[Inclosure.]
The Marquis of
Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.
Government House, December 20, 1886.
Sir: I had the honor of receiving your
dispatch of the 22d of November in regard to the case of the Everett Steele and Pearl
Nelson, recently detained at Shelburne and Arichat, Nova
Scotia, for non-compliance with the customs regulations of the
Dominion.
The circumstances under which the conduct of these vessels attracted
the attention of the customs authorities were set out in the privy
council orders of the 18th of November, certified copies of which
were forwarded to you under cover of my dispatches of the 29th
November.
The information contained in these documents was obtained in order to
comply with the request for a report on these two cases which you
had addressed to me by telegram on a previous date. I have now
carefully examined the fuller statements made by Mr. Bayard, both as
to the facts and as to the considerations by which the conduct of
the local officials should in his opinion have been governed, you
will I think find, on reference to the privy council orders already
before you, that the arguments advanced by Mr. Bayard have been
sufficiently met by the observations of my minister of marine and
fisheries, whose reports are embodied in those orders.
It is not disputed that the Everett Steele was
in Shelburne Harbor on the 25th March and sailed thence without
reporting. In consequence of this omission on the master’s part his
vessel was, on her return to Shelburne, in September, detained by
the collector. The master having explained that his presence in the
harbor had been occasioned by stress of weather, and that his
failure to report was inadvertent, and this explanation having been
telegraphed to the minister of marine at Ottawa, the vessel was at
once allowed to proceed to sea; her release took place at noon on
the day following that of her detention.
In the case of the Pearl Nelson it is not
denied that nine of her crew were landed in Arichat Harbor at a late
hour in the evening of her arrival and before the master had
reported to the custom-house. It is obvious that if men were to be
allowed to go on shore, under such circumstances, without
notification to the authorities, great facilities would be offered
for landing contraband goods, and there can be no question that the
master, by permitting his men to land, was guilty of a violation of
sections 25 and 180 of the customs act. There seems to be reason to
doubt his statement that he was driven into Arichat by stress of
weather; but, be this as it may, the fact of his having entered the
harbor for a lawful purpose would not carry with it a right to evade
the law to which all vessels frequenting Canadian ports are
amenable. In this case, as in that of the Everett
Steele, already referred to, the statement of the master
that his offense was due to inadvertence was accepted, and the fine
imposed at once remitted.
I observe that in his dispatch relating to the first of these cases
Mr. Bayard insists with much earnestness upon the fact that certain
“prerogatives” of access to the territorial waters of the Dominion
were specially reserved under the convention of 1818 to the
fishermen of the United States, and that a vessel entering a
Canadian harbor for any purpose coming within the terms of Article 1
of that convention has as [Page 517]
much right to be in that harbor as she would have to be upon the
high seas, and he proceeds to institute a comparison between the
detention of the Everett Steele and the
wrongful seizure of a vessel on the high seas upon the suspicion of
being engaged in the slave trade, Mr. Bayard further calls attention
to the special consideration to which, from the circumstances of
their profession, the fishermen of the United States are, in his
opinion, entitled, and he dwells upon the extent of injury which
would result to them if they were debarred from the exercise of any
of the rights assured to them by treaty or convention.
I observe that in Sir Julian Pauncefote’s letter inclosed in your
dispatch it is stated that the secretary of state for foreign
affairs wishes to urge upon the Dominion Government the great
importance of issuing stringent instructions to its officials not to
interfere with any of the privileges expressly reserved to United
States fishermen under Article 1 of the convention of 1818.
I trust that the explanations which I have already been able to give
in regard to the cases of these vessels will have satisfied you that
the facts disclosed do not show any necessity for the issuing of
instructions other than those already circulated to the local
officials intrusted with the execution of the customs as fishery
law.
There is certainly no desire on the part of my Government (nor, I
believe, does the conduct of the local officials justify the
assumption that such a desire exists) to curtail in any respect the
privileges enjoyed by United States fishermen in Canadian waters. It
can not on the other hand be contended that because these privileges
exist, and are admitted by the Government of the Dominion, those who
enjoy them are to be allowed immunity from the regulations to which
all vessels resorting to Canadian waters are without exception
subjected under the customs act of 1883 and the different statutes
relating to the fisheries of the Dominion.
In both of the cases under consideration their was a clear and
undoubted violation of the law, and the local officials would have
been culpable if they had omitted to notice it. That there was no
animus on their part or on that of the Canadian Government is, I
think, clearly proved by the promptitude with which the
circumstances were investigated and the readiness shown to overlook
the offense, and to remit the penalty incurred, as soon as proof was
forthcoming that the offense had been unintentionally committed. In
support of this view I would draw your attention to the letter (see
inclosure to my dispatch of 29th November) of Mr. Phelan, the
consul-general of the United States at Halifax, who has expressed
his own satisfaction at the action of the authorities in the case of
the Pearl Nelson and who also refers to a
communication received by him from the Department of State, in which
it is stated that the conduct of the assistant commissioner of
customs in dealing with two other cases of a somewhat similar
complexion “shows a proper spirit.”
I have, etc.,
