Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

APPENDIX No. 1.

Convention between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America. Signed at London, October 20, 1818.

Article I.

Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty’s Dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Jolly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson’s Bay Company. And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, here above described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portions so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounced forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits; Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.

APPENDIX No. 2.

[59 George III, Cap. 38.]

AN ACT To enable His Majesty to make regulations with respect to the taking and curing fish on certain parts of the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, and His Majesty’s other possessions in North America, according to a convention made between Hi$ Majesty and the United States of America. (June 14, 1819.)

Whereas a convention between His Majesty and the United States of America was made and signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, and by the first article of the said convention, reciting that differences had arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish in certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, it is agreed that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Hay to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly on the southern coasts of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudsons Bay Company; and it was also by the said article of the said convention agreed that the American fishermen should have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland above described, and of the coast of Labrador, but that so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, should be settled it should not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And whereas it is experdient that His Majesty should be enabled to carry into execution so much of the said convention as is above recited and to make regulations for that purr pose, be it therefore enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act it shall and may be lawful for His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Majesty’s privy council, by any order or orders in council, to be from time to time made for that purpose, to make such regulations and to give such directions, orders, and instructions to the governor of Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers on that station, or to any other person or persons whomsoever as shall or may be from time to time deemed proper and necessary for the carrying into effect the purposes of the paid convention with relation to the taking, drying, and curing of fish by the inhabitants of the United States of America in common with British subjects within the limits set forth in the said article of the said convention, and herein before recited, any act or acts of Parliament or any law, custom, or usage to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.

2.: And be it further enacted, that from and after the passing of this act it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, not being a natural-born subject of His Majesty, in any foreign ship, vessel, or boat, nor for any person in any ship, vessel, or boat, other than such as shall be navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to fish for, or to take, dry, or cure any fish of any kind whatever within 3 marine miles of any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors whatever, in any part of His Majesty’s dominions in America, not included within the limits specified and described in the first article of the said convention, and hereinbefore recited; and that if any such foreign ship, vessel, or boat, or any persons on board thereof, shall be found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within such distance of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, within such parts of His Majesty’s dominions in America out of the said limits as aforesaid, all such ships, vessels, and boats, together with their cargoes, and all guns, ammunition, tackle, apparel, furniture, and stores, shall be forfeited, and shall and may be seized, taken, sued for, prosecuted, recovered, and condemned by such and the like ways, means, and methods, and in the same courts, as ships, vessels, or boats may be forfeited, seized, prosecuted, and condemned for any offense against any laws relating to the revenue of customs, or the laws of trade and navigation under any act or acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the United [Page 752] Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: Provided That nothing in this act contained shall apply or be construed to apply to the ships or subjects of any prince, power, or state in amity with His Majesty, who are entitled by treaty with His Majesty to any privilege of taking, drying, or curing fish on the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, or within the limits in this act described.
3.: Provided always, And be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any fisherman of the said United States to enter into any such bays or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America as are last mentioned, for the purpose of shelter and repairing damages therein, and of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever; subject nevertheless to such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent such fishermen of the said United States from taking, drying, or curing fish in the said bays or harbors, or in any other manner whatever abusing the said privileges by the said treaty and this act reserved to them, and as shall for that purpose be imposed by any order or orders to be from time to time made by His Majesty in council under the authority of this act, and by any regulations which shall be issued fry the governor or person exercising the office of governor in any such parts of His Majesty’s dominions in America, under or in pursuance of any such order in council as aforesaid.
4.: And be it further enacted, that if any person or persons, upon requisition made by the governor of Newfoundland, or the person exercising the office of governor, or by any governor or person exercising the office of governor in any other parts of His Majesty’s dominions in America as aforesaid, or by any officer or officers acting under such governor, or person exercising the office of governor, in the execution of any orders or instructions from His Majesty in council, shall refuse to depart from such bays or harbors; or if any person or persons shall refuse or neglect to conform to any regulations or directions which shall be made or given for the execution of any of the purposes of this act; every such person so refusing or otherwise offending against this act shall forfeit the sum of £200, to be recovered in the superior court of judicature of the island of Newfoundland, or in the superior court of judicature of the colony or settlement within or near to which such offense shall be committed, or by bill, plaint, or information in any of His Majesty’s courts of record at Westminster; one moiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and the other moiety to such person or persons as shall sue or prosecute for the same: Provided always, That any such suit or prosecution, if the same be committed in Newfoundland, or in any other colony or settlement, shall be commenced within three calendar months; and, if commenced in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster, within twelve calendar months from the time of the commission of such offense.

APPENDIX No. 3.

At the court at Carlton House, the 19th June, 1819.

Present: His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in council.

Whereas an act was passed in the present session of parliament entitled “An act to enable His Majesty to make regulations with respect to the taking and curing of fish in certain parts of the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, and His Majesty’s other possessions in North America, according to a convention made between His Majesty and the United States of America,” wherein it is enacted that “whereas a convention between His Majesty and the United States of America was made and signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, and by the first article of the said convention it is agreed that the inhabitants of the America was made and signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, and by the first article of the said convention it is agreed that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands; and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coasts of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights [Page 753] of the Hudsons Bay Company; and it was also by the said article of the said convention agreed that the American fishermen should have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland above described and of the coast of Labrador, but that so soon as the same or any portion thereof should be settled it should not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground; and whereas it is expedient that His Majesty should be enabled to carry into execution so much of the said convention as is above recited and to make regulations for that purpose,” “it shall and may be lawful, from and after the passing of the said act, for His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Majesty’s privy council, by any order or orders in council to be from time to time made for that purpose, to make such regulations and to give such directions, orders, and instructions to the governor of Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers on that station, or to any other person or persons whomsoever, as shall or may be from time to time deemed proper and necessary for the carrying into effect the purposes of the said convention with relation to the taking, drying, and curing of fish by inhabitants of the United States of America, in common with the British subjects, within the limits set forth in the said article of the said convention, any act or acts of Parliament, or any law, custom, or usage to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. It is ordered by his royal highness the prince regent, in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, and by and with the advice of His Majesty’s privy council, in pursuance of the powers vested in His Majesty by the said act, that the governor of Newfoundland do give notice to all His Majesty’s subjects being in or resorting to the said ports that they are not to interrupt in any manner the aforesaid fishery so as aforesaid allowed to be carried on by the inhabitants of the said United States in common with His Majesty’s subjects on the said coasts within the limits assigned to them by the said treaty; and that the governor of Newfoundland do conform himself to the said treaty and to such instructions as he shall from time to time receive thereon in conformity to the said treaty and to the above-recited act from one of His Majesty’s principal secretaries of state, anything in His Majesty’s commission under the great seal constituting him governor and commander in chief in and over the said island of Newfoundland in America, and of the islands and territories thereunto belonging, or in His Majesty’s general instructions to the said governor to the contrary notwithstanding; and his royal highness, in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, doth hereby annul and make void each and every of the said general instructions which are or shall be deemed contrary to the intent and meaning of the said convention and of the said act. And the Right Hon. Earl Bathurst, one of His Majesty’s principal secretaries of state, is to take the necessary measures therein accordingly.

Jas. Buller.

APPENDIX No. 4.

[Anno Quinquagesimo Secundo Victorӕ Reginӕ. Cap. VI.]

AN ACT To amend and consolidate the laws relating to the exportation and sale of bait fishes. (Passed June 1, 1889.)

Section.

1.: Persons shall not export, haul, catch, take, purchase, or have in possession any bait fishes for the purpose of exportation.
2.: Licenses may be granted for certain purposes.
3.: Licenses issued under certain authority.
4.: Power of governor in council to suspend or limit operation of act.
5.: Conditions under which licenses granted.
6.: To whom applications for licenses shall be made.
7.: Licensee shall give bond to receiver-general.
8.: Form of license, bond, etc.
9.: Penal clause.
10.: Power given to convicting magistrate to confiscate, etc.
11.: Penalty for violation of act.
12.: Onus probandi upon accused party.
13.: Power to appoint commissioners conferred upon governor in council.
14.: Power to board and search ships or vessels conferred upon certain persons.
15.: Certain persons may be examined on oath by a J. P. and other officials of the government.
16.: Additional powers given to officials.
17.: What shall be evidence.
18.: Offenders may be prosecuted summarily before a stipendiary magistrate.
19.: Power of appeal.
20.: Want of form in proceeding not ground for setting aside judgment.
21.: Interpretation clause.
22.: Treaty rights preserved.
23.: Power of stipendiary magistrates.
24.: Repealing clause: Proviso.
25.: Time at which act shall come into force.

Be it enacted by the governor, legislative council, and assembly, in legislative session convened, as follows:

1.

No person shall—

(1): Export, or cause or procure to be exported, or assist in the exportation of; or
(2): Haul, catch, take, or have in his possession, for the purpose of exportation; or
(3): Purchase or receive in trade or barter, for the purpose of exportation; or
(4): Take, ship, or put, or haul on board, or assist in taking, shipping, putting, or hauling on board of any ship or vessel for any purpose whatever; or
(5): Carry or convey on board of any ship or vessel for any purpose whatever any herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes from, on, or near any parts of this colony or its dependencies, or from or in any of the bays, harbors, or other places therein, without a license in writing, to be granted and issued as hereinafter provided.

2.

Licenses may be granted for any of the following purposes, viz:

(a): To export bait fishes to a foreign country for bait purposes.
(b): To export bait fishes to a foreign country for food or consumption.
(c): To export bait fishes for use for bait purposes in prosecuting deep-sea fisheries.
(d): To haul, catch, or take bait fishes for exportation.
(c): To purchase bait fishes for exportation for food or consumption.
(f): To take, ship, or put on board a ship or vessel, or to carry or convey on board a ship or vessel, bait fishes for exportation for food or consumption.
(g): To purchase bait fishes for exportation for bait purposes.
(h): To take, ship, or put on board a ship or vessel, or to carry or convey on board a ship or vessel, bait fishes for exportation for bait purposes.
(i): To take, ship, or put on board a ship or vessel, or to carry or convey on board a ship or vessel, coastwise, to be discharged or landed or transhipped to some other ship or vessel within some port in this colony.

3.

No such licenses shall be issued except under the authority of the governor in council and countersigned by the colonial secretary.

4.

The governor in council may, from time to time, by proclamation, suspend or limit the operation of this act, and the issue of licenses thereunder, in relation to any district or part of this colony, or the coasts thereof, and for such period, and in relation to sale or exportation to such places or for such purposes and in such quantities as shall appear expedient and as shall be declared and defined in the proclamation.

5.

No license under this act shall be granted to any person unless he shall have first made an affidavit before a subcollector or preventive officer of customs, or a stipendiary magistrate, setting forth the following particulars, viz: The name of the person to whom the license is to be granted, the name of the vessel on board of which it is intended to convey or export bait fishes, the purpose for which such bait fishes are intended to be conveyed or exported, whether for food or consumption or for bait purposes, the country to which it is intended to export the same or the place where the fishery is to be prosecuted for which such bait fishes are to be used.

6.

Applications for licenses under this act shall be made to a stipendiary magistrate or a customs officer, who shall require the applicant in each case to make before him an affidavit stating the facts and particulars, as required under section 5 to be set forth in the license; and it shall be the duty of the said stipendiary magistrate or customs officer to report to the governor in council any refusal on the part of the applicant to make such affidavit, or any bonafide [Page 755] doubt on the part of such stipendiary magistrate or customs officer of the truth of any of the statements set forth in such affidavit, or of a belief on his part that such license is applied for for the purpose of evading or defeating, or assisting in evading or defeating, the provisions of this act. In such case it shall be the duty of such stipendiary magistrate or other officer to withhold such license and await further instructions.

7.

In every case in which a license is granted under this act the person to whom the same is granted shall also give bond to the receiver-general of this colony, with two sufficient securities, in the sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $2,000 each, containing the condition that the terms of the license shall in all respects be complied with; and in the case of a license to export to a foreign country, that satisfactory proof of the landing of the cargo in such foreign country will be furnished within a stated period, and the forfeiture of the penal sum under such bond shall be in addition to any other penalty, forfeiture, or punishment which may be imposed for the same offense under this act.

8.

The forms of the licenses, affidavits, and bonds above provided shall be prescribed by the governor in council.

9.

Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of section 1 of this act, or any of the subsections thereof; or

(1): Use, dispose of, or deal with any bait fishes, otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the affidavit made upon application for a license, or with the terms of such license; or
(2): Make any untrue statement in any affidavit upon application for a license under this act; or
(3): Obtain a license under this act by means of any false statement or misrepresentation, or by the suppression or concealment of any material fact, shall be liable for every first offense to a penalty not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months.
(4): Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this act shall, on conviction, be subject to imprisonment, with hard labor, for a period of not less than twelve months.

10.

In addition to the punishment prescribed by the foregoing section, the convicting magistrate may order the confiscation and sales of the herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes which have been sold, purchased, hauled, taken, conveyed, or exported in violation of the provisions of this act, or the terms of any license thereunder, or of the boat or vessel on board of which such bait fishes shall be found to have been unlawfully shipped, conveyed, or exported, and the forfeiture of any license held by the offender.

11.

Any person who shall sell any herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, for the purpose of shipping or putting on board of any ship or vessel, or for the purpose of exportation to any person not holding or producing a license under this act, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $500, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months.

12.

In any prosecution under the next preceding section, the onus of proof that the bait fishes were not intended for shipment or for exportation shall rest upon the party accused: Provided there be proof of a sale under such circumstances as shall be consistent with a reasonable presumption that shipment or exportation was intended.

13.

The governor in council may from time to time appoint special commissioners for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this act.

14.

Any such commissioner, or any justice of the peace, subcollector, preventive officer, fishery warden, or constable may board and examine and search any boat or vessel suspected of having on board, or of conveying or exporting, bait fishes contrary to the provisions of this act or of any license granted thereunder; and in case any such commissioner, justice of the peace, subcollector, preventive officer, fishery warden, constable, or the crew of any vessel employed by the government, shall make a signal by hoisting the international signal “B. M. I.,” meaning “Heave to; I will send a boat,” and firing a gun, or by dipping at the main peak three times the flag with the badge of the colony, as prescribed by the colonial regulations, it shall be the duty of the owner, master, or person managing or controlling such vessel to heave to until such commissioner, justice, subcollector, fishery warden, or constable shall have boarded and examined such last-named vessel; and in case of such owner, master, or person managing or controlling such last-named vessel omitting to heave her to, or obstructing or omitting to afford facilities for such commissioner, justice, subcollector, [Page 756] preventive officer, fishery warden, or constable in boarding and examining such vessel, he shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding $500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. The master of any vessel who shall refuse or unreasonably delay in obeying such signal may be arrested and brought before a stipendiary magistrate, and his vessel may be seized and held by any such commissioner, justice, subcollector, preventive officer, fishery warden, or constable, until an adjudication shall have taken place upon a complaint under this section.

15.

Any person found hauling, catching, taking, purchasing, selling, shipping, or conveying any bait fishes, or any person having any such fishes in his possession, or the master, owner, or crew of any boat or vessel on board of which any bait fishes may be found, may be examined on oath by a justice of the peace, subcollector, or preventive officer, fishery warden, or commissioner appointed under this act, as to the quantity and kind of bait-fishes in his possession or on hoard of such boat or vessel, the purpose for which such bait fishes are intended to be used, or as to the place to which the same are intended to be conveyed or exported; and upon his refusing to answer, or answering untruly, or failing to produce a license under this act, or, having such license, being found to have violated or failed to comply with the provisions thereof, such justice, subcollector, preventive officer, fishery warden, or commissioner may seize the boat or vessel on board of which such bait fishes shall have been hauled or caught, or put, kept, shipped, carried, conveyed, or exported, or on board-of which the same may have been found, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and outfit, and the said bait fishes so found as aforesaid, and may hold the same until an adjudication shall have been had upon a complaint in relation to such alleged offense.

16.

In any such case as mentioned in the next preceding section, any officer therein authorized to seize any boat or vessel, and any constable or peace officer then present shall have power, by direction of any such officer authorized as aforesaid, and without any warrant or complaint upon oath, to arrest any person found committing or omitting to do any of the acts for or on account of which such boat or vessel may be seized, and to detain him in custody until an adjudication shall have taken place as before provided.

17.

In any prosecution under this act, the fact of shipping, putting, or having bait fishes on board of any boat or vessel shall be prima facie evidence of the same having been so shipped, put, had, or conveyed for the purpose of exportation, and the refusal or failure to produce a license upon being called upon so to do shall be prima facie evidence of such bait fishes having been shipped, put, conveyed, or exported without a license; and any exportation or intended exportation of bait fishes shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be held to be an exportation or intention to export for bait purposes.

18.

All offenders against the provisions of this act may be prosecuted and convicted, and all fines, forfeitures, penalties, orders for confiscation, and other punishments imposed, recovered, and made in a summary manner before a stipendiary magistrate. In the event of the prosecution of an offender who would not be liable to or ordered to pay a fine, then the reasonable expenses of the prosecutor, including a fair amount for his time and labor expended in and about such prosecution, shall, on the certificate of the magistrate who heard the case, be paid to the prosecutor by the receiver-general.

19.

If any person convicted under this act shall feel himself aggrieved by such conviction, he may appeal therefrom to the then next sitting of Her Majesty’s supreme court holden in or nearest to the place where such conviction shall have been had: Provided notice of such appeal and of the cause and matter thereof be given to the convicting magistrate, in writing, within seven days next after such conviction, and the party desiring to appeal shall also, Within fourteen days after such notice, give and enter into recognizance, with two approved sureties, before the convicting magistrate, conditioned for the appearance of the person convicted at such next sitting of the supreme court on the first day of such sitting, for the prosecution of the appeal with effect and without delay, to abide the judgment of the court thereon and for the delivery and surrender of any vessel or other property ordered to be confiscated, and to pay such costs as the court shall award. Any person who shall be convicted and imprisoned by any such magistrate for an offense against this act, and who shall have given such-notice of appeal, and shall have entered into such recognizance with approved sureties, may be discharged from prison, in which case the recognizance shall be further conditioned for the surrender of the convicted party on the first day of such next sitting of the supreme court to the sheriff of the district in which such appeal may be heard.

20.

No proceeding or conviction by or order of any justice or other officer under this act shall be quashed or set aside for any informality, provided the same shall be substantially in accordance with the intent and meaning of this act.

21.

In this act the word “vessel” shall include any boat or ship, registered or not registered; jack, skiff, punt, or launch, whether propelled by sails, oars, or steam.

22.

Nothing in this act shall affect the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any state in amity with Her Majesty.

23.

For the purposes of this act, all stipendiary magistrates shall be deemed to be stipendiary magistrates for the colony, and may exercise the jurisdiction given by this act in any part of the colony. All officers engaged in carrying out this act, and the masters and crews of all vessels engaged in the said service may severally be sworn as special constables, and shall, while engaged in carrying out this act, have all the powers, authority, and protection of police constables.

24.

The act passed in the fiftieth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 1, entitled “An act to regulate the exportation and sale of herring, caplin, squid, and other bait fishes,” and the act passed in the fifty-first year of the said reign, chapter 9, entitled “An act to amend an act passed in the fiftieth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, entitled ‘An act to regulate the exportation and sale of herring, caplin, squid, and other bait fishes,’” are hereby repealed: Provided, That this repeal shall not be held to affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the said act, or any proceedings for enforcing the same, had, done, completed, or pending at the time of this repeal, or any office, appointment, or authority or duty created, conferred, or imposed, or any right or privilege acquired or existing, or any license granted under the authority of the said acts. And provided further, That every person holding a license under either of the said acts shall, as soon as practicable after the passing of this act, surrender the same to the nearest magistrate or customs officer authorized to issue licenses under this act, who shall thereupon grant in lieu thereof a license under the provisions of this act for such purpose as the same shall be required; and any license issued under the authority of said acts, not so surendered as soon as practicable, or within a reasonable period, shall be held to have been terminated and to be of no further effect.

25.

This act shall come into force at such date as shall be appointed by the governor by his proclamation.

APPENDIX No. 5.

newfoundland foreign fishing vessels act, 1893.

AN ACT Respecting foreign fishing vessels. (Passed May 24, 1893.)

Be it enacted by the governor, the legislative council, and house of assembly in legislative session convened, as follows:

1.: The governor in council may authorize the issuing of licenses to foreign fishing vessels, enabling them to enter any port on the coasts of this island for the following purposes: The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits for the fishery, and for the shipping of crews.
2.: Any justice of the peace, subcollector, preventive officer, fishery warden, or constable may go on board any foreign fishing vessel within any port on the coasts of this island, or hovering in British waters within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors in this island, and may stay on board such vessel so long as she remains within such port or distance.
3.: Any one of the officers or persons hereinbefore mentioned may bring any foreign fishing vessel, being within any port on the coasts of this island, or hovering in British waters within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of this island, into port, may search her cargo, and may examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and the master or person in command shall answer truly such questions as shall be put to him, under a penalty not exceeding $500. And if such foreign fishing vessel has on board any herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, ice, lines, seines, or other outfits or supplies for the fishery, purchased within any port on the coasts of this island, or within the distance of 3 marine miles from any of the coasts, [Page 758] bays, creeks, or harbors of this island, or if the master of the said vessel shall have engaged or attempted to engage any person to form part of the crew of the said vessel in any port, or on any part of the coasts of this island, without a license therefor in writing first granted to any such vessel under the provisions of this act, or has entered such waters for any purpose not permitted by treaty, convention, or act of the legislature for the time being in force, such vessel and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof shall be forfeited.
4.: All goods and vessels, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof, liable to forfeiture under this act may be seized and secured by any officer or person mentioned in the second section of this act, and every person opposing any officer or person in the execution of his duty under this act, or aiding or abetting any other person in such opposition, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to a fine of $500.
5.: In any prosecution under this act, the presence on board of any foreign fishing vessel, in any port of this island, or within British waters aforesaid, of any caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, of ice, lines, seines, or other outfits or supplies for the fishery, shall be prima facie evidence of the purchase of the said bait fishes and outfits within such ports or waters, and the refusal or failure to produce a license upon being called upon so to do shall be prima facie evidence of the purchase of bait, ice, lines, seines, or other supplies or outfits for the fishery without a license.
6.: All offenders against the provisions of this act may be prosecuted and convicted, and all fines, forfeitures, penalties, and other punishments imposed, recovered, and made, in a summary manner, before a stipendiary magistrate. For the purposes of this act all stipendiary magistrates shall be deemed to be stipendiary magistrates for the colony, and may exercise the jurisdiction given by this act in any part of the colony.
7.: If any person convicted under this act shall feel himself aggrieved by such conviction, he may appeal therefrom to the then next sitting of Her Majesty’s supreme court, holden in or nearest the place where such conviction shall have been had, or in St. John’s: Provided, That notice of such appeal and of the cause and matter thereof be given to the convicting magistrate in writing, within seven days next after such conviction, and the party desiring to appeal shall also, within fourteen days after such notice, give and enter into recognizance with two approved sureties before the convicting magistrates conditioned for the appearance of the person convicted at such next sitting of the supreme court, on the first day of such sitting, for the prosecution of the appeal with effect and without delay, to abide the judgment of the court thereon, and for the delivery and surrender of any vessel or other property ordered to be confiscated, and to pay such costs as the court may award.
8.: No proceeding or conviction by, nor order of, any magistrate or other officer under this act shall be quashed or set aside for any informality, provided the same shall be substantially in accordance with the intent and meaning of this act.
9.: Nothing in this act shall affect the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any state in amity with Her Majesty.
10.: Any foreign fishing vessel may enter any port of entry of this island for the purpose of applying for a license under the provisions of this act. Applications for licenses under this act shall be made to a customs officer at a port of entry in this colony, who is hereby authorized to issue the same. The fee for such license shall be $1.50 per registered ton, to be paid to the customs officer issuing said license. The form of such licenses and the terms and conditions under which the same shall be granted shall be determined by the governor in council.
11.: In this act the word “vessel” shall include any boat or ship, registered or not registered, jack, skiff, punt, or launch, whether propelled by sails, oars, or steam.

APPENDIX No. 6.

Convention between Great Britain and the United States of America for the improvement of commercial relations between the United States and His Britannic Majesty’s colony of Newfoundland.

The Governments of Great Britain and the United States, desiring to improve the commercial relations between the United States and His Britannic Majesty’s colony of Newfoundland, have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries, [Page 759] and given them full powers to treat of and conclude such convention, that is to say—

His Britannic Majesty, on his part, has appointed the Right Hon. Sir Michael Herbert, K. C. M. G., C. B., His Britannic Majesty’s ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Washington; and the President of the United States has appointed, on the part of the United States, John Hay, Secretary of State:

And the said plenipotentiaries, after having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following articles:

Article I.

United States fishing vessels entering the waters of Newfoundland shall have the privilege of purchasing herring, caplin, squid, and other bait fishes at all times, on the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same penalties as Newfoundland vessels.

They shall also have the privilege of touching and trading, buying, and selling fish and oil, and procuring supplies in Newfoundland, conforming to the harbor regulations, but without other charge than the payment of such light, harbor, and customs dues as are, or may be, levied on Newfoundland fishing vessels.

Article II.

Codfish, cod oil, seal oil, whale oil, unmanufactured whalebone, sealskins, herrings, salmon, trout and salmon trout, lobsters, cod roes, tongues, and sounds, being the produce of the fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Newfoundland, and ores of metals, the product of Newfoundland mines, and slates from the quarry untrimmed, shall be admitted into the United States free of duty. Also all packages in which the said fish and oils may be exported shall be admitted free of duty. It is understood, however, that unsalted or fresh codfish are not included in the provisions of this article.

Article III.

The officer of customs at the Newfoundland port where the vessel clears shall give to the master of the vessel a sworn certificate that the fish shipped were the produce of the fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Newfoundland, which certificate shall be countersigned by the consul or consular agent of the United States.

Article IV.

When this convention shall come into operation, and during the continuance thereof, the following articles imported into the colony of Newfoundland from the United States shall be admitted free of duty:

Agricultural implements and machinery imported by agricultural societies for the promotion of agriculture.

Cranes, derricks, fire clay, fire brick, rock drills, rolling mills, crushing mills, separators, drill steel, machinery of every description for mining used within the mine proper or at the surface of the mine, smelting machinery of all kinds when imported directly by persons engaged in mining, or to be used in their mining operations and not for sale.

Brick machines.

Dynamite, detonators, blasting powder, and fuse.

Raw cotton and cotton yarn.

Corn for the manufacture of brooms and whisks.

Chair cane, unmanufactured.

Cotton-seed oil, olive oil, boracic acid, acetic acid, preservatine, when imported by manufacturers to be used in the preservation of fish or fish glue.

Hemp, hemp yarn, coir yarn, sisal, manila, jute, flax, and tow.

Indian corn.

Oil cake, oil-cake meal, cotton-seed cake, cotton-seed meal, pease meal, bran, and other preparations for cattle feed.

Manures and fertilizers of all kinds, and sulphuric acid when imported to be used in the manufacture of manures.

Lines and twines used in connection with the fisheries, not including sporting tackle.

Ores to be used as flux.

[Page 760]

Gas engines when protected by patent.

Plows, harrows, reaping, raking, potato-digging, and seed-sowing machines when imported by those engaged in agriculture, and not for sale.

Engravers’ plates of steel, polished, for engraving thereon; photo-engraving machinery, viz: Router, beveling, and squaring machines, screen holders, crossline screens and chemicals for use in engraving, wood for blocking, engraving tools, and process plates.

Printing presses, printing paper, printing types, printers’ ink, when imported by bona fide printers for use in their business.

Salt, in bulk, when imported for use in the fisheries; and the duties to be levied and collected upon the following enumerated merchandise imported into the colony of Newfoundland from the United States shall not exceed the following amounts, viz:

Flour, 25 cents per barrel.

Pork, $1.50 per barrel of 200 pounds.

Bacon and hams, tongues, smoked beef, and sausages, 2¼ cents per pound, or $2.50 per 112 pounds.

Beef, pigs’ heads, hocks, and feet, salted and cured, $1 per barrel of 200 pounds.

Indian meal, 20 cents per barrel.

Peas, 30 cents per barrel.

Oatmeal, 30 cents per barrel of 200 pounds.

Rice, one-fourth cent per pound.

Kerosene oil, 6 cents per gallon.

Article V.

It is understood that if any reduction is made by the colony of Newfoundland at any time during the term of this convention in the rate of duty upon the articles named in Article IV of this convention coming from any other country, the said reduction shall apply to the United States, and that no heavier duty shall be imposed on articles coming from the United States than is imposed on such articles coming from elsewhere.

Article VI.

The present convention shall be duly ratified by His Britannic Majesty and by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon thereafter as practicable.

Its provisions shall go into effect thirty days after the exchange of ratifications, and shall continue and remain in full force for the term of five years from the date at which it may come into operation and, further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the contracting parties shall give notice to the other at the end of the said term of five years, or at any time afterwards.

In faith whereof we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed this convention and have hereunto affixed our seals.

Done in duplicate at Washington this 8th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1902.

APPENDIX No. 7.

Speech by Sir R. Bond on second reading of foreign fishing vessels bill of 1905, delivered April 7, 1905.

The Right Honorable the Premier (Sir Robert Bond). Mr. Speaker, when moving the first reading of this bill on Wednesday last, in reply to a question put by the leader of the opposition, I stated that the object of the measure is to inform foreign fishermen that they are no longer entitled to enter within the 3-mile limit for any purpose whatever, except as provided by treaty with His Majesty’s Government.

Under the foreign fishing vessels act of 1893, which this bill is intended to repeal, the governor in council was authorized to issue licenses to foreign fishing vessels, enabling them to enter any port on the coasts of this colony to purchase bait, ice, supplies, and outfits for the fishery, and to ship crews.

[Page 761]

Authority was conveyed to foreign fishing vessels to enter any port of entry for the purpose of applying for such license, and power was given to the governor in council to make rules and regulations respecting the terms and conditions under which such licenses should issue.

It is proposed to repeal the whole act of 1893, but certain sections of that act are embodied in this bill. For instance, sections 2 and 3 of that act are combined in section 1 of this bill, excepting that reference to the issue of licenses is omitted. Section 2 of this bill is practically the same as section 4 of the act of 1893. Section 3 is the same as section 5 of the old act, omitting reference to licenses. Section 4 of this bill is the same as section 6 of the 1893 act; section 5 is the same as section 7 of that act; section 6 is the same as section 8 of that act; section 7 is the same as section 9 of that act; and section 8 is the same as section 11 of the 1893 act. It may be contended that under acts which relate to our fisheries there is sufficient power to do all that is contemplated by this bill. My reply to that would be that the government is advised that the measure now before the house is desirable. It is desirable that the policy of the government in respect to foreign fishing vessels should be made perfectly clear and unmistakable.

That policy is not to grant licenses to such vessels, enabling them to enter any of the ports of this colony and purchase bait, ice, supplies, and outfits for the fishery, and to ship crews, under existing circumstances. This being the policy of the government, the retention on our statute book of the foreign fishing vessels act of 1893 would be misleading and might prove vexatious.

What are the existing circumstances that render it desirable and expedient that foreign fishing vessels should be precluded the privileges contemplated by the foreign fishing vessels act of 1893?

In the case of the French fishing vessels, the disadvantage at which our fishermen are placed by reason of the bounty system which the Government of France extends to her fishermen on our coasts, and which enables them to undersell us in foreign markets.

In the case of American fishermen, the almost prohibitive tax which Congress continues to impose upon all our fishery products that seek a market within the border of the United States, and the pronounced hostility of those fisher, men, whose interests have been sustained by the supplies obtained from within our jurisdiction, to that measure of reciprocity that the administration of their country has pronounced equitable and just.

And the further circumstance that warrants the present policy of the government in respect to all foreign fishing vessels is the shortage of bait supplies that has confronted our own fishermen during the past two years.

That that shortage is but of a temporary character we have every reason to believe. The herring, caplin, and squid, which comprise our bait fishes, are most erratic in their habits. Scientists tell us so, and experience has proved it. That those fish for some reason forsake long stretches of coast for a season, and in some instances for years, and then return again to their former habitat, we have had demonstrated to us over and over again. But while this is so, while we know that the embarrassment in respect to the scarcity of bait on certain sections of our coast is only temporary, it would be an act of madness on our part to continue to supply to foreigners what we require ourselves, unless we receive therefor a quid pro quo.

The generous treatment that we have been extending to American fishermen in this respect during the past fifteen years, while fully appreciated and respected by the administration of the United States, is apparently not appreciated, and is certainly not respected, by the fishermen of that country, who have so largely benefited by it; and the best way to bring them to a realization of their position of dependence upon our bait supplies is to withhold those supplies. We have said to the fishermen of the United States, provided our fishery products are admitted into your markets upon the same footing as your own, we will permit you to obtain from our supply all the bait fishes you require for the conduct of your fisheries. The answer we have received from those fishermen has been, “We don’t thank you for bait. We pay for it, and hundreds of your people are dependent upon the dollars that we scatter in the purchase of that bait.” They go further, and by misrepresentation succeed in influencing the Senate to thwart the administration of their country in consummating a measure that, while dealing out justice to this country would have been mutually advantageous.

[Page 762]

Permit me to refer to proof of the correctness of my allegations.

On the 4th December, 1902, Senator Lodge presented to the United States Senate certain papers and statistics in regard to Gloucester and New England fisheries. These papers were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations to be printed, and I have been favored with a copy of the said papers and statistics, that I now have before me.

The first paper is a letter addressed by Messrs. John Pew & Son, of Gloucester, to the Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, under date the 1st December, 1902. In the main, this deals with the mackerel fishery conducted from Gloucester and the probable result of competition. Suffice it to say in reply thereto that Newfoundland has no mackerel fishery whatsoever. There was a time, forty or fifty years ago, when mackerel was as plentiful as caplin upon our shores, and people used them in the same manner. They were so plentiful that they were carted through the streets of this city to be used in the making of compost for manure by farmers, as caplin and squid are used to-day. However, during the last thirty-five or forty years they have almost if not altogether disappeared from our coasts, so that the statement of Messrs. Pew & Son, made for the purpose of influencing the United States Senate, is entirely misleading and incorrect, and has no bearing whatever upon the Newfoundland treaty. It is quite probable that no more than six or seven, if that number, of the Senators were cognizant of the fact that Newfoundland possessed no mackerel fishery, and the majority of the Senators were therefore deceived by the paper that was put before them, from which I have quoted.

Messrs. Pew & Son then proceed to ask in their paper the question, “What does Gloucester get by such a treaty?” and to answer it thus: “Only this one small thing, the withdrawal of the tonnage tax which Newfoundland imposes, namely, $1.50 per net ton on American fishing vessels that seek Newfoundland ports at certain seasons of the year for the purpose of buying fresh bait. * * * under the treaty of 1818, Article I, we understand that United States inhabitants have forever the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast, of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands; and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely. Therefore the liberty of buying bate free of tonnage tax already exists in this long stretch of seacoast, and the Hay-Bond treaty is no benefit whatever.”

This deliberate statement, made to influence the Senate, is fallacious and misleading.

In the first place, the treaty that I had the honor of negotiating in 1902a means to the United States fishermen not only “the withdrawal of the tonnage tax” but the important privilege of purchasing bait fishes in any of the harbors of this colony, a privilege for the ten years’ use of which, under the Washington treaty, the Halifax Fishery Commission, which sat in 1877, awarded Newfoundland $1,000,000, or an annual subvention of $100,000 per annum. The treaty of 1818, to which Messrs. Pew & Son referred in their paper to the Senate, conveys no such privilege. Under that treaty they have no right whatever to buy bate on any part of the Newfoundland coast, and they have only been permitted to do so by virtue of the foreign fishing vessels act, which this bill now before the House proposes to repeal.

The treaty of 1902, now before the Senate of the United States, is intended to secure to American fishermen equal privileges with our own people in the winter herring fishery; and I repeat that the statement made by Messrs. Pew & Son that the Americans under the treaty of 1818 have the right to buy or take these herring in the creeks and harbors on the southern coast of Newfoundland between Cape Ray and Rameau Islands and on the northern and western coast of Newfoundland between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands is incorrect and misleading; and I desire to emphasize the statement that, in my opinion, the fishermen of the United States of America have no right, under the treaty of 1818, either to take for themselves or to purchase bait fishes in the harbors, creeks, or coves between Cape Ray and Rameau Islands on the southern coast of Newfoundland, or in the harbors, creeks, or coves between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands on the northern and western coast; and that the liberty extended to them under the treaty of 1818 to take fish in the harbors, bays, and [Page 763] creeks of this colony is limited to that portion of our dependency from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador to and through the Straits of Belle Isle and thence northwardly indefinitely. This is a point of vast importance to the people of this country. I believe I am correct in saying that it is the first time that this position has been taken, and, if I am correct in my interpretation of the treaty of 1818, the whole winter herring fishery of the west coast has been carried on for years by the Americans simply at the sufferance of the government of this colony.

It is surprising that the Senate did not see the fallaciousness of the statement made by the Messrs. Pew in regard to the rights of American fishermen on the portion of the coast of this colony to which I have just referred, for the Hon. Dwight Foster, that eminent American lawyer who represented the United States of America at the Halifax Fishery Commission in 1877, declared in his closing argument on behalf of the United States before that commission that “No rights to do anything upon the land are conferred upon citizens of the United States under the treaty of 1818. So far as the herring trade goes, we could not, if we were disposed to, carry it on successfully under the provisions of the treaty, for this herring trade is substantially a seining from the shore—a strand fishery, as it is called—and we have no right anywhere conferred by treaty to go ashore and seine herring. We have no right to go ashore for any purpose anywhere on the British territories, except to dry nets and cure fish.”

I venture to go further than the learned counsel for the United States in his admission, and to express the opinion, after very careful consideration, that American fishermen not only have no right to land and seine herrings, but they have no right to into the harbors, creeks, or coves from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands and from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands for the purpose of buying herrings or fishing for them.

Messrs. Pew & Son, in their paper, proceeded to state further that “in this stretch of coast—that is to say, between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands—are situated Bay of Islands and Bonne Bay, where fifty or more of our New England fishing vessels go to engage in the winter herring fishery. Having herring come into the United States free of duty, as contemplated by the Bond-Hay treaty, simply transfers this winter fishery over to the British flag.” If the position that I have taken up in regard to this section of the coast of this colony is correct, the exclusive rights to the winter herring fishery are under the British flag to-day, and always have been so ever since the dominion of the British flag was first established in North America.

The other papers presented to the United States Senate by Senator Lodge on behalf of the New England fishermen scarcely merit criticism. They consist of extracts from newspapers published under a wrong impression prior to the publication of the 1902 treaty. It is, perhaps, worthy of notice, however, that the paper marked “No. 2,” signed by a Mr. Nickerson, alleges that “if the Hay-Bond treaty is ratified, one of the consequences that will ensue is that vessels from Nova Scotia will go to Newfoundland and register, and that thus the products of the Nova Scotia fisheries would find admission into the United States free through the Newfoundland convention.”

The absurdity of this statement will be apparent on reference to the second and third articles of the Hay-Bond treaty. Article II of that treaty stipulates that the fishery products to be admitted into the United States shall be “the products of the fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Newfoundland,” and Article III stipulates that “the officer of customs at the Newfoundland port where the vessel clears shall give to the master of the vessel a sworn certificate that the fish shipped were the products of the fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Newfoundland, which certificate shall be countersigned by the consul or consular agent of the United States.”

At the time of the drawing up of the Hay-Bond treaty I had in view the possibility which Mr. Nickerson regards as a certainty, and I caused the insertion of the articles to which I have referred in order to prevent any question arising in connection with Canadian fish and a possibility of the evasion of the true intent and meaning of the treaty.

Another paper put in was signed by J. Donahue, F. E. Libby, and other New England fish dealers, who took up the position that our people were dependent upon the Americans coming to our shores to buy bait; that there was no danger of the withdrawal of bait privileges by the government of Newfoundland, inasmuch as a large number of the people of this colony were dependent upon the dollars that the Americans left here in return for the supply of bait fishes; and I have observed that a certain section of the press of New England has [Page 764] referred to the people of this colony as paupers and to our fishery products as “pauper fish.” The challenge has been thrown out by that press that the legislature of this colony dare not interfere or attempt to restrict our people in the supply of bait fishes to the American fishing fleet.

Another position which has been taken, not only by individual vessel owners of Gloucester, but also has been advocated by a large and influential section of the American press, is that the ratification of the Hay-Bond treaty will cause the displacement of American fish in American markets; that it will mean the destruction of the fisheries of New England, which it is contended is the nursery of the American Navy. It would amuse the House if I were to lay before them the special paper which was forwarded by the fishing interests of New England to the United States Senate on this point. It would be amusing in view of the facts that are revealed by the registers of shipping and other public records. It is only necessary to have reference to those records to be convinced of the fact that out of 8,000 fishermen who man the fishing fleets of New England some 4,000 are Newfoundlanders, about 1,500 are of American birth, and the balance consists of Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, Portuguese, and Scandinavians. We learn that in some instances whole crews of vessels sailing out of Gloucester are made up of Nova Scotians. The Gloucester News of the 20th of November, 1902, gave an interesting report of the three months’ trip of the schooner Aloha, owned by Messrs. Cunningham & Thompson, in which it was stated that the “skipper was a native of West Bay, Cape Breton, while his fishery lads were the flower of Shelburne County, Nova Scotia.”

During the recent war with Spain the United States Government sent two man-of-war ships to Gloucester for recruiting purposes, and although they remained there the whole summer there was only an enlistment of about 300 men, the majority of whom were not American born. At the same time the commercial city of Boston enlisted from its workshops and factories more than 1,700 men for the same purpose.

It can readily be understood why it is that Gloucester and New England fishing interests object to the ratification of the Hay-Bond convention, for at the present time they virtually have a monopoly of the frozen-herring industry. That industry has largely built up the fishery interests of New England. It is impossible for our people to compete with the Americans while they have to face an import duty of three-quarters of a cent per pound, which is equivalent to 25 per cent of the value of the article.

The expenses attending the prosecution of the frozen-herring trade by the Americans are insignificant, because their vessels are not under the necessity of going to the expense of bringing to Newfoundland either large crews or implements of trade.

Under a United States Treasury Department decision herring can be taken by engaging Newfoundland labor, and can be landed free of duty as if the catch had been taken by American crews. This virtually is an evasion of the law, and the matter has recently been freely agitated in the leading journals of New York and Boston under the heading of “The smuggling of herring.” As a matter of fact, the frozen herring taken in American schooners to the United States can not be properly termed a product of the American fisheries. The American fishermen do not catch them, neither do they employ Newfoundland fishermen to catch them. They are caught by the people of this colony and sold to the American fishermen as an article of commerce, and are then, as has been termed by the American press, smuggled into the United States free of duty as a product of the American fisheries. One leading American journal has declared that the loss of revenue accruing to the United States Treasury during the year 1894–95 for duty on herring amounted to $84,000. In the year 1894 I was asked by the special agent of the United States Treasury to furnish statistics in respect of the conduct of the winter herring fishery in his colony by the Americans. I readily complied with the request, and it was upon the statistics that I gave them that the inquiry was based which led to the exposure in connection with the smuggling of herring into the United States in American vessels.

Under date the 12th March, 1894, I wrote the Treasury Department as follows, viz:

“With regard to the facts surrounding the prosecution of the so-called ‘frozen-herring industry,’ I have much pleasure in supplying the following information, which has been obtained from reliable sources:

“New England schooners visit the southern coast of Newfoundland during the winter months, from October to March, for the purpose of obtaining frozen [Page 765] herring. As you correctly observe, ‘these vessels carry a small complement of men,’ sometimes they carry a seine and seine boat, but this is the exception; in fact, it is but seldom that they have either. The bulk of herring obtained by them is purchased from Newfoundlanders in a frozen state for cash; a limited quantity by barter, the commodities supplied being for the most part oil clothes, rubber boots, cheap ready-made goods, flour, sugar, and salt beef; on these articles duty is usually paid.

“I am informed, however, by the receiver-general that there have been instances of attempts to evade the payment of customs duties, and he is of opinion that smuggling is still carried on, notwithstanding the great care taken to protect the revenue. It seems that a plea is made that ‘owing to the nature of the voyage an extra allowance of oil clothes, rubber boots, flannels, ship’s stores (including spirits) is made the crew and ship,’ and there is grave suspicion that this surplus stock is bartered for herring without duty being paid on it. The price paid for the herring varies from 25 cents per basket to 40 cents per basket, and depends on the catch. As a rule, the fish are frozen on shore by Newfoundlanders; in some instances they are caught, frozen, and held in store awaiting the arrival of American vessels, when they are sold to the highest bidder for cash. In no case is gear supplied to Newfoundlanders to take fish except by actual sale of the article; i. e., herring nets or second-hand mackerel seines, the latter of which are too much worn to be of use for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Newfoundlanders are sometimes engaged by American skippers to assist as stevedores, but never for the purpose of catching herring. There is one case on record in which natives of this colony were hired to take fish out of a seine. It occurred in St. Marys Bay in the spring of 1893. One Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner Ethel B. Jacobs, shot his seine in Newfoundland waters, a large haul was made, and Newfoundlanders were hired to take the fish out and place it on board the schooner.

“To my general statement, made above, to the effect that ‘as a rule the fish are frozen on shore,’ there is one exception. Occasionally the poorer class of fishermen who require an immediate supply of provisions bring their unfrozen fish alongside and barter them. These herring are subsequently frozen on scaffolds on board, and, for the most part, by natives hired for that purpose.

“To sum up: Herring are never taken by Americans themselves. They are purchased in exchange for cash, and in a lesser degree for merchandise, from Newfoundlanders who catch and freeze them. Newfoundlanders are never hired to catch herring for the Americans.

“Care must be taken to distinguish between United States vessels visiting this coast for the purpose of purchasing bait, supplies, etc., for the codfishery; in fact, those making Newfoundland ports a base from which to carry on fishing operations, and those who engage in the frozen-herring trade. To the former licenses (copy of which is inclosed) are issued, for which $1.50 per ton is charged; to the latter no charge is made except the usual ones, equally chargeable to Newfoundlanders, of light customs dues.”

Turning to another phase of the question—

In dealing with this bill, it may not be disadvantageous to give a brief résumé of the history of the fisheries question as it relates to the intercourse between the fishermen of the United States of America and those of this colony.

Before the American Revolution the inhabitants of all the British colonies in North America possessed as a common right the right of fishing on all the coasts of what was then British North America, and these rights were, in the broadest sense, prescriptive and accustomed rights of property. At the end of the Revolution, and by the treaty of peace signed in 1783, the boundaries between the possessions of the two powers—that is to say, the United States and Great Britain—were adjusted by Article III of that treaty, which read as follows:

“Agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish; and also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island); and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America.”

[Page 766]

This was a grant or recognition of a right agreed upon for a consideration—viz, the adjustment of the boundaries and other engagements into which the United States by that treaty entered.

For our purposes it is unnecessary to deal with the other articles of that treaty.

From 1783 until the war between Great Britain and the United States in 1812, citizens of the United States continued to enjoy the ancient rights belonging to them as subjects of Great Britain before the Revolution, and reserved to them as citizens of the United States, to the extent outlined in the article of the treaty of 1783, to which I have referred. Between those dates other subjects of difference and negotiation, apart from the fisheries, arose between the two nations, which were disposed of by the treaties of 1794 and 1802, but the fishery provisions of 1783 continued down to the period of the outbreak of war in 1812.

At the close of that war a treaty of peace was concluded on the 24th December, 1814, which provided—

(1): For the restoration to each party of all countries, territories, etc., taken by either party during the war, without delay, save some questions of islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy;
(2): For disposition of prizes and prisoners of war; and
(3): For questions of boundary and dominion regarding certain islands and for the settlement of the northeastern boundary, and also for the northwestern boundary; but it made no reference whatever to any question touching the fisheries referred to in the treaty of 1783.

On the 3d July, 1815, Great Britain entered into a commercial treaty with the United States, which provided for reciprocal liberty of commerce between all the territories of Great Britain in Europe and the territories of the United States, but made no stipulation as regards commercial intercourse between British dominions in North America and the United States.

After the conclusion of the treaty following the war of 1812—viz, that of the 24th December, 1814—there being then no treaty obligations or reciprocal laws in force between or in either of the countries respecting commercial intercourse, the British Government contended that the fishing rights recognized and secured to the citizens of the United States by the treaty of 1783 had become abrogated in consequence of the war of 1812, on the principle of war annulling all unexecuted engagements between two belligerents. The fishing rights conveyed to the United States of America by the treaty of 1783 having been annulled by the war of 1812, the citizens of the United States no longer had the right to fish in any of the North American waters. This exclusion continued until the conclusion of the treaty of the 20th October, 1818, which treaty remains in force to-day, and embodies the whole of the fishing rights or privileges to which United States citizens are entitled in the waters that wash the coasts of this colony.

Article I of that treaty contains a recital of the fishing privileges in British North American waters conveyed to the United States by the Imperial Government. That article reads as follows:

“Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in American, it is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland above described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry and cure fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounces forever [Page 767] any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits: Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.”

The treaty limited to a territorial extent the fishing rights of the people of the United States, which they had enjoyed as British subjects, and which had been recognized and continued under the treaty of peace of 1783, and down to the year 1812.

It provided for the continuance of the ancient rights of fishing on certain parts of the coast of this colony, and of His Britannic Majesty’s other dominions in America. It also provided for a renunciation by the United States of preexisting rights to take fish within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in British North America, not included within the limits set forth in the article which I have read, that renunciation being subject, however, to the proviso that “American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.”

The House will not fail to observe that the ancient right of fishing enjoyed by the fishermen of the United States, in common with the subjects of Great Britain, was continued in force by the treaty of 1818, in the first place along a certain portion of the coast of Newfoundland, viz: On the southern coast extending from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands, and on the western and northern coasts from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands; and, in the second place, along the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of the Labrador coast, from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely; and that the renunciation on the part of the United States to fish on other coasts of the island, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks thereof, is perfectly clear and emphatic. The treaty contained no provision as respects the exercise of what may be termed “commercial rights” by the American fishing or other vessels in the waters of this colony, and the right remained, and still remains, of the government of this colony to exclude American fishing vessels from all other waters or ports within the jurisdiction of the colony, subject, of course, to the limitation of the general law which applies to all civilized communities, wth respect to vessels under circumstances requiring the assistance of humanity.

It was not till the year 1830 that a reciprocal arrangement was entered into between the Government of Great Britain and that of the United States for what might be properly termed “commercial relations,” the act of Congress of the 29th May, 1830, provided for the opening of all American ports to certain British colonial vessels on a mutual opening of British colonial ports to American vessels, and a proclamation dated the 5th October, 1830, giving effect to it on the part of Great Britain.

This arrangement would appear to have resulted in acts of aggression on the part of American subjects, and to a violation of the treaty obligations of 1818, for we find that, in the year 1836, the government of this colony passed a bill, entitled “An act to prevent the encroachment of aliens on the fisheries of this colony, and for the further protection of the said fisheries;” that, in the same year, the Province of Nova Scotia passed laws in respect to the seizure of American fishing vessels for trading and fishing within the 3-mile limit; and that, in the year 1838, the said Province of Nova Scotia complained, by address to the Queen, of such aggressions, and asked for naval force to prevent them. The force was supplied by the British Government, and seizures of American fishing vessels became common.

Down through the years until 1854 the same conditions applied, when, on the 5th June, 1854, a comprehensive reciprocal trade treaty was entered into between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States, under which [Page 768] Americans were granted the right to fish within the limits prohibited by the treaty of 1818, under certain restrictions. That treaty terminated in the winter of 1864 by a vote of the Congress of the United States.

Between 1864 and 1871 the policy of issuing licenses to American fishermen to fish in the waters from which they were excluded for fishing purposes by the treaty of 1818 was adopted by the Canadian government, and, during the year 1866, 354 licenses were issued by that government at the rate of 50 cents per ton. The next year the license fee was increased to $1 per ton, and the number of licenses issued amounted to 281. In 1868 and 1869 the license fee was doubled to $2 per ton, and, in the years 1868 and 1869, 56 and 25 licenses, respectively, were taken out. The Canadian government then changed its policy and enacted exclusive laws against American fishermen, forcing them to keep Without the 3-mile limit.

In the year 1871 another reciprocal trade treaty was entered into between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States, which provided that, for a period of ten years, fishermen of the United States should have, in addition to their rights under the treaty of 1818, the privilege of inshore fishing in the waters of British North America under certain limitations. In return for that privilege it was provided that the fishery products of this colony and of the neighboring dominion were to have free entry into the markets of the United States. On the 1st July, 1885, that treaty was terminated by the Congress of the United States, and the fishing rights of United States citizens reverted back to those outlined in the treaty of 1818.

In the year 1888 an attempt was made by Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate another reciprocity treaty with the United States of America on behalf of the Dominion of Canada and this colony. These negotiations resulted in what is known as the “Bayard-Chamberlain treaty,” which was signed on the 5th of February, 1888, but which was subsequently rejected by the Senate of the United States, and was never ratified. This treaty was intended to convey to United States fishermen the privilege of entering the ports, bays, and harbors of this colony, free of charge, for the following purposes:

1.: The purchase of provisions, bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits.
2.: Transshipment of catch, for transport by any means of conveyance.
3.: Shipping of crews, in return for the free entry into the United States of fish oil, whale oil, seal oil, and fish of all kinds (except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of fisheries carried on by the fishermen of this colony, including Labrador.

In the year 1889 the government of this colony approached Her Majesty’s Government with a view to negotiations being opened with the United States Government for a measure of reciprocal trade between this colony and the United States.

In the following year it was my privilege to be a delegate to Her Majesty’s Government, with Sir William Whiteway and the late Mr. Harvey, on the French shore question, and the opportunity was then availed of to press upon Her Majesty’s Government the views of the then government of the colony in delation to the desirability of the government’s being granted an opportunity to try and bring about a trade convention with the United States on its own behalf, and as distinct from the Dominion of Canada. It was impressed upon Her Majesty’s Government that the interests of this colony and those of the Canadian Dominion were not identical, and that there were questions operating as between the Dominion of Canada and the United States in which this colony had no concern, and which effectively barred the possibility of successful reciprocal negotiations.

Her Majesty’s Government, recognizing the force of the position that was set forth, granted permission to the government of Newfoundland to make the attempt on its own behalf, and I was authorized to proceed to the United States of America to assist Lord Pauncefote in negotiating a trade convention. The result of my labors was entirely successful, so far as the making of a treaty was concerned. An agreement was arrived at satisfactory to the government of this colony as well as to the Government of the United States, which has passed into history as the Bond-Blaine convention.

That convention was upon the lines of the 1888 treaty. It proposed to convey to American fishermen the rights intended to be conveyed by the Bayard-Chamberlain treaty, in exchange for the free admission of our fishery products and crude copper ores, the product of Newfoundland mines, into the markets of the United States. That convention was never submitted for ratification, [Page 769] being held in abeyance by Her Majesty’s Government out of deference to the wishes of the Dominion of Canada.

Into the motives that prompted the action of the Dominion of Canada, and the injustice with which this colony was treated by Her Majesty’s Government in that connection, I do not propose to enter, as the House is only concerned at the present time with a history of the treaties that have been made, or attempted to have been made, from time to time with the United States of America with respect to the fisheries, and not with the merits of the various proposals.

The convention of 1890 having failed for the reasons that I have mentioned, in the year 1898 the then government of the colony united with the government of the Dominion of Canada and Her Majesty’s Government in an attempt to bring about a treaty upon the lines of the Bayard-Chamberlain treaty of ten years previous. The negotiators met, and for some weeks the attempt to arrive at an arrangement satisfactory to all parties was continued, but these negotiations also fell through.

In the year 1902, when in London in connection with the colonial conference, I availed of the opportunity to press the claims of this colony for separate negotiations with the United States a second time upon the attention of the colonial office, and succeeded in obtaining permission from Her Majesty’s Government to proceed to Washington, and was given authority to reopen negotiations with the United States Government for a trade treaty between this colony and the United States. I was again successful in my negotiations, and a convention was concluded which has become familiar as the Hay-Bond treaty. That treaty was upon the lines of that of 1890. With its merits I do not propose to deal at this time, as it does not enter into the question before us; suffice it to say that that treaty has been before the United States Senate for the last three years, and is still before that Senate, and that it has been blocked in its passage by the immdiate action of the fishing interests of Gloucester through their representative in the Senate, and it is the present condition of things as regards that treaty that in part has necessitated the bill that I have introduced before the House. Since 1890, when our first convention was negotiated, American fishermen have been admitted to one of the principal privileges that it was intended should be conveyed under that convention, viz, that of free access to the waters and harbors of this colony for a supply of bait fishes. That privilege has been continued during the last fifteen years, because this colony had reason to believe that when His Majesty’s Government set aside the objections of the Canadian Dominion and signified its willingness to assent to a trade convention that would be satisfactory to this colony, that then the United States Senate would readily give its approval to a measure of reciprocal trade that has been made with the indorsations of J. G. Blaine and Col. John Hay, two of the most eminent and patriotic men that have ever held positions of power in a great Republic.

As I observed a day or two ago, the position as regards the negotiations of treaties in the United States is entirely different from that which appertains in any other part of the world. The practice of other countries when a treaty is negotiated by the government is that it is not open to amendment, and, if it is rejected by the legislature, it would necessarily result in the resignation of the government and a change of administration. In the United States of America the case is entirely different, for when its Government makes a treaty it is recognized that such treaty is liable to be thrown out or entirely altered by the Senate. The law of the United States—that is to say, the tariff act of 1897—authorizes the President of the United States to negotiate reciprocity treaties, provided that the reduction of duties made in same shall not exceed 20 per cent. Under and by virtue of that mandative law the administration of the United States has negotiated treaties with a number of countries—for instance, since 1899, with Barbados, British Guiana, Turks or Caicos Islands, Jamaica, Bermuda, Argentina, the French Republic, and this colony, all of which are in exactly the same position, viz, are hung up in the United States Senate; in other words, the Senate has pigeonholed the entire list, thereby setting aside the policy asserted in the national platform and embodied in the tariff law.

From the movement that is taking place in the commercial centers of the United States, it is evident that it is being recognized that a procedure which brings about such results is defective, and exhibits the Government of the United States as powerless to give expression to the nation’s policy and intention.

[Page 770]

I have said that the present action in respect to our relations with the United States has been brought about in part by the action of the fishery interests of Gloucester, through the medium of those who, while prepared to accept the privileges freely and generously extended to them during the last fifteen years, are not prepared to admit the correctness of the principle approved by the United States administration, that the extension of such privileges entitle this colony to that measure of reciprocity provided for in the treaty now before the Senate. It would seem that the gratuitous extension of those privileges by the government of this colony over so long a period has given the impression to the people of the fishing settlement of Gloucester, that the few thousand dollars left by them in this colony in the purchase of bait fishes is so important a consideration to the people of this colony that no action is likely to be taken to prevent a discontinuance of those privileges. I have already shown, by extracts from papers presented to the Senate of the United States from Gloucester and from the report of the utterances of some of her representative men, the correctness of our conclusion.

In conclusion, I desire to make clear to this house, and to all those outside of the house who are interested in the question under consideration, what is the attitude of the government.

This must not be regarded in the nature of a threat, as “a declaration of war,” as the leader of the opposition has asserted, or as an attempt to strike a blow at the fishery interests of the New England States; but it is, I submit, a wise measure, conceived in the interests of the people of this colony, and calculated only to command the respect of our friends in the great American Republic.

For fifteen years, by a free and generous policy toward our fishery friends of the New England States, we have endeavored to show them that in our desire to secure a measure of reciprocal trade with their country we intend them no injury whatever; on the contrary, we desire to compete with them on equal terms for the enormous market that the 85,000,000 of people in the United States offers for fishery products. In 1890 we said to the people of the United States, Remove the tariff bar that shuts our fishery products out of your markets, and we will grant you all the supplies that you require at our hands to make your fishing a success. The offer still holds good. For the reason that I have explained, the past fifteen years the fishermen of the United States have received those supplies without the tariff barrier to the admission of our fishery products into the United States being removed by act of Congress, but we find the very men to whom we have extended such generous treatment are precisely those who have worked most strenuously to injure us in our trade relations wtih their country. We now propose to convince those men that the hands that have bestowed the privileges they have enjoyed have the power to withdraw those privilege. In doing this we simply rise to the full dignity of matter-of-fact statesmen. With the administration of the United States we have no shadow of a cause for complaint. They have treated us with the greatest courtesy whenever we have approached them, and have manifested both a friendly and just attiude toward this colony. It is not the fault of the administration at Washington that we are where we are to-day in this matter; the fault lies solely at the door of those who for petty personal interests have misrepresented facts, and by so doing have deceived those who represent them in the Senate of their country. It would ill become us, a little colony of a quarter of a million people, to throw down the gauge of battle to a great nation of eighty-odd millions. We should merely make ourselves the laughingstock of the world. But, by standing upon our rights and exercising such powers as we possess in defense of those rights, we challenge the commendation and respect of all those within this colony and beyond its borders whose judgment is influenced by considerations of justice and patriotism, I beg to move the second reading of the bill.

APPENDIX No. 8.

Speech by Sir R. Bond in moving house of assembly into committee on “The foreign fishing vessels bill, 1905,” delivered the 12th April, 1905.

The Right Honorable the-Premier, Sir Robert Bond. In moving that this bill be now referred to a committee of the whole house, I desire to make a few observations in reply to the remarks of the honorable leader of the opposition when it [Page 771] was up for a second reading. In doing so I shall be as brief as possible, and confine myself to the four principal points of the honorable gentleman’s criticism. They may be dealt with under the following heads, namely:

1.: American rights of fishing under the 1818 treaty.
2.: Their rights by custom.
3.: The effect of the operation of this bill upon our own fishermen.
4.: What is likely to result to the Americans by virtue of its enforcement.

I shall deal with his criticism in the order that I have named, and I do not think that I shall have very much difiiculty in convincing the house that his premises were unsound and his logic seriously defective. The honorable gentleman may have succeeded in convincing himself as to the wisdom of his observations and of the correctness of his conclusions, but I hardly imagine that he convinced the house or any member of it.

Now as to the rights of American fishermen in the waters of this colony under the treaty of 1818:

Those rights, as I explained on Friday, are defined in Article I of the treaty, and are as follows:

1.: To take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands;
2.: To take fish of every kind on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands; and
3.: To take fish of every kind on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Strait of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast.

Subject to these limitations, American fishermen have a right in common with British fishermen to prosecute their industry within those areas.

But this embraces the whole of their privileges in respect to the capture or taking of fish.

Every other right that they ever possessed they renounced under the said treaty, in the following emphatic language, namely:

“The United States hereby renounces forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish in or within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America not included in the above limits.”

Their renunciation contained but one qualification, and that was “that American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever.”

In dealing with the rights of American fishermen as thus defined, I ventured to take the position that those fishermen have no right to fish within any of the bays, creeks, or harbors on that stretch of coast between Cape Ray and Rameau Islands, and Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands, and that their right to fish in bays, creeks, and harbors is confined and limited by the treaty of 1818 to that portion of coast from “Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along that coast.”

To this position the leader of the opposition took strong objection, and the major portion of his remarks were in support of his objection.

The house was told that “no lawyer could place such a construction upon the treaty;” that “it would be unreasonable to suppose that nearly one hundred years could pass without the position having been discovered by the eminent lawyers of England, America, Canada, and of this colony if that position was tenable;” that it was “an absurd position;” that if the Americans had the right to fish by treaty “they also had the right to do all things incident to the fishery,” and that “if they could not fish without landing, they had a perfect right to land;” that it was “a cardinal legal principle that a grant of a privilege carries with it all the incidentals in order to fully possess and enjoy the privilege.”

Now, sir, in reference to the assertion that “no lawyer could place such a construction upon the treaty,” I would observe that lawyers, like doctors, differ in their opinions. It is their business, apparently, to differ. If they agreed in their construction of treaties and laws, then there would be no litigation, and their avocation, and that of judges and juries, would be gone. But not only do lawyers differ in their interpretation of treaties and laws, but judges do likewise, and hence it is that under our British constitution another tribunal has been established, namely, the privy council, which is called upon to decide when judges differ. I am not a lawyer, I am sorry to say; I am only a humble layman, [Page 772] but it is just possible that I may have given more study to treaties that concern this colony and to the subject of international law than some who have qualified for the practice of that profession.

When my learned friend, the leader of the opposition, declared that “no lawyer would place such a construction” on the treaty of 1818 as that the American fishermen have no right to land on any portion of our coast to fish, he was setting up his opinion not only against my humble view of the matter, hut against that of one of the most eminent lawyers that the United States has produced, viz, the Hon. Dwight Foster, who, as I showed on Friday last, when addressing the Halifax Fishery Commission in his closing argument on behalf of the United States, said:

“No rights to do anything upon the land are conferred upon citizens of the United States under the treaty. So far as the herring trade goes we could not, if we were disposed to, carry it on successfully under the provisions of the treaty, for this herring trade is, substantially, a seining from the shore—a strand fishery, as it is called—and we have no right anywhere conferred by the treaty to go ashore and seine herring. We have no right to go ashore for any purpose anywhere on the British territories, except to dry nets and cure fish.” (P. 215, Record of Proceedings, Halifax Commission, 1877.)

This is the opinion of a lawyer, an eminent lawyer, a lawyer charged by the United States Government with the defense of its rights and privileges under the treaty of 1818. It is only proper to assume that he would have placed the most favorable construction possible upon the treaty in the interest of his Nation. He could not—he did not—attempt to contend that the right to fish along the coasts of this colony carried with it the “incidentals” to land and fish from the shore. He said, frankly and honestly, American fishermen “have no right to go ashore for any purpose anywhere on British territories, except to dry nets and cure fish.” It will be observed, then, that I simply hold Americans to the position that they have defined themselves.

It has been left to the leader of the opposition in this house to set up a claim on behalf of the American people that their Government renounced eighty-seven years ago, and which one of its most eminent lawyers repudiated in 1877, when it was advanced on behalf of the United States before the Halifax Commission.

With respect to the further position that I set up, namely, that not only have the American fishermen no right to land upon any portion of our coast to fish, but that they have no right to enter any bay, creek, or harbor between Cape Ray and Rameau Islands, and Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands to fish, the leader of the opposition said, in the first place, that my contention was absurd, as the word “coast” meant not only from headland to headland, but the bays, coves, creeks, and harbors which form the sinuosities of the coast.

In reply to that observation, I would say that the word “coast” in the treaty has been defined by His Majesty’s Government to mean the very opposite to what the leader of the opposition has declared it to mean. In the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred in 1888 the message of the President of the United States concerning the interpretation of the treaty the 20th October, 1818, I find the following:

“The British contention has been that the word ‘coasts’ in the treaty relates only to the open seacoasts, and not to the coasts of bays, harbors, and creeks that are claimed and controlled by the provincial governments as territorial waters.”

The “absurdity,” then, of which I am accused by the leader of the opposition Is based upon the construction given to the word “coast” in the treaty of 1818 by His Majesty’s Government, who, of course, would be advised in the premises by the law officers of the Crown. My honorable friend, the leader of the opposition, will pardon me if I prefer to accept the opinion of the ablest lawyers in England to his on this matter.

But it was quite apparent that the leader of the opposition was not quite sure of his ground when he proceeded to define the meaning of the word “coast” in the treaty, for he subsequently dealt with what he termed “right by custom.” If, he said, “the position of the premier be correct, then custom and practice would entitle the American fishermen to enter the creeks, coves, and harbors between Rameau Islands and Cape Ray, and between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands, to fish.”

While I do not concur in that doctrine, let us briefly examine what the custom has been; and as the leader of the opposition went back to what he termed “the ancient customs”—those which Americans enjoyed when British subjects, rind which were not renounced by the treaty of 1818—we will examine the records.

[Page 773]

Before the war of Independence in 1775 British-American colonists enjoyed equal privileges in the North American inshore fisheries, but after that war their privileges were curtailed, and the full extent of their privileges is set forth in the third article of the treaty of Paris, of date the 3d September, 1783, as follows:

“It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used heretofore to fish; and also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such parts of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island), and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America; and that American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.”

It will be observed that the wording of this article is very carefully guarded, and that while it continued to the citizens of the United States the right to prosecute what may be termed “deep-sea fisheries” within certain areas, it conveyed to them only the liberty to dry and cure fish upon certain defined portions of the British-American coasts. The fisheries continued to be regulated by this treaty until the war of 1812, by which the privileges extended to the United States under the treaty of Paris were terminated.

In 1814 the treaty of Ghent was signed, but it contained no reference to the fisheries question. It appears, however, from the records, that the subject was discussed by the plenipotentiaries of the two powers, and that on the part of the British Government it was stated that “they did not intend to grant to the United States, gratuitously, the privileges formerly granted by treaty to them of fishing within the limits of the British sovereignty, and of using the shores of the British territories for purposes connected with the British fisheries.” It further appears that, immediately after the conclusion of the treaty of Ghent His Majesty’s Government determined upon a most vigorous protection of our fishery rights, for under date of the 17th June, 1815, the following dispatch was written to the governor of this colony by Lord Bathurst, then secretary of state for the colonies:

“Downing Street, June 17, 1815.

“Sir: As the treaty of peace lately concluded with the United States contains no provisions with respect to the fisheries, which the subjects of the United States enjoyed under the third article of peace of 1783, His Majesty’s Government consider it not unnecessary that you should be informed as to the extent to which those privileges are affected by the omission of any stipulation in the present treaty, and of the line of conduct which it is in consequence advisable for you to adopt.

“You can not but be aware that the third article of the treaty of peace of 1783 contained two distinct stipulations, the one recognizing the rights which the United States had to take fish upon the high seas, and the other granting to the United States the privilege of fishing within the British jurisdiction, and of using, under certain conditions, the shores and territories of His Majesty for purposes connected with the fisheries; of these, the former being considered permanent, can not be altered or affected by any change of the relative situation of the two countries, but the other being a privilege derived from the treaty of 1783 alone, was, as to its duration, necessarily limited to the duration of the treaty itself. On the declaration of war by the American Government and the consequent abrogation of the then existing treaties, the United States forfeited, with respect to the fisheries, those privileges which are purely conventional, and (as they have not been renewed by stipulation in the present treaty) the subjects of the United States can have no pretense to any right to fish within the British jurisdiction, or to use the British territory for purposes connected with the fishery.

“Such being the view taken of the question of the fisheries, as far as relates to the United States, I am commanded by His Royal Highness the Prince Regent to instruct you to abstain most carefully from any interference with [Page 774] the fishery in which the subjects of the United States may be engaged either on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or other places in the sea. At the same time you will prevent them, except under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, from using the British territory for purposes connected with the fishery, and will exclude their fishing vessels from the bays, harbors, rivers, creeks, and inlets of all His Majesty’s possessions. In case, however, it should have happened that the fishermen of the United States, through ignorance of the circumstances which affect this question, should, previous to your arrival, have already commenced a fishery similar to that carried on by them previous to the late war, and should have occupied the British harbors and formed establishments on the British territory which could not be suddenly abandoned without very considerable loss, His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, willing to give every indulgence to the citizens of the United States which is compatible with His Majesty’s rights, has commanded me to instruct you to abstain from molesting such fishermen or impeding the progress of their fishing during the present year, unless they should, by attempts to carry on a contraband trade, render themselves unworthy of protection or indulgence; you will, however, not fail to communicate to them the tenor of the instructions which you have received and the view which His Majesty’s Government take of the question of the fishery, and you will above all be careful to explain to them that they are not in any future season to expect a continuance of the same indulgence.

I have, etc.,

“Bathurst.

“Vice-Admiral Sir Richard G. Keats.”

The enforcement of these stringent instructions led to the negotiations that terminated in the treaty of 1818. This dispatch disposes of those “ancient privileges or customs “to which the leader of the opposition referred, and the only privileges or customs that we have to consider are those set forth in the treaty of 1818 or arising out of it.

The treaty stipulations seem perfectly clear, and we have only to consider whether any customs have grown up under it. So far as I have been able to discover from the public records, this colony, with the approval of His Majesty’s Government, has, saving only during the periods of reciprocity and during the past fifteen years, most vigorously maintained its fishery rights against the encroachments of American fishermen, and that it has not been the custom at any time for American fishermen to fish within the bays, creeks, coves, or harbors of the colony. When they have visited our harbors, bays, and coves for fish, it has been with the permission of the government of this colony, granted under license. The contention of the leader of the opposition in respect to rights by custom therefore falls to the ground.

Now, then, as to the honorable gentleman’s views as to the effect of the bill before the House upon our own fishermen. He said residents of Bay of Islands, Bay St. George, and Bonne Bay would go to Sydney, ship on American vessels, and become “hewers of wood and drawers of water” for men from another country; either this or the expatriation of our people would result, for they would be driven away from their homes to seek employment which would be denied them in the land of their birth. I could not quite follow the reasoning of the leader of the opposition in this regard. If the Americans are excluded by legal process from entering those bays or ports, does it not follow that the whole trade in herrings, either frozen or pickled, would revert to the people of this colony? The demand for that fish must be met. If the United States fishermen can not supply the demand, the people of this colony may. In the absence of herrings going in duty free, as they did at the present time in American bottoms by an evasion of the United States tariff law, the people of this colony could afford to enter into the industry and pay the duty of three-quarters of a cent per pound that is now levied by the American customs.

Again, natives of this colony, who, as the leader of the opposition alleges, now go to Gloucester and obtain employment in the fishing schooners that sail from that place, would find employment here in the same trade, viz, that of conducting the frozen and pickled herring trade between this colony and the neighboring Republic—in other words, they would pursue the employment under the British flag rather than under the Stars and Stripes. It was perfectly true that the Canadians have a herring fishery, but it is also true that [Page 775] their herring fishery does not amount to sufficient to supply their demands. It is indisputable that they have to come to our shores and obtain supplies of herring and other bait fishes to successfully conduct their fisheries. That being so, it can not be correctly alleged that by this bill the herring trade will be diverted from Newfoundland to Canada. The leader of the opposition has asked the question: “If it is possible for the people of this colony to engage successfully in the frozen herring trade, why is it that they have not done so?” The answer is perfectly clear; because they have had to compete with the Americans, who carried into the United States duty free, whilst the people of this colony have had to face a duty of three-fourths cent per pound, or a tax equivalent to 25 per cent of the article. It will not be contended that the people of this colony are unable to compete with the fishermen of the United States or any other country upon equal terms. My memory as a member of this legislature goes back now for nearly a quarter of a century, and I do not remember that the position was ever before taken in this House that our fishermen could not compete with either the American or French fishermen on an equal footing. The object of every bill that has been introduced into this legislature in relation to foreign fishermen has been with the sole view to bring about an alteration in the foreign-bounty system or the reduction of prohibitive duties. That was the object of the bait act. The contention of the introducers of that measure was that it was to be used as a lever for the purpose of bringing about the abolition of the bounty paid by the French Republic upon the fish caught by French fishermen upon our coasts. It has been asserted that the Canadians will come down here, take our herrings, and then dispose of them to the Americans. It is quite possible that, the Canadians will come down here; they have come here up to the present time, and I do not hesitate to say that to a great extent they have thwarted us in carrying out the bait act against the fishermen of France. I have been advised by Inspector O’Reilly, of the fisheries department, that certain parties in Canso are, at the present time, preparing cold storage with a view to supplying both French and American fishermen with bait fishes obtained on the west coast of this island under false pretenses, namely, as being required for food purposes and not for bait. Mr. O’Reilly has informed me that a Mr. Whitney, of Canso, had told him of his intention in this regard. I have only to say that if Canadians persist in violating the laws of this colony a remedy will have to be provided by this legislature. It may only be necessary for the government of this colony to bring the matter to the notice of the government of the Dominion. This I propose to do; but failing in an acquiescence on the part of that government in the reasonable demand that will be made in the premises, the legislature will be called upon to devise some means of preventing a violation of not only the spirit, but also of the letter of the law.

I have reason to know that the great majority of the people of this colony are in favor of the restrictions that are about to be imposed by this bill, and therefore to suppose that any of these people will aid or abet the Americans in the herring industry is not to be anticipated. The people being in sympathy with this legislation, that is framed on purpose to protect them in their rights, are prepared to uphold the hands of the Government and to assist them in making this act effective.

The honorable leader of the opposition stated that he would support this bill if it was a permanent measure, but as it was intended to be only temporary in its application he would not support it. The honorable gentleman is certainly illogical in this connection, for, if the bill is “wrong in principle, illegal, unenforceable, and based entirely on a misconception of treaty rights,” as he has alleged, then the mere changing it from a temporary to a permanent measure could not make it right. If there is force in these objections to a temporary bill, they apply with equal force to a permanent one. The fact of its being of a temporary nature did not alter the principle involved, and if the principle was right it could not be affected by either the curtailment or extension of the period in which the act was to be applied.

Again, the honorable gentleman has said “The passage of this bill will close the last page in the negotiations for a treaty with the United States and the present treaty will never come before the Senate again.” Does he not recognize that in those supposesd facts he has put forward a guaranty of the permanency of this bill? For so long as the American markets are closed to our fishery products so long will this measure remain in force. If the leader of the opposition desires the permanency of the bill, and verily believes, as he alleges, that [Page 776] this temporary measure will kill all chance of reciprocity, then the logical course for him to adopt would be to support this bill.

One of the most remarkable statements made by the leader of the opposition was that the French and Americans would probably come to an understanding in relation to this measure, and that St. Pierre would be handed over by France to the United States to form a depot for the storing and supply of bait fishes. This flight of imagination was worthy to rank with the brilliant imagery of Jules Verne. I can not imagine any member of this house seriously putting forward such a position that His Majesty’s Government would permit the island of St. Pierre to pass into the hands of the Americans as a bait depot or for any other purpose. When the island of St. Pierre was ceded to the Government of France by that of Great Britain it was ceded subject to the stipulation that it should “never become an object of jealousy between the two nations.” Can the house conceive of a greater object of jealousy than that that island should be transferred by France to another nation for the purpose of defeating the laws of this colony, which are British laws approved by His Majesty the King, and which could not be set at naught without damage to the dignity and prestige of the Empire? The honorable member may feel perfectly satisfied that so long as the British flag waves in supremacy around the world St. Pierre will not pass under the Stars and Stripes. I can only suppose that the remarkable statement made by the leader of the opposition was with a view to influencing some people outside this house and not those who are honored with a seat in it. It could never have been put forward seriously as an argument to influence the votes of members of this legislature.

The honorable leader of the opposition also contended that “the practical men of Water street, the practical men in the house, the practical men throughout the colony, would not be found to support the legislation that I have introduced.” I do not know what the honorable gentleman means by “practical men.” Did he mean the men who have the largest stake in the interests of the colony, or did he confine the term to the fishermen of the colony? I assume that when he referred to the “practical men of Water street” he meant the mercantile firms who are largely interested in the conduct of the fisheries of this colony. If such was the case, I shall disabuse his mind of a false impression. Nearly all the mercantile men of Water street were in favor of prohibiting the supply of bait fishes to foreign fishermen. Before the Government determined upon the introduction of this bill I conceived it to be my duty to ascertain, not only the views of the “practical men of Water street,” but the views of the “practical men throughout the colony” in respect to the subject matter of this bill. I addressed a letter to the merchants of this city, and to “practical men” outside of it, requesting the favor of their opinions in regard to the matter, and I met with a ready response.

The Hon. Edgar Bowring, of the first of Messrs. Bowring Brothers (Limited), than whom there is no firm in the colony more largely interested in the fisheries, addressed me a letter in reply, in which the following occurs:

“I have to say that I think it is of paramount importance that the Government should take immediate steps to prevent the Americans from obtaining bait supplies. It is manifestly unfair that they should have the advantage of obtaining bait under license as heretofore while they maintain such an antagonistic attitude toward Newfoundland, and while duties on our products entering the United States remain as they are. I thought this matter so important that I called a meeting of the fish merchants, this meeting being held yesterday morning, the 23rd March. There was a unanimous expression of opinion that immediate steps should be taken to prohibit the American fishermen from obtaining licenses, and resolutions were passed to this effect. A joint letter signed by all those present was drafted and sent in to you.”

I duly received the letter containing the resolutions passed by the merchants of this city, who are so largely interested in the fisheries, under date the 23rd March, and I will ask the permission of the house to read it:

“St. Johns, Newfoundland, March 23, 1905.

“Dear Sir: At a meeting convened and held on this day, at which the following were present: Hons. E. R. Bowring, John Harvey, Eli Dawe, James Baird, R. K. Bishop, Sir Robert Thorburn, Messrs. R. F. Goodridge, J. S. Munn, H. A. Bowring, R. B. Job, and Joseph Outerbridge, to consider the desirability of prohibiting the sale of bait fishes to other than our own fishermen, the following resolutions were unanimously passed:

“Resolved, That, in the opinion of the meeting, it is expedient and highly important that immediate steps should be taken to prohibit American fisher [Page 777] men from obtaining supplies of bait fishes in the harbors or upon the coast of Newfoundland; and that a copy of these resolutions, bearing signatures, be forwarded forthwith to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Bond, P. C., K. C. M. G.

“‘Resolved, That the Government be requested to prevent the barring of herrings upon the coast of Newfoundland, except only Placentia and Fortune bays, and to put an export tax upon bulk herrings exported in any but Newfoundland vessels.’

“We have, etc.,

“R. Thorburn.

“Jas. Baird.

“J. Outerbridge.

“R. K. Bishop.

“B. R. Bowring.

“John Harvey.

“Robert B. Job.

“H. A. Bowring.

“R. F. Goodridge.

“John S. Munn.

“Right Hon. Sir R. Bond, P. O., K. C. M. G.,
“Colonial Secretary.”

I anticipate that the honorable leader of the opposition will not take the position that the merchants, while in favor of prohibiting the supply of bait fishes to the Americans, also expressed an opinion in favor of an export duty being placed on bulk herrings exported in any but Newfoundland vessels, and that this bill does not admit of any exportation of herring in foreign bottoms under any circumstances. My answer to that position, if put forward, is that the government have not been unmindful of that portion of the resolutions forwarded by the mercantile body which has reference to an export duty. This bill is framed specially to prevent the American fishermen from coming into the bays, harbors, and creeks of the coast of Newfoundland for the purpose of obtaining herring, caplin, and squid for fishery purposes, and it is still competent for this legislature to make provision in respect to the export of herring in bulk in foreign vessels upon the payment of an export duty. It is quite competent for the house to add a clause to this bill enabling the governor in council to suspend the operation of the act at any time it may be considered expedient to do so, and to admit foreign vessels for the purpose of taking herrings in bulk. It is my intention before the bill passes through to move such a clause for the approval of this house which will make it competent for the governor in council to issue licenses to foreign vessels should it be deemed desirable at any time to do so.

But not only are the merchants of this city in favor of this action of the government, but from communications that I have received from different parts of the country during the past few months, I have reason to know that the practical men—the fishermen—are also in favor of the measure.

I do not know to the fullest extent the views of the whole of the “practical men of this house,” but I know sufficient of their views to say that every “practical man” in this house will support this bill.

Many of the fishermen of the country during the last year or two have been greatly embarrassed by reason of the free access of American vessels to our bait supplies. I have received a communication from Inspector O’Reilly to the effect that there were instances where our own bank fishermen were in harbor with American fishermen in quest of bait, and while our fishermen were prepared to pay an amount equal to that offered by the Americans for bait supplies, the Americans were given the preference, and that in some instances serious loss ensued to our fishermen. Inducements were held out by the American captains by way of cash and other means to secure the preference. This has engendered a feeling of resentment, as well as of determination, and demands at the hands of the government the prohibition of the supplying of bait fishes to the Americans unless for an equivalent in the shape of a free market from the United States. They have borne with their grievance patiently because they thought the Americans would speedily open their markets to Newfoundland fish. If those markets had been opened as was agreed between the government of this colony and the administration of the United States, there would have been no representation of that grievance to the government of the colony.

[Page 778]

There was also a recognition on the part of the fishermen of this colony that we had the whip hand in regard to the fisheries of British North America. There is not the faintest shadow of a doubt upon that point, as I stated on a former occasion. We have already demonstrated to the French that we hold the key to the North Atlantic fisheries.

It had been stated by the leader of the oppostiion that if we closed our bait supplies to the Americans they could obtain it in Canada. I am aware that the French have been able to obtain a certain amount of bait from the Canadians at St. Anns and other places in Cape Breton; but the source of supply from that base is very limited, for it is a matter of notoriety that the Canadians have not a sufficient supply of bait for their own purposes, and that they are dependent, to a very large extent indeed, upon supplies obtained in the waters of this colony. I have mentioned this before, and I will now produce the proof.

I hold in my hand papers relating to Canada and Newfoundland printed by order of the Canadian parliament in the session of 1892, and on page 28 of that report I find a letter addressed by C. Edwin Kaulbach, esq., to the Hon. Charles H. Tupper, minister of marine and fisheries, at Ottawa, under date of 17th April, 1890. This gentleman, who hails from Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and who is a member of the Canadian parliament, wrote as follows in respect to the restrictions which the government of this colony had placed on Canadian vessels visiting our shores for bait in that year:

“Our men are in terrible straits to know what to do under these circumstances, as their bait for the Grand Banks for our summer trip is almost wholly obtained on the south side of Newfoundland. The Grand Banks have been the summer resort of our fishermen for many years, and from various bays on the south coast of Newfoundland their supply of bait has been drawn, these being much less of distance and a greater certainty of bait than Canadian waters. We have hitherto enjoyed the privilege of obtaining bait in Newfoundland to the fullest extent, paying only such internal fees and taxes as were proper. The result of the action of the Newfoundland government will be most disastrous, and one season alone will prove its dire effects on the fishing fleet of Nova Scotia and the shipyards now also so busy and prosperous.”

This communication is important evidence as to the value of the position we occupy as mistress of the northern seas so far as the fisheries are concerned. Herein was evidence that it is within the power of the legislature of this colony to make or mar our competitors to the North Atlantic fisheries. Here was evidence that by refusing or restricting the necessary bait supply we can bring our foreign competitors to realize their dependence upon us. One of the objects of this legislation is to bring the fishing interests of Gloucester and New England to a realization of their dependence upon the bait supplies of this colony. No measure could have been devised having more clearly for its object the conserving, safeguarding, and protecting of the interests of those concerned in the fisheries of the colony.

If this bill goes into force, as I believe it will, it must be the means of keeping up the high price of fish, for if we curtail competition, we must obtain that result.

I regret that there should be any difference of opinion in this house as regards the desirability, if not necessity, of this measure, the policy of which is the conservation of our fisheries, as well as the betterment of those engaged in them.

I beg to move the house into committee of the whole on the bill.

APPENDIX No. 9.

newfoundland foreign fishing vessels act, 1905. (edwardi vii, regis. cap. iv.)

AN ACT Respecting foreign fishing vessels. (Passed June 15, 1905.)

Be it enacted by the governor, the legislative council, and house of assembly, in legislative session convened, as follows:

1.: Any justice of the peace, subcollector, preventive officer, fishery warden, or constable may go on board any foreign fishing vessel being within any port on the [Page 779] coasts of this island or hovering in British waters within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors in this island, and may bring such foreign fishing vessel into port, may search her cargo, and may examine the master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and the master or person in command shall answer truly such questions as shall be put to him, under a penalty not exceeding $500; and if such foreign vessel has on board any herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, ice, lines, seines, or other outfits or supplies for the fishery purchased within any port on the coasts of this island, or within the distance of 3 marine miles from any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of this island, or if the master of the said vessel shall have engaged, or attempted to engage, any person to form part of the crew of the said vessel in any port or on any part of the coasts of this island, or has entered such waters for any purpose not permitted by treaty or convention for the time being in force, such vessel and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof shall be forfeited.
2.: All goods and vessels and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof liable to forfeiture under this act may be seized and secured by any officer or person mentioned in the first section hereof; and every person opposing any such officer or person in the execution of his duty under this act, or aiding or abetting any other person in such opposition, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to a fine of $500.
3.: In any prosecution under this act the presence on board any foreign fishing vessel in any port of this island or within British waters aforesaid of any caplin, squid, or other bait fishes, of ice, lines, seines, or other outfit or supplies for the fishery shall be prima facie evidence of the purchase of the said bait fishes and supplies and outfits within such port or waters.
4.: All offenders against the provisions of this act may be prosecuted and convicted, and all fines, forfeitures, penalties, and other punishments imposed recovered, and made in a summary manner before a stipendiary magistrate, and any vessel and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof liable to forfeiture under the provisions of this act may be sued for, prosecuted, recovered, and condemned in a summary manner before a stipendiary magistrate in a proceeding against the master or other person in charge of such vessel. For the purposes of this act all stipendiary magistrates shall be deemed to be stipendiary magistrates for the colony, and may exercise the jurisdiction given by this act in any part of the colony.
5.: If any person convicted under this act shall feel himself aggrieved by such conviction, he may appeal therefrom to the then next sitting of His Majesty’s supreme court, holden in or nearest the place where such conviction shall have been had, or in St. John’s: Provided notice of such appeal and of the cause and matter thereof be given to the convicting magistrate in writing, within seven days next after such conviction, and the party desiring to appeal shall also, within fourteen days after such notice, give and enter into recognizance with two approved sureties before the convicting magistrate conditioned for the appearance of the person convicted at such next sitting of the supreme court, on the first day of such sitting, for the prosecution of the appeal with effect and without delay, to abide the judgment of the court thereon, and for the delivery and surrender of any vessel or other property ordered to be confiscated, and to pay such costs as the court may award.
6.: No proceeding or conviction by, nor order of, any magistrate or other officer under this act shall be quashed or set aside for any informality, provided the same shall be substantially in accordance with the intent and meaning of this act.
7.: Nothing in this act shall affect the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any state in amity with His Majesty.
8.: The governor in council may at any time by proclamation suspend the operation of this act for such period as may be expedient and as shall be declared in such proclamation.
9.: In this act the word “vessel” shall include any boat or ship registered or not registered, jack, skiff, punt, or launch, whether propelled by sails, oars, or steam.
10.: The act 56 Vict., cap. 6, entitled “An act respecting foreign fishing vessels,” is hereby repealed.

APPENDIX NO. 10.

Speech by Sir R. Bond on the second reading of a bill respecting foreign fishing vessels, 1906, delivered May 4, 1906.

Right Honorable the Premier (Sir Robert Bond). When introducing the foreign fishing vessels bill in April of last year, I fully set forth the reasons that actuated the government in moving the house to accept the measure, and it would therefore be a work of supererogation to again deal with that phase of the question. The bill passed the legislature and has been in force during the year. The object of the present amendment is to deal with the condition of things that has arisen consequent upon the operation of the act. In the first place, as might have been anticipated, the enforcement of the act occasioned some irritation to our United States friends, and an effort has been made to show that the legislature in the passing of the act did not hesitate to attempt to interfere with their rights under the treaty of 1818. I would observe that this conclusion was entirely erroneous, for there was no disposition whatever on the part of the government or the legislature to encroach in the slightest degree upon the rights of United States fishermen under the treaty. The sections of the act of last year that have been quoted as giving color to this contention are sections 1 and 3. They have been construed as constituting a warrant to the officers named therein to interfere with and violate such rights. Reference to section 7 of the foreign fishing vessels act of 1905 will indicate at once how unwarranted was such a contention, for it preserves, in non-ambiguous language, the rights and privileges granted by treaty to the subjects of any state in amity with His Majesty, and is in effect a prohibition of any vexatious interference with the exercise of the treaty rights of either French or American fishermen. The provisions of the act under reference, 1905 act, were in no sense new; they may be found in the foreign fishing vessels act of 1893. The provisions of the 1893 act and that of 1905 are in all essential respects identical, the only important difference being that the 1906 act took away by omission the power previously granted by this legislature authorizing the issue of licenses to foreign fishing vessels to purchase supplies and ship crews within our jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the bill of 1905 was not-necessary in order to give effect to the policy of the government, for full power existed under the 1893 act by the mere suspension of the issue of licenses, and the only object which the government had in introducing the act last year was to obtain the formal approval of the legislature for carrying out the policy that had been decided upon in relation to United States fishermen. I now propose, with a view of establishing the bona fides of the government and of the legislature, and to remove all possible grounds for cavil, to amend the act of last year by declaring that the first part of section 1 and the whole of section 3 do not apply to foreign fishing vessels resorting to Newfoundland waters in the exercise of treaty rights of fishing. Again, as an outcome of the enforcement of the act of last year, certain vexatious circumstances arose, as was intimated at the opening of this session in the speech from the Throne. They were (1) the conduct in connection with the visit of the United States fisheries vessel Grampus to Bay of Islands; (2) the refusal of American vessels to enter and clear; (3) the refusal to pay light dues; (4) the attempt to erect scaffolds on shore for the freezing of herring; (5) the smuggling of goods into our harbors and the attempted sale of same; (6) the aiding and abetting by United States fishermen of the subjects of His Majesty in this colony to violate the statute laws of the colony by shipping them as part crews outside the 3-mile limit; (7) the circulating of misleading and false reports respecting the action of the government of the colony and the people of the colony. I shall only deal briefly with one or two of these matters: First, the matter of the refusal to enter and clear at the customs and pay light dues. When it was reported by the subcollector at Bay of Islands that certain American vessels refused to enter and clear, the government at first contented themselves by entering a formal and respectful protest with the right honorable the secretary of state for the colonies. This was done in order to avoid every possible cause for friction with the United States Government, but finding that United States fishermen persisted in violating our laws in that respect, there was no alternative left to the government of the colony but to instruct its officers to enforce the law in future. I submit that it can hardly be seriously contended that the obligation to enter and clear and pay light dues is inconsistent with the treaty of 1818, or that it in any way interferes with the exercise of the rights [Page 781] of American fishermen under the treaty. I further submit that when the sovereign power granted privileges to the United States under the convention of 1818 it retained its inherent rights of supremacy, such as the right to execute the treaty within its own dominion, and to make and enforce all laws not inconsistent with the treaty; that one of the inherent rights of sovereignty is to prevent smuggling and crimes of all kinds; that this government, by virtue of the constitution granted to them by His Majesty, is the paramount power within the 3-mile limit of the coasts of the colony, and that it is their inherent right to decide what measures shall be adopted to protect the revenues of the colony from smuggling. One of the measures which have been adopted is the obligation on all vessels to enter and clear at the custom-house. When United States vessels do not come within the territorial waters of the colony they, of course, are not required to enter, but immediately they come within our territorial jurisdiction I hold that they are subject to our customs and other laws. In voicing this opinion I voice the opinion of the government of this colony.

The correctness of this position was never questioned by United States citizens until the masters of the U. S. schooners H. M. Stanley, Senator Gardner, Tattler, and Maxine refused to make a formal report to the subcollector at Bay of Islands a few months ago. Between January, 1900, and June, 1902, four United States schooners were fined for nonreporting, and with these exceptions United States vessels have always entered and cleared. Under the customs acts, 1898, particularly section 22 (61 Vict., cap. 13), it is provided that, “the master of every vessel coming from any port or place within this colony, or coastwise, on entering any port in this colony, whether laden or in ballast, shall go without delay when such vessel is anchored or moored, to the custom-house for the port or place of entry where he arrives, and shall make a report in writing to the collector or other proper officer of the arrival and voyage of such vessel,” etc. United States vessels are not exempt, either by the treaty of 1818 or any other convention or arrangement. It will be observed that there is nothing contained in the bill now before the house to deal with this matter, for it would be entirely unnecessary and superfluous, inasmuch as provision is made in the statutes of the colony to which I have referred. Again, the foreign fishing vessels act of 1905 stipulated that any attempt “to engage any person to form part of the crew of said vessel in any outport or on any part of the coasts of this island” would subject the vessel to forfeiture. The said act further provided that no foreign fishing vessel should enter the waters of this colony “for any purpose not permitted by treaty or convention for the time being in force.” The employing, shipping, or hiring of the fishermen of this colony by United States fishing vessels last season was unquestionably aiding and abetting the subjects of His Majesty in this colony to violate those fishery laws to which they were amenable. The privileges granted under the treaty of 1818 were to the subjects of the United States alone. The people of this colony who proceeded outside the 3-mile limit and engaged or hired themselves to American vessels to catch herring, were not subjects of the United States, and the mere entering into the service of American citizens did not and could not give them rights which were alone granted by treaty to the subjects of the United States. The United States Government have not disputed, so far as I am aware, the correctness of this position, but nevertheless the agents of the United States schooners at Bay of Islands unquestionably entered into an agreement with a large number of British residents of that place and induced them to proceed outside the 3-mile limit and engage themselves on board American vessels in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the foreign fishing vessels act and the bait act, which has been in force in this colony for a number of years. With a view to dealing with this condition of affairs provision is made in the bill now before the house that no British subject shall fish from or for foreign fishing vessels in the waters of this colony, and imposing a penalty upon the masters of such vessels that permit such fishing. It is further provided that no inhabitant of this colony shall leave the colony for the purpose of engaging on a foreign fishing vessel intending to fish in the waters of the colony, and that no inhabitant of the colony shall sell, let, or lend, or remove from the colony for the purpose of selling, letting, or lending, to the masters of any foreign fishing vessels, boats, nets, and gear, and prohibiting the purchase or borrowing by a foreign vessel within the territorial waters of the colony, such boats, nets, or gear from the inhabitants of the colony. The foreign fishing vessels act of last year was passed in the interests of the people of the colony, and especially in the interests of the people of the west coast, and it is to be regretted that it was deliberately [Page 782] violated last year in order to render assistance to American fishermen in thwarting the operation of a policy that has been forced upon the government of the colony by the action of the fishing interests of Gloucester, Mass. In view of the attempt that was made last year to render void our laws which the legislature, in its wisdom, has found it necessary to pass, in the interests of the fisheries and trade and commerce of the colony, I feel confident that the house will recognize the justification for taking this further legislative power to deal with the transgressors. It will be observed that the fifteenth and eighteenth sections of the act now before the house provide that it shall come into operation on a day appointed for the purpose by proclamation of his excellency the governor. This has been inserted in order that reasonable public notice may be given to all parties who are interested in this measure, and that the governor in council may at any time by proclamation suspend or limit the operation of this act, or any part thereof, to the whole colony or any portion of it, as may be deemed expedient. It is to be hoped that the adoption of this measure will prevent a repetition of the vexatious circumstances to which I have but casually referred, and that the people, especially those of the west coast, recognizing that this act is framed with due regard to their material interests, will aid and assist the government by a ready acquiescence in its provisions. I beg to move the second reading of the bill.

APPENDIX No. 11.

newfoundland foreign fishing vessels act, 1906. (anno sexto edwardi vii, regis. cap. i.)

AN ACT Respecting foreign fishing vessels. (Passed May 10, 1906.)