Mr. Foster to Mr. Herbert.
Washington, September 6, 1892.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1st instant in regard to the construction to be given to the Canadian wrecking act of May 10, 1892, and transmitting a copy of an order-in-council, embodying the views of the Candian minister of justice upon the subject.
As I have previously said, in correspondence and in oral conference with you, the act of the United States in the same regard is precise and mandatory in prescribing the President’s power to issue his proclamation; and he is unable to do so until he shall be advised that the intended reciprocal privileges of wrecking shall be construed to apply, on the British side, to the Welland Canal as fully as it is to be construed on the part of the United States to cover the connecting waterways within our territory.
The President is not prepared to admit the conclusions of your note, that the words “wrecked, disabled, or in distress” (in their ordinary sense) are not applicable to vessels in canals or narrow waterways. The phrase must evidently be construed with reference to the ordinary navigation of such channels, and any of the lesser casualties to which tugs and their tows or self-propelled vessels, are liable in such waters, such as an accident to the engine or steering gear, the breaking of the tow line, the grounding of a tug or its tow in shallow waters, and the like, constitute a practical case of disability or distress within the purview of the intended reciprocity. Past experience has shown that in such contingencies, any assistance rendered by an American vessel, however legitimate, even to the case of a tug picking up or pulling off its own tow, is treated by the Canadian authorities as “wrecking,” and punished accordingly, when performed in Canadian waters.
I have the honor, etc.,