Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1886
No. 237.
Sir L.
West to Mr. Bayard.
Sir: With reference to your notes of the 9th and 18th of August last, I am instructed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to communicate to you the inclosed copy of a dispatch from the governor-general of Canada, with its inclosures, relative to the causes of complaint alleged by the masters of the United States fishing vessels Rattler, Shiloh, and Julia Ellen against Captain Quigley, of the Canadian cruiser Terror.
I have, &c.,
Acting Governor Lord A. G. Russell to Mr. Stanhope.
Sir: I have the honor to forward herewith a copy of an approved minute of the privy council of Canada, furnishing the report asked for in your dispatch of the 1st September last, respecting the alleged unfriendly treatment of the United States fishing schooner Rattler in being required to report to the collector of customs at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, when seeking that harbor for shelter.
I beg also to draw your attention to the statement of the captain of the Terror, appended to the above order in council, which gives the facts concerning the cases of the Shiloh and Julia Ellen, a report as to which was requested in your dispatch of the 9th ultimo.
I have, &c.,
General.
Report of a committee of the honorable the privy council for Canada, approved by his excellency the administrator of the Government in council on the 28th day of October, 1886.
The committee of the privy council have had their attention called by a cablegram from the right honorable Mr. Stanhope as to when he may expect answer to dispatch Rattler. The honorable Mr. Bo well, for the minister of marine and fisheries, to whom the papers were referred, submits, for the information of his excellency in [Page 488] council, that having considered the statements, copies of which are annexed, of Captain Quigley, of the Government cutter Terror, and of the collector of customs at Shelburne, with reference to the subject-matter of the dispatch, he is of opinion that these officers only performed their respective duties in the case of the Rattler, and that no just grounds exist for the complaint put forward in Mr. Bayard’s dispatch of a violation of that hospitality which all civilized nations prescribe, or of a gross infraction of treaty stipulations.
The minister states that it does not appear at all certain, from the statements submitted, that this vessel put into Shelburne for a harbor in consequence of stress of weather. It does, however, appear that immediately upon the Rattler coming into port, Captain Quigley sent his chief officer to inform the captain of the Rattler that before sailing he must report his vessel at the custom-house, and left on board the Rattler a guard of two men to see that no supplies were landed or taken on board or men allowed to leave the vessel during her stay in Shelburne Harbor. That at midnight the guard fired a shot as a signal to the cruiser, and the first officer at once again proceeded to the Rattler, and found the sails being hoisted and the anchor weighed preparatory to leaving port. The captain being informed he must comply with the customs regulations and report his vessel, headed her up the harbor. That on the way up she became becalmed, when the first officer of the Terror took the captain of the Rattler in his boat and rowed him to the town, where the collector of customs received his report at the unusual hour of 6 a.m. rather than detain him, and the captain with his vessel proceeded to sea.
The minister observes that under section 25 of the customs act every vessel entering a port in Canada is required to immediately report at the customs, and the strict enforcement of this regulation as regards the United States fishing vessels has become a necessity in view of the illegal trade transactions carried on by the United States fishing vessels when entering Canadian ports under pretext of their treaty privileges.
That under these circumstances, a. compliance with the customs act, involving only the report of a vessel, cannot be held to be a hardship or an unfriendly proceeding.
The minister submits, in view of the repeated groundless complaints of being harshly treated that have been made during the present season by captains of United States fishing vessels, and in almost every instance traceable to a refusal or neglect to observe the customs regulations, which, it is proper to state, are enforced upon other vessels as well as those of the United States, herewith a letter written by Captain Blake, of the United States fishing schooner Andrew Burnham, which appeared in the Boston (Massachusetts) Herald of the 7th instant, and also the editorial comments thereon made in a subsequent issue of the paper referred to.
The minister believes that the statements made by Captain Blake are strictly accurate, and as applied to other vessels are substantiated by the weekly boarding reports, received by the fishery department from the different captains engaged in the fisheries protection service. He, the minister, therefore respectfully submits that the reflections of Mr. Secretary Bayard, characterizing the treatment extended to the captain of the Rattler as unwarrantable and unfriendly, is not merited, in view of the facts as stated by Captain Quigley and Collector Attwood.
The committee concur in the report of the acting minister of marine and fisheries and advise that your excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this minute, if approved, to the right honorable Her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for the colonies.
All which is respectfully submitted for your excellency’s approval.
Cleric, Privy Council.
A Fiishing Captain’s Experience.—The letter of Capt. Nathan F. Blake, of the fishing schooner Andrew Burnham, of this city, which we published on Wednesday, would apparently indicate that the Canadian officials have not been disposed to push the requirements of their law quite as vigorously as some of our fishermen have maintained. Captain Blake says he has experienced not the least trouble in his intercourse with the Canadian officials, but that as he treated them courteously, they, on their side, have reciprocated in like terms. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of bitterness felt on both sides, and probably this bitterness has led both parties to be ungracious in their own conduct, and to exaggerate the wrongs they have endured, hardships frequently due to an unwillingness to observe the requirements of the law as these are now laid down. If all American fishing captains exhibited the same courtesy and moderation that Captain Blake has shown, we imagine that there would be very little trouble in arriving at an equitable and pleasing understanding with Canada.
Captain Quigley to Major Silton.
Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, requesting the circumstances connected with the boarding of the vessels Rattler. Julia and Ellen, and Shiloh.
In the case of the Rattler, she came into Shelburne Harbor on the evening of the 4th August at 6 o’clock. She being at some distance from where I was anchored, and it being too rough to send my boat so far, I fired a musket signal for her to round-to, which she did, and came to an anchor alongside of my vessel.
I then sent the chief officer to board her; he reported she put in for shelter, The captain was then told by the chief officer to report his vessel before he sailed, and that he must not let his men on shore, and that he would leave two men, who are always armed, on board to see that he did not otherwise break the law.
About midnight the captain hoisted his sails to leave port, thereby evading the customs law requiring him to report (for which I refer you to section 25 of the customs act), and disregarding my instructions.
The watchman fired a signal, calling my attention to his act, when I sent the chief officer to tell him he must lower his sails and report his vessel in the morning, otherwise he would likely have his vessel detained. He did so and sailed up in company with the chief officer at 4 o’clock a.m. On the way it fell calm, and the vessel anchored. The chief officer with my boat’s crew rowed him up to the custom-house, where he reported at 6 a.m.; and returned, passing out to sea at 8 a.m., The captain was only asked to report his vessel as all others do, but was not disposed to do so.
In the case of the Julia and Ellen, she came into the harbor of Liverpool on the 9th of August, about 5 p.m. Being some distance from me, I fired a blank musket shot to round her to. When she anchored I boarded her, and the captain reported that he came in for water. I told him to report him vessel in the morning, as it was then after customs hours, and that he must not let his men ashore, and that I would leave two men on his vessel to see that my instructions were carried out, and to see that he did not otherwise break the law.
In the morning, at 8 o’clock, I called for the captain to go to the custom-house and told him his men could go on and take water while he was reporting, so that he would be all ready to sail when he returned, which they did, and he sailed at noon.
In the case of the Shiloh, she came into the harbor about 6 p.m. on the 9th of August, at Liverpool, and a signal was fired in her case the same as the others.
When she anchored I boarded her, and the captain reported she was in for water. I told him it was then too late to report at the customs till morning, and that he must not allow his crew on shore; also that I would leave two men on board to see that he did not otherwise break the law, and that my instructions were carried out.
In the morning I called for the captain, when taking the Julia and Ellen’s captain ashore. When there I told him, as I did the other, that his men could go on taking water while he was reporting, so that he could sail when he returned, and not be delayed. This they did not do.
I have reason to know that it was not water this vessel came in for, as several of the crew lived there, and it was for the purpose of letting his men ashore, and not for taking water, that he put in. He afterwards emptied six barrels of water, stating that they were sour, and fooled all day filling them, delaying the time, that he might get his crew on shore. I refused to allow his crew on shore for any other purpose than to take water, after completing which, the weather being fine, I ordered him to sea in the evening.
The signals that were fired were not intended to make them come-to quickly, but as a signal for them to either round-to or show their ensign.
After the Shiloh sailed the harbor master informed me that she landed two men at the mouth of the harbor, 7 miles down, before she reported, and the evening she sailed she called after dark and picked them up.
In many cases it is an understood thing between the captains and crews to let the men ashore and then make out they have deserted. In all cases where a vessel puts in for shelter the captain reports, and the rest of his crew are not allowed ashore, as the vessel only put in for the privilege of shelter and for no other purpose.
When she puts in for water, after reporting, the captain is allowed to take his boats and the men he requires to procure water, and the rest remain on board, after which he is ordered to sea. When in for repairs he is allowed all the privileges he requires after reporting, and when ready is ordered to sea. In all cases, except when in for repairs, I place men on board to see that the law is not violated, as many of those vessels put into the harbor and make taking water and seeking shelter an excuse either to get men or land them, or to allow them a chance to see their friends, or to get goods [Page 490] ashore if the vessel is on her way from American ports to the fishing grounds, and have landed men here and at other ports on this coast in my absence.
In one case in this port, a vessel, finding I was in the harbor, let men take a boat and land, she going on her way home to the States. That is why I put men on these vessels, to keep them from breaking the law under cover of night. I might remark here that the collector of customs at Liverpool informed me that the Shiloh on her previous voyage remained in port five days after being ordered out, delaying for the purpose of letting the men be with their friends.
Now that they are not allowed all the privileges they once enjoyed, it is an outrage on my part.
These are the facts connected with those vessels which I reported to Captain Scott while in Halifax some time ago. I treat all courteously, but firmly, and find no trouble with any but a few who wish to evade the law.
I am, &c.,
Government Cruiser Terror.
Mr. Attwood to the Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 4th instant relative to schooner Rattler, and I wired an answer this morning as requested.
On the morning of the 4th ultimo chief officer of Terror, accompanied by Capt. A. F. Cunningham, called at this office. Captain Cunningham reported his vessel inwards as follows, viz: Schooner Rattler, of Gloucester, 93 tons register, 16 men, from fishing banks, with 465 barrels mackerel, came in for shelter.
I was afterwards informed by the officer of cutter that they found the schooner the evening before at anchor off Sandy Point, 5 miles down the harbor. Two men from cutter were put on board, and the master required to report at customs in the morning. I was also informed that the master, Captain Cunningham, made an attempt to put to sea in the night by hoisting sails, weighing anchor, &c., but war stopped by officer from cutter.
I am, &c.,
Collector.
A Fisherman’s Tale.—The following letter which appears in the Boston Herald conveys a different impression to many statements that have appeared on the subject:
“So much has been written and printed about the experiences of American fishermen in Canadian waters, and the indignities put on them, I wish you would open your columns and give your readers an insight into the other side of the story. I sailed from Boston for North Bay on the 16th June, not knowing just what the cutters would do or how the law would be interpreted. I neared the coast with fear and anxiety. The first land sighted was White Head, and immediately cries came from aloft, ‘Cutter in sight, ahead.’ I rushed to the deck, found the vessel, which proved to be the Howlet, commanded by Captain Lowry, nearing us rapidly. At time of sighting the cutter we were standing inshore. She hoisted her flags to let us know what she was, and we immediately ‘about ship,’ and put to sea to get out of her way, for fear we might be placed on the prize-list of the captures. We finally headed up for Port Mulgrave, in Canso, expecting to receive rough usage from the authorities, but, to our surprise, found Collector Murray a perfect gentleman, willing to assist me as far as he could without encroaching on the Canadian laws. From there we put in at Port Hawkesbury, and boarded the cutter Conrad, and asked the captain for instructions in regard to the three-mile limit, and what privileges, if any, we had. I was answered, in a courteous and hearty way, that he did not have them aboard, but would go ashore in a few moments and get me a printed copy of the regulations, which he did, and assured us that if we followed them we would be unmolested; that he was there to see that the law was not violated, but not to cause unnecessary annoyance. After receiving instructions from the captain, thanks to him, I went to the custom-house and entered my vessel, paying 25 cents. I found a very pleasant gentleman in the collector, who did all in his power to relieve my mind and make us comfortable. Souris was our next port of landing, where we also reported and were well treated. From there [Page 491] we went to Malpeque, where we found another gentleman in the collector. We met the cutter Howlet at Cassumpece, and had several interviews with the commander, Captain Lowry, whom I found a quiet, just, and gentlemanly officer. My vessel was one of the fleet ordered out of harbor by him. At that time it was as good a fish day as one could ask for, and the instructions were plain that at such times we had no right to remain in harbor. At no time is there much water to spare on the bar, and it is a common occurrence for vessels to ground in going in or out, and that some did touch was due to ignorance of the channel or carelessness on the part of captains. At the time the order was issued the weather was fair, but before all the fleet could work out through the channel, one of the sudden changes in weather, so much to be dreaded on such a coast, came, and the cutter rescinded the order and the fleet returned. It has been printed in a Boston paper that, owing to being forced to sea by the cutter’s orders in bad weather, my schooner, the Andrew Burnham, fouled two Englishmen, and narrowly escaped serious damage. If true, it would look like a hardship. It was simply this: In getting under way, in a small and crowded space, finding I would not have room, I dropped our starboard anchor. That not holding, we let go the other, and it brought us up all right; not much in this to point to as an outrage or danger from stress of weather. I believe Captain Lowry to be a man who would carry out all the requirements of the Canadian laws, but I saw nothing in my experience in those waters that could be considered as being arbitrary, or taking a mean advantage of his official authority to annoy any one. Captain Lowry has been a master of vessels for twenty-five years, is a man of high reputation as a seaman, and as good a judge of whether the weather is favorable for a vessel to go to sea as any man who walks a deck, and when he ordered the fleet to sea he went himself, and I know he would not order a vessel to leave harbor if there was any danger of loss of life or property. We reported at Cassumpece, and were treated the same as at all other ports we touched at. If our vessels would attend to reporting at the custom-house, the same as they do in our ports, no trouble would be met with.
“If we had free fish it would give the Canadians some recompense for what our fishermen want, viz, the right to go anywhere and everywhere, use their harbors, ship men, get provisions, land and mend our nets, buy salt and barrels, and ship our catch home by rail or steamer without expense or annoyance, the same as we have heretofore.
“If we had had that privilege this year, myself and vessel would have been $5,000 better off this season, and all the fishermen in the bay would have been in the same boat with me. I do not say that I am too honest not to fish within the three-mile limit, nor do I believe there is a vessel in the fleet who would not, if the cutter was out of sight. I made two trips to the bay, both of which were very successful, and I lived up to the requirements of the law as well as I knew how, and did not find them obnoxious or to interfere with my success, and everywhere I went I was courteously treated by the officials, especially so by both the cutters. Should it be a bay year next season, I hope to meet them again. Those who openly preached that they would go where they pleased, do what they wanted to in spite of law or cutters, shipped men, smuggled, or openly fished inside the limit, and indulged in the satisfaction of damning the cutter, the captain, the Government, and everything else when they knew they could do it with impunity, and that the men they were talking to could not resent it by word or blow, were looked after sharp, and were not extended the courtesy that was shown so many of us.
“In the interest of fair play, I could not help writing you and asking you to give this to your readers, if not taking up too much of your valuable space.
“Very respectfully,
“NATHAN F. BLAKE,
“Captain
Schooner Andrew Burnham, of Boston.
“Boston, October 6, 1886.”