 00
Use of chronometer	15 00
	3,066 18
Deduct proceeds of the few barrels of herring brought back	1,120 00
Actual loss of voyage	1,946 18
In the last voyage to Fortune Bay the same vessel netted	6,285 70
The actual expenses were	2,355 53
Leaving a profit on the voyage of	3,930 17

The trip of January, 1878, to Fortune Bay, on account of the disturbance made by the British fishermen, resulted in a loss of—

(1) Actual expenses	$1,946 13
(2) Profit on the voyage provided the vessel did no better than in the previous year	3,930 17
	5,876 30

ROWE & JORDAN,
Owners and Agents.

By WILLIAM H. JORDAN.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 2, 1878.

Then personally appeared the aforesaid William H. Jordan, and made oath that the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true, before me.

ALFRED D. FOSTER,
Notary Public.

19. Schooner John W. Bray.

Statement of trip to Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, January, 1878.

expense.

Port charges	$46 32
Store account	227 18
Outfits for voyage	1,013 07
Wood and coal	20 14
Insurance	350 00
Crew’s wages	681 14
Captain’s wages	301 67
Loss on two lines and gear	175 00
	2,714 52
Profit compared with previous years	2,400 00
	5,114 52
Proceeds from part cargo of herring brought home	1,525 45
Balance	3,589 07

JOHN F. WONSON & CO.

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared F. A. Wonson, a member of the firm of J. F. Wonson & Co., and made oath to the truth of the statement signed by him.

Before me,

[l. s.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

20. Schooner Maud B. Wetherell.

Actual expenses of trip to Newfoundland for herring in January, 1878.

Store bill	$205 00
Crew’s wages	821 72
Ballast	60 00
Insurance	475 00
Salt	325 48
800 barrels	600 00
Duties on barrel Newfoundland	60 00
Labor	45 76
Harbor dues	25 68
	2,618 64

total expenses.

By the attack made by the inhabitants upon the seines, the captain was forced to purchase his herring for

$1,179 20

This vessel was fitted out for 1,200 barrels; she was able to obtain only 800 in all.

Actual expenses	$2,618 64
Money paid for fish	1,179 20
Loss of profit on 400 barrels, at $2	800 00
	4,597 84
Credit:
By proceeds of hearing sold	2,067 50
Making a total loss of	2,521 34

GEORGE DENNIS & CO.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared George Dennis, and made oath to the truth of the above statement signed by him.

Before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

D.

Affidavits in reply.

Gloucester, December 10, 1878.

I, Charles Dagle, master of the American schooner Lizzie and Namari, of Rockport, district of Gloucester, do, on oath, depose and say, that I know Mr. Bolt, who resided in a hut or shanty near Tickle Beach, Newfoundland; that I was there on the 6th of January, 1878, and saw the hostile acts of the British fishermen. Mr. Bolt’s hut is about 150 yards back from the beach. I have been to Newfoundland fourteen successive years, and never heard of any persons claiming any rights on the beach, everybody using it in common. The three huts there are in the nature of squatter property, used only in the winter. Mr. Bolt never made any claim that I knew of; and the American seines were not used within 300 yards of Bolt’s place, except where the seines were hauled on the beach by British fishermen and destroyed. The seines that were obliged to be taken up were 500 yards or more from Bolt’s place. The seine of the F. A. Smith, Captain McDonald, was one-fourth of a mile away. Mr. Hickey, a resident of Fortune Bay, had his seine nearest to Bolt’s house. Mr. Hickey’s seine was the first seine set on the 6th of January, 1878, and the British fishermen attacked, him as well as the Americans.

CHARLES DAGLE.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 12, 1878.

Personally appeared Charles Dagle, and made oath to the truth of the above statement.

Before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

Gloucester, December 10, 1878.

I, Willard G. Poole, master of the American schooner Maud and Effie, of Gloucester, do, on oath, depose and say, that I know Mr. Bolt, and also the location of his hut at Tickle Beach, Newfoundland; that I was there on the 6th of January, 1878, and saw and know of the operations of the American seines; that the hut of Mr. Bolt is fully 150 yards back from high-water mark from the beach; that I never heard or knew of any individual or body of men claiming any peculiar or particular rights on this-beach, nor was any one ever hindered from fishing, except on the occasion of the 6th of January, 1878, to my knowledge; there was no seine used by the Americans at any time on the beach or within 400 yards of Mr. Bolt’s hut, except the seines captured by the British fishermen, which were hauled on to the beach by them (the British fishermen) and cut to pieces and destroyed.

WILLARD G. POOLE.

Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 11, 1878.

Personally appeared before me the within-named Willard G. Poole, who subscribed and made oath that the within statement is true.

ADDISON CENTER,
Justice of the Peace.

I Michael B. Murray, master of the American schooner Mary M., of Gloucester, do, on oath, depose and say that I know Matthew Bolt, at Tickle Beach, Newfoundland; have known him to have a shanty there, and lives there winters, for the past four years. I never heard or knew of Mr. Bolt or any other person claiming any peculiar or particular rights on this beach, nor exercising any authority there, except the action of the mob on the 6th of January, 1878. Mr. Bolt’s shanty is about 150 yards, from high-water mark. The American seines were operated more than 400 feet and due south along the beach from Bolt’s hut.

MICHAEL B. MURRAY.

Massachusetts,
Essex ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Sworn to this 23d day of December, A. D. 1878, before me,

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

I, Michael B. Murray, of Gloucester, master of the American schooner Mary M., do hereby, on oath, depose and say that I have invariably made good voyages to Newfoundland, and, with the exception of 1876, have made a clear profit, over and above all expenses, of at least three thousand five hundred dollars for each voyage.

In the year 1875 I made $5,300, clear of all expenses, on my voyage to Newfoundland for herring. In 1874 I made $5,500, clear of all expense.

In the year 1876 I had a cargo of 1,445 barrels of salted herring; was very late in the season, and cleared only $2,000.

MICHAEL B. MURRAY.

Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, December 23, 1878.

Personally appeared M. B. Murray, and made oath to the truth of the above statement.

Before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, N. P.

Gloucester, February 5, 1878.

I, Peter Smith, of Gloucester, master of the American schooner Charles C. Warren, of Gloucester, do, on oath, depose and say that I was at Tickle Beach, Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, on the 6th of January, 1878. That I had been to Labrador, from thence to Bay of Islands, and thence to Fortune Bay, for a load of herring. On the morning of the 6th of January, 1878, herring made their appearance in close proximity to the shore in great abundance. I was provided with two seines with which to take herring, and should have loaded my vessel and others on that day. I had my seine in the boat, and was preparing to use it when the attack was made on the other American seines and I saw them destroyed, and found that the mob of two or three hundred of the British fishermen were determined to destroy every seine, and I did not dare put my seine in the water. After this time I bought of the British fishermen about 400 barrels of herring, paying one dollar and forty cents per barrel. My vessel would carry 1,300 barrels, all of which I could have taken on the 6th of January at little or no cost to myself. I was about a fortnight buying 400 barrels of herring. I consider that my loss was at least $3,000, in addition to the expense of the voyage, by the hostile acts of the British fishermen.

PETER SMITH.

State of Massachusetts,
Essex ss;

Gloucester, December 14, 1878.

Personally appeared Peter Smith, and made oath to the truth of the above statement signed by him.

Before me.

[seal.]

AARON PARSONS, Notary Public.

E.

Official statement of Newfoundland herring fishery.

I, Fitz J. Babson, collector of customs for the district of Gloucester, do certify that the following-named schooners were employed in the Newfoundland herring fishery during seasons of 1877 and 1878.

		Tons.
Sch.	Herbert M. Rogers	78
	Moses Adams	100
	John W. Bray	83
	Wildfire	109
	Edward E. Webster	99
	Hereward	90
	Bunker Hill	101
	Landseer	99
	Isaac Rich	92
	Ontario	91
	New England	86
	Frank A. Smith	77
Sch.	Wm. E. McDonald	98
	Moro Castle	89
	Bonanza	137
	Jennie A. Stubbs	198
	Lizzie and Namari	94
	Crest of the Wave	71
	Moses Knowlton	111
	Maude and Effie	85
	Fred. P. Frye	85
	Mary M	102
	Maud B. Wetberell	108
	Cunard	75
	Charles C. Warren	109
	Bellerophon	86

Vessels employed during season of 1878 and 1879 in Newfoundland fisheries.

Sch.	John S. McQuinn	82
	Falcon	72
	New England	86
	Rattler	83
	Wildfire	109
	Bunker Hill	101
	Isaac Rich	92
	Centennial	116

Witness my hand and seal this 10th day of January, 1879.

[seal.]

F. J. BABSON,
Collector.

[Appendix B to No. 347.]

Messrs. Pew to Mr. Evarts.

Gloucester, Mass., March 7, 1878.

Sir: We herewith send to your Department our claim for loss sustained by us through the destruction of the seines of the American fishing schooners Ontario and New England belonging tons.

The particulars are fully set forth in said claim and the affidavits of the masters and crews of said schooners.

We earnestly hope that the Government of the United States will take such action in the premises as will secure to American vessel-owners, their masters and crews, the right to fish in British waters, granted them by the treaties of Great Britain with the United States. It is a matter of great importance to the fishing interest of New England, and especially to the people of Gloucester. We are not safe in sending vessels to fish in British waters, and, therefore, the rights granted to our people by the Washington treaty are of little value, while the rights granted by the United States to the subjects of Great Britain to bring fish to our markets free of duty is a great damage to our fisheries and of great value to the people of the British provinces.

With the fullest confidence that our application will receive due consideration,

We are, &c.,

JOHN PEW & SON.

P. S.—We also inclose you two printed copies of our petition and accompanying affidavits, thinking they may be a convenience to you.—J. P. & S.

To the honorable William M. Evarts,
Secretary of State:

Respectfully represent John Pew, Charles H. Pew, and John J. Pew, all of Gloucester, county of Essex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, copartners under the firm style of John Pew & Son, that they are American citizens, and engaged in the fishing business at said Gloucester, and were and are Owners and fitters of fishing vessels.

That they are the sole owners of the American fishing schooners Ontario and New England, of said Gloucester, and were such owners in the months of November, December, and January last past.

That both of said schooners were fitted for the herring fisheries in the month of November, 1877, and for voyages to Newfoundland, and provided with seines for catching herring. That said schooner Ontario, whereof Peter McAulay was master, sailed on the first day of December, 1877, from said Gloucester, and the said schooner New England, whereof John Dago was master, on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1877; that both schooners had a full supply of men and outfits for said voyage. That said schooner Ontario, when she sailed from said Gloucester on said voyage with her outfits and seine, was worth the sum of seventy-five hundred dollars; and the said New England, with her outfits and seine, was then and there of the value of eighty-five hundred dollars. That said schooners both returned to said Gloucester from said voyage, on the seventeenth day of February, without any herring, except that the said Ontario had about fifty barrels purchased by her.

And we further represent that we are informed by the masters and crews of said schooners, and believe the same to be true, that the reason why they returned without any herring and made disastrous voyages is that they arrived at Long Harbor, Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, on or about the sixteenth day of December, 1877, and found herring scarce, and were unable to obtain any considerable quantity of herring; and that the masters and crews of said schooners waited at said Long Harbor until the sixth day of January, 1878, to catch or purchase herring, as they might be able to do; that on said sixth day of said January, “the signs for herring being good,” the masters and crews of both of said schooners joined their purse seines, thereby making a double seine, which was of the value of at least fourteen hundred dollars, and making a seine of about twenty-four hundred feet long and one hundred and fifty feet deep; that the masters and crews of said schooners threw said double seine at said Long Harbor and caught and secured therein a very large quantity of herring, amounting to at least two thousand barrels of herring, and more than sufficient to load both of said schooners.

That at about four o’clock of said sixth day of said January some two hundred men, who belonged about Fortune Bay and had gone ashore from English vessels in said Long Harbor, made a warlike demonstration against the masters and crews of said schooners and seized hold of said double seine, tore it in pieces, and carried it off, and thereby freed all of said herring and prevented the masters and crews of said schooners from obtaining them, and thereby destroyed all hope of their obtaining a cargo for either of said vessels. That of said two hundred men some sixty took hold of said seine and destroyed it, and the others were participating in the destruction of the seine by inciting and encouraging those who were destroying it.

That the masters and crews of said schooners were pursuing their business of catching herring at said Fortune Bay in a lawful manner, and were not in any manner or form interfering with the rights of any party or parties at said Newfoundland, and that the action of said parties in destroying said seine was a most wanton destruction of the property of said firm, and was without the least justification in law or good conscience, and was intended to be a warlike demonstration against the American vessels, their owners, masters, and crews, and to intimidate them and prevent them from prosecuting the herring fisheries in the waters of Newfoundland by catching herring, and thereby compel them to buy herring of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, if they would obtain them, at such prices as said people of Newfoundland might ask for them. That all the American vessels at said Newfoundland on said sixth day of said January were from said Gloucester and were there for herring, and among them were the schooners Moses Adams, Herbert M. Rogers, John W. Bray, F. A. Smith, Hereward, William E. McDonald, Moro Castle, Edward E. Webster, Bonanza, Wildfire, Bunker Hill, and Isaac Rich. That said schooners Ontario and New England were, by reason of the destruction of said seine and the freeing of the herring therein, were both prevented from obtaining cargoes for said schooners.

That after the destruction of said seine, as above set forth, the said parties who had destroyed the same returned to their vessels, and on the evening thereafter, to wit, on the evening of the sixth day of said January, they made a jubilant demonstration, blowing horns, firing guns, and shouting as if celebrating a victory, to impress upon the masters and crews of American vessels in said harbor that they were prepared to stand by and justify what had been done, and that the Americans might expect to be treated in future in the same manner should they attempt to catch herring in Newfoundland waters.

And we further respectfully represent that in view of the treatment of the American fishermen by the British subjects at said Newfoundland, it is wholly unsafe for American vessel owners to fit vessels for and send them to Newfoundland waters to catch herring, and that it is unsafe for American fishermen to attempt to catch fish in said waters, and that the demonstration against the American fishing-vessel owners, masters, and crews is of such a character as to make it a public violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States wishing to catch herring and attempting to catch herring there. That the loss to the said firm by reason of the warlike demonstration of the people of Newfoundland hereinbefore set forth, and the destruction of said seine in the voyages of said two schooners Ontario and New England, amounts to at least the sum of sixty-seven hundred dollars.

In verification of the facts herein set forth, we beg leave to refer to the affidavits of the masters and crews of both of said schooners Ontario and New England herewith submitted.

Wherefore, we respectfully ask that your Department will cause our said damage to be paid by the British Government, and such action to be taken as will secure to American shipowners and fishermen the rights to which they are justly and legally entitled by the laws and treaties of the United States.

And as in duty bound will ever pray.

JOHN PEW.

CHARLES H. PEW.

JOHN J. PEW.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex County, ss:

On this fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, before me personally appeared John Pew, Charles H. Pew, and John J. Pew, copartners, and made oath that they have read the affidavit hereto annexed, subscribed by them, and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of their own knowledge, except as to matters which are therein stated to be on their information and belief, and as to those matters they believe them to be true.

Before me.

[seal.]

SUMNER D. YORK, Notary Public.

I, Peter McAulay, of Gloucester, county of Essex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, master mariner, on oath depose and say that on the first day of December, A. D. 1877. I was master of the fishing schooner Ontario, of said Gloucester, of the burthen of ninety-one tons and twenty-nine one hundredths, and on said first day of said December I sailed on a voyage from said Gloucester to Fortune Bay, on the southwest of Newfoundland, for a cargo of herring, and back to same port of discharge in the United States; that said schooner Ontario was fully fitted for said voyage, and had on board a mate and five men, making in all seven men; that I arrived with said schooner on said voyage at Fortune Bay, Long Harbor, about the sixteenth day of said December; that I found herring very scarce, and up to the sixth day of January, A. D. 1878, had not been able to obtain, by purchase or otherwise, more than fifty barrels of herring.

That on the sixth day of said January, there being “good signs for herring,” and the schooner New England, of said Gloucester, being a fishing schooner from said Gloucester, and provided with seine, which said schooner belonged to the firm of John Pew & Son, of said Gloucester, the same parties to whom the said Ontario belonged, the masters and crews of both of said schooners threw the said seine to catch herring to load both of said schooners.

That said seine, on being thrown, took a large haul of herring, amounting, at least, to two thousand barrels of herring, and more than sufficient to load both of said schooners. That said herring being fully secured in said seine, and said schooners and said seine being at said Long Harbor, this affiant saw about two hundred men on the shore at about four o’clock in the afternoon of said sixth day of said January while the seine was in charge of the masters and crews of said schooners Ontario and New England, make an attack upon said seine in a most violent manner, and tear up and carry off the seine, and thereby let the herring out of said seine, and prevent the masters and crews of said schooners from obtaining any of said herring. That the men who made said attack upon and destroyed said seine prevented the masters and crews of said schooners from protecting said seine, and some sixty of said two hundred men took hold of said seine, while all the rest of them were inciting and encouraging those who had hold of said seine and were destroying it. That the said men so destroying said seine and inciting those destroying it used threats and violence towards both the masters and crews of said schooners and fully overpowered them, so that they could not protect said seine and save the herring therein. That most of said two hundred men landed from boats in the said bay, and were men belonging in and about said Fortune Bay. That said men who made said attack upon said seine and destroyed the same had been fishing with nets during the day and with seines in the same neighborhood, and had taken quite a large quantity of herring.

And this affiant further says that both he and his crew and the master and crew of the schooner New England were pursuing their business in a peaceful and lawful manner, and were not interfering in any manner or form with the rights of any party at said Newfoundland. That the attack upon said seine by said persons from the shore of Fortune Bay was wholly without justification or excuse, and was a warlike demonstration against the American vessels there, which amounted to some fifteen in number, and were all from the said port of Gloucester, among which were the schooners F. A. Smith, Moses Adams, Hereward, William E. McDonald, Moro Castle, Edward E. Webster, Bonanza, Wildfire, Herbert M. Rogers, Bunker Hill, Isaac Rich, and John W. Bray.

That this affiant believes that the only reason of said attack and demonstration by the said persons from the shore was to intimidate the American fishermen there and to prevent them from catching herring, so that the said parties on the shore of Newfoundland might sell herring to the vessels from the United States at a high price and keep the whole control of the herring fisheries in their hands, and wholly deprive the citizens of the United States from prosecuting said fisheries at Newfoundland or obtaining the herring there in any other manner than by purchase.

This affiant believes that it is wholly unsafe for American vessels to catch herring, in the Newfoundland waters; that the people of Newfoundland are belligerent and threatening in their treatment of American fishermen, and seem determined to prevent them from prosecuting their business in Newfoundland waters in any manner which is not satisfactory to the inhabitants thereof. That this affiant, had he not been deprived of his herring in said seine, would have loaded his said schooner Ontario-with herring and returned to Gloucester by about the twenty-fifth of January last past and made a successful voyage, but, by reason of the destruction of said seine and the losing of the herring therein, he was wholly prevented from getting any herring, and obliged to return to Gloucester in ballast, except fifty barrels of herring which he purchased and was unable to purchase more, making thereby a disastrous instead of a profitable voyage. And this affiant says that all he has said with reference to the schooner Ontario is also true of his personal knowledge of the said schooner New England, of which John Dago was master, both schooners arriving at Fortune Bay on the same day, and arrived from said voyage at Gloucester on the same day, and were to act together and did act together in endeavors to obtain cargoes for said; schooners, and were both affected alike by the destruction of said seine and the loss of the herring in the same at the time it was destroyed, as above set forth.

And this affiant further says that on the evening of the said sixth day of said January, after the destruction of said seine, the parties who destroyed it returned to their vessels in said harbor and made a jubilant demonstration, firing guns, blowing; horns, and shouting as if celebrating a victory, to impress upon the masters and crews of the American vessels at said harbor that they were prepared to stand by and justify what had been done, and that the Americans might expect to be treated in future in the same manner should they attempt to catch herring in the Newfoundland waters.

PETER McAULAY.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, February 21, 1878.

Subscribed and sworn to this twenty-first day of February, A. D. 1878.

Before me.

[seal.]

SUMNER D. YORK, Notary Public.

We, Allen McDonald, Daniel Tucker, Peter McKinnon, Charles McNeil, and Robert McDonald, all of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, late mariners on board the fishing schooner Ontario, of said Gloucester, an American vessel belonging to John Pew & Son, of said Gloucester, whereof Peter McAulay was and is master, on oath, depose and say:

That we sailed from said Gloucester about the first day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, to Newfoundland, for herring, and back to a port of discharge in the United States; that we arrived at Newfoundland at a place called Long Harbor, Fortune Bay, about the sixteenth day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven; that on the sixth day of January the seine belonging to the American fishing schooner New England was thrown at said Long Harbor by the master and crew of said schooner Ontario and the master and crew of said schooner New England, acting together, and a large quantity of herring were then and there secured in said seine. That the affidavit of Peter McAulay, this day taken at said Gloucester, before Sumner D. York, a notary public, relative to the destruction of said seine at Long Harbor, on said sixth day of January, by the people of Newfoundland, has been read to us, and the mode and manner of the destruction of said seine, and the conduct of the parties at the time of destroying it and afterwards, and the inability of the masters of said schooners to obtain herring at Newfoundland after the destruction of said seine, are correctly set forth in said affidavit of said McAulay.

• ALLEN MCDONALD.
• DANIEL his + mark TUCKER.
• PETER McKINNON.
• ROBERT his + mark MCDONALD.
• CHARLES MCNEIL.

Witness to all the signatures.

[seal.]

Sumner D. York.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Gloucester, February 21, 1878.

Subscribed and sworn to before me by the above-named Allen McDonald, Daniel Tucker, Peter McKinnon, Robert McDonald, and Charles McNeil.

SUMNER D. YORK,
Notary Public.

I, John Dago, of Gloucester, county of Essex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, master mariner, on oath, depose and say that I was master of the fishing-schooner New England, of said Gloucester, of eighty-six tons burden or thereabouts, belonging to John Pew & Son, of said Gloucester, on the twenty-eighth day of November last past, and as master sailed with said schooner on said day on a voyage to Newfoundland, for herring, and back to a market in the United States; that her crew consisted of seven men all told, including the master; that she arrived at Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, about the sixteenth day of December, A. D. 1877; that the schooner Ontario, of said Gloucester, belonging to said firm of John Pew & Son, whereof Peter McAuley was then and there master, arrived on the same day; that I had a seine for catching herring for the purpose of loading both of said schooners, and the master and crews of said schooners were to act in company in loading said schooners, and said schooners were near each other in said Fortune Bay at Long Harbor.

I further depose and say that I have read the affidavit of said McAuley, stating the facts relative to the destruction of said seine by the people at said Fortune Bay, coming from the shore, and the loss of the herring in said seine at the time of its destruction, which amounted to at least 2,000 barrels, which were fully secured in said seine at the time of its destruction, and all the facts in said affidavit relating to the destruction of said seine, the mode and manner in which it was done, and the conduct of the people who destroyed it at the time and after it was destroyed, and the loss of the voyages of both of said schooners, and the belligerent spirit manifested by the people of Newfoundland towards American fishermen, and the danger to them of attempting to catch fish in Newfoundland waters, together with all the other facts set forth therein, are, to my personal knowledge, true, except as to the time of the sailing of the said schooner Ontario from Gloucester, she not having sailed from Gloucester on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1877.

JOHN DAGO.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Essex, ss:

Subscribed and sworn to this twenty-first day of February, A. D. 1878, before me.

[seal.]

SUMNER D. YORK.

We, Fred. Morin, Joseph Gray, Fred. Hall, Peter Forrest, Alex. D. Bushee, Edward Phelan, all of Gloucester, county of Essex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, on oath depose and say:

That we belong to the crew of the American schooner New England, belonging to John Pew & Son, of said Gloucester, whereof John Dago was master, on her late voyage from said Gloucester to Newfoundland for herring. That we sailed from said Gloucester about the 28th day of November, 1877, and arrived at Long Harbor, Fortune Bay, about the sixteenth day of December, 1877. That on the sixth day of January the seine belonging to the said schooner New England was thrown at said Long Harbor by the master of said schooner and the master of the schooner Ontario, of said Gloucester, and the crews of said schooners, and a large quantity of herring secured in said seine. That the affidavit of Peter McAuley relative to the destruction of said seine at Long Harbor on said sixth day of said January, by the people from Newfoundland, and the mode and manner of the destruction of said seine, and the conduct of the parties at the time of destroying it and afterwards, and the inability of the masters of said schooners to obtain herring at said Newfoundland after the destruction of said seine, are correctly set forth in said affidavit of said McAuley, taken this day before Sumner D. York, a notary public, which has been read to us. And we do hereby fully confirm the statements made by him in said affidavit in all particulars except as to the day when he left said Gloucester on said voyage, which is unknown to us. The said schooner Ontario did not leave said port of Gloucester until after said schooner New England sailed on said voyage.

• PETER FORREST.
• ALEX. D. BUSHEE.
• FRED. MORIN.
• EDW’D PHELAN.
• JOSEPH GRAY.
• FRED. HALL.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
County of Essex, ss, city of Gloucester:

On this 23d day of February, A. D. 1878, personally appeared Alex. D. Bushee, Fred. Morin, Edw’d Phelan, Joseph Gray, and Fred. Hall, and were severally sworn to the truth of the foregoing statement by them subscribed before me.

[seal.]

CYRUS STORY,
Notary Public.