Mr. Foster to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
Washington, December 28, 1892.
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 14th instant, transmitting an approved minute of the Canadian privy council in reply to my note of September 6 last, relative to the subject of reciprocal wrecking privileges in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada.
Adverting to an observation contained in that note, the minute cites section 6 of the consolidated orders in council, chapter 21, to the effect that the rule prohibiting foreign vessels having other vessels in tow and having parted with them in Canadian waters from again taking them in tow to move them further in Canadian waters, shall not apply to “an accidental parting of such vessel by breaking hawser or other temporary damages.”
Continuing, it then states that “the Secretary of State is mistaken if he supposes that assistance in any such case (viz, distress of temporary nature indicated) has ever been punished when performed in Canadian canals.”
My observation was with respect to “Canadian waters” generally, and not particularly to “Canadian canals;” and it is believed to have been warranted by actual cases cited in Mr. Evarts’s note to Sir Edward Thornton December 17, 1878. (Foreign Relations, 1879, p. 481.) While I am glad to be assured that such cases have never happened in the [Page 334] canals, and that an American tug would not be prohibited from picking up its own tow, from which it had accidentally parted, I regret that assurance could not also have been given that it would be permitted to pull off its own tow if grounded or wrecked, for in that phase of the question rests entirely its pertinence to the present discussion.
As regards the real question at issue, I find it well stated in the minute of the privy council to be “whether the Welland Canal should be included in the reciprocal arrangement for wrecking.” For the satisfactory adjustment of that question it submits a set of “special rules and regulations in respect of American wrecking vessels in the Welland Canal,” which it hopes may be found available for the purposes contemplated. Having previously explained to you how under the act of Congress of the United States the President is constrained to insist upon the application of the arrangement to that canal, it only remains to determine whether the rules which are proposed will in effect accomplish that purpose. They begin as follows:
In the event of an American vessel being wrecked, disabled, or in distress in the course of a passage through the Welland Canal, it shall be permitted to American wrecking vessels and their appliances, subject to the existing canal regulations and to the conditions hereunder, to afford assistance to such vessels, provided, always, etc.
Then follow certain restrictions and regulations. The applicability of the rules is expressly limited to the case of aid and assistance to be rendered to an American vessel. It also, by omission, excludes the salvage of property wrecked. The act of Congress of May 24, 1890, proposes to give to Canadian vessels and wrecking appurtenances the privilege of rendering aid and assistance “to Canadian or other vessels and property wrecked, disabled, or in distress.” The act of Parliament assented to May 10, 1892, fully recognizes the extent of the proposed reciprocal arrangement by providing in its first section that “United States vessels and wrecking appliances may salve any property wrecked and may render aid and assistance to any vessels wrecked,” etc., in the waters of Canada. The rules, therefore, even apart from their conditions and limitations, do not purport to be coterminous with the act of Congress or the act of Parliament. Omitting entirely any provision for the rendering of aid to any other than an American vessel, or for the salvage of property of any vessel, they can not be said in any sense to extend in effect the proposed reciprocal arrangement to the Welland Canal.
The simplest way, and of course the most acceptable one to this Government, would be to have the applicability of the Canadian act, which, as far as it goes, has been accepted as satisfactory, extended by legislation or by order in council, as may be possible, to the Welland Canal. This Government has not been disposed, however, to be strenuous upon the manner in which it is done. Indeed, trusting to a friendly and reasonable interpretation of the conditions and restrictions of the rules under discussion, this Government would accept them as tantamount to such an extension of the arrangement if they were made to apply to all cases of assistance by any vessel of the United States to all vessels and property wrecked.
Occasions for American wrecking vessels and their appliances to render assistance to other than American vessels or to salve property in the Welland Canal would probably be quite infrequent, and were the President not constrained by the positive terms of the act of Congress he might not be disposed to attach so much importance to their inclusion in the arrangement. As it is, he hopes that the probable infrequency [Page 335] of such eases may contribute to remove any practical objection thereto on the part of the Canadian government.
The arrangement is one of much importance to the shipping interests of both countries, and I sincerely hope that an agreement may be reached and an arrangement put in force before the opening of navigation the coming season. May I ask you, therefore, to kindly give me a reply to this note as promptly as possible?
I have, etc.,