No. 234.
Mr. Bayard to Sir L.
West.
Department of State,
Washington, December 1,
1886.
Sir: As possessing additional and very
disagreeable bearing upon the general subject of the harsh treatment of
American fishing vessels during the late season by the local authorities
of the maritime provinces of Her Majesty’s Dominion of Canada, I have
the honor to send you herewith a copy of a letter addressed to me, under
date of the 12th ultimo, by Capt. Solomon Jacobs, master of the American
fishing schooner Molly Adams, of Gloucester, Mass. You will share, I
doubt not, the regret I feel at such churlish and inhospitable treatment
of a vessel which had freely, and with great loss and inconvenience,
rendered such essential service to the suffering and imperiled crew of a
Nova Scotian vessel. But for his generous act Captain Jacobs would have
had no occasion to put into Malpeque, or, subsequently, when short of
provisions, into Port Medway. As his narrative shows, the local
authorities at Malpeque treated him with coldness and rudeness, making
no provision to receive the Nova Scotian crew he had saved from such
imminent danger, even causing him to incur a pecuniary burden in
completion of his humane rescue, and even treating the landing of the
property so saved from the wreck of the Nova Scotian vessel, on her own
shores, as not lawful for an American fishing vessel “within the
three-mile limit.”
The treatment of Captain Jacobs at Port Medway is a fitting sequel to
that received by him at Malpeque. Having undergone fourteen days
detention in the latter port, and having shared his purse and slender
stock of provisions with the men he had rescued, he put to sea, when,
his supplies falling short by reason of his charitable action, he asked
leave to purchase at Port Medway “half a barrel of flour, or enough
provisions to take his vessel and crew home.” With full knowledge of the
cause of Captain Jacobs’s dearth of provisions, even this the collector
at Port Medway absolutely refused, and threatened Captain Jacobs with
the seizure of his vessel “if he bought anything whatever.” The urgent
need of supplies in which Captain Jacobs stood, is shown by the fact
that although the run with favorable weather from Port Medway to his
home port, Gloucester, Mass., only occupied three days, his crew were on
half rations for two days, and without food for one day of that time. It
is painful to conjecture what might have been their distress had the
Molly Adams encountered storms or head winds.
I am confident that Her Majesty’s Government, than which none has more
generously fulfilled the obligations of the unwritten code of seafaring
humanity, will hasten to rebuke the treatment of Captain Jacobs at the
hands of the local authorities of Nova Scotia, by exhibiting gratitude
for his act in saving seventeen of their own people from death, and
tendering him compensation for the delays and expenses he has undergone
through the breaking up of his legitimate fishing venture.
[Page 429]
The closing part of Captain Jacobs’s letter may serve to show the
irresponsible and different treatment he was subjected to in the several
ports he visited, where the only common feature seems to have been a
surly hostility. At Port Hood, for instance, Captain Jacobs being sick,
his brother landed and reported in his stead, and, after paying the
regular fee, was told that his report was a nullity, and that the vessel
would be liable to penalty for unauthorized landing of her crew unless
her captain reported in person, which, although ill, he was compelled to
do, and the fee was thereupon levied a second time. This is a small
matter measured by the amount of the fee, but it is surely discreditable
and has a tendency which cannot be too much deplored.
In my late correspondence I have treated of the necessary and logical
results of permitting so irritating and unfriendly a course of action,
and I will not therefore now enlarge on this subject.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure in note of December 1,
1886.]
Captain Jacobs
to Mr. Bayard.
Gloucester, November 12,
1886.
The Hon. Secretary of
State.
Sir: I would most respectfully ask your
attention to the following facts as showing the spirit and manner of
the application of law on the part of the officials of the Dominion
of Canada.
On or about the 26th of September, when off Malpeque, Prince Edward
Island, I fell in with the British schooner Neskilita, of Lockeport,
Nova Scotia, which had run on Malpeque bar in making the harbor. It
was blowing very heavy; sea running high. The crew was taken off by
my vessel about 12 o’clock at night. There were seventeen men in
all. We took care of them, and fed them for three days. The
Neskilita became a total wreck. We saved some of the material.
The cutter Critic, Captain McClennan, one of the Canadian cruisers,
was lying in the harbor of Malpeque. The captain boarded my vessel,
and I reported to him the facts of the wreck and the condition of
the men. They had saved a portion of their clothing. He neither
offered to care for the wrecked crew, to feed them, nor to give them
or myself any assistance whatever. Having some of the wrecked
material on board, I asked the captain of the cutter for permission
to land it. He referred me to the local collector. I went to the
collector, and he referred me back to the captain of the cutter. As
the cutter had gone out, the captain of the Neskilita assumed the
responsibility and took the things ashore. The captain of the cutter
told me that I could put the saved material on board a Nova Scotia
vessel if I went outside of the three-mile limit to do it. I
endeavored to get some of the people on shore to take the wrecked
crew, but no one would do it unless I would be responsible for their
board. Finally, I gave the crew $60, enough to pay their passage
home on the cars, and also gave them provisions to last during their
journey.
Malpeque is a barred harbor, and it is only in smooth water that it
is safe to go out over the bar, and my vessel drawing fourteen feet
of water, and there was only fourteen feet of water on the bar, it
was impossible for me to go out. By being detained in port in
disposing of this wrecked crew I lost over ten days of valuable time
before I could get out to fish, and during that time the fleet took
large quanties of mackerel. Having to feed so many on my vessel left
me short of provisions, and in a short time afterwards I put into
Port Medway, and stated the circumstances, and asked permission to
buy half a barrel of flour or enough provisions, to take my vessel
and crew home. This was absolutely refused, and the collector
threatened me that if I bought anything whatever he would seize my
vessel. I was obliged to leave without obtaining anything and came
home in three days, on short rations, a distance of 300 miles. The
wind and weather being favorable, we had a good passage, but yet we
were without provisions for one day before we arrived home. I wish
to state most emphatically that the officials differ in their
construction of our rights. Fees are different in every port, and as
there is no standard of right fixed by our own Government, the
fishermen are at the mercy of a class of officials hostile to them
and their business, and with but little knowledge of law or its
application.
[Page 430]
For instance, at Souris, Prince Edward Island, 15 cents is charged.
For reporting at Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, 50 cents is charged. At
Port Hood, I being sick, my brother went to the custom-house to
report. The official charged him 25 cents, and told him that unless
the captain reputed in person the report was invalid; that men from
the vessel would not be allowed ashore unless the captain
reported.
In the afterhoon of the same day I was able to go to the office, and
was charged 25 cents for my report, making 50 cents. In the mattes
of anchorage fees, at Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, I paid $1.50; at
Malpeque, $1; at Sydney, $1.17. At some ports we have to pay
anchorage fees every time we go in, as at Halifax; at others twice
for the season.
Now, I would most respectfully state that the official service
throughout is actuated apparently from a principle of annoyance
wherever and whenever it can be so applied; that there is only
harmony of action in this regard alone, and that local laws and
regulations are enforced against us without regard to any rights we
may have under treaty; that the effect of this enforcement is not to
promote but to interfere and to limit by unjust pains, fees, and
penalties the right of shelter, obtaining wood and water, and making
of repairs guaranteed by treaty of 1818; that instead of the
restriction contemplated the local laws make a technical obligation
that is without their province or power, and enforce penalties that
should never be admitted or allowed by our Government.
And I would pray that in the case recited, and many others that can
be shown if required, we may be protected from local laws and their
enforcement that abridge our rights and have never received the
sanction of the two great contracting powers in the construction and
agreement of the treaty of 1818.
I have, &c.,
North Sydney, C. B., October 13, 1886.
$1.17.]
Molly Adams, 117 tons.—Captain Jacobs to harbor commissioners.
To amount of harbor dues . . . . . . . $1 17
Received payment.
Dominion of Canada.—Harbor dues.
Malpeque, P. E. I., 1886.
No. 100.$1.00.]
Received from Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner Molly Adams,
from _____ 118 tons register, the sum of $1, being harbor dues at
this port.
EDWARD LARKINS,
Harbor
Master.
Dominion of Canada.—Harbor dues.
Port Mulgrave, N. S., August 30, 1886.
No. —.Received from Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner Mollie Adams,
from North Bay, 117 tons register, the sum of $1.50, being harbor
dues at this port.
[
seal.]
DUNCAN C.
GILLIES,
Harbor
Master.
