Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

and continuing to be of opinion that the treaty of February last, which failed to receive the approval of the Senate, did supply a satisfactory, practical, and final adjustment upon a basis honorable and just to both parties of the difficult and vexed question to which it related,' and having subsequently and unavailingly recommended other legislation to Congress which I hoped would suffice to meet the exigency created by the rejection of the treaty, I now again invoke the earnest and immediate attention of the Congress to the condition of this important question, as it now stands before them and the country, and for the settlement of which I am deeply solicitous.”

President Cleveland, Annual Message, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888. I.
Pp. x-xi.

The messages referred to in the foregoing extract may be found in the following documents: Message of Feb. 20, 1888, H. Ex. Doc. 434, 50 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 9-13; S. Ex. Doc. 113, 50 Cong. 1 sess. 127-131; message of Aug. 23, 1888, H. Ex. Doc. 434, 50 Cong. 1 sess; message of Sept. 12, 1888, S. Ex. Doc. 265, 50 Cong. 1 sess.

In connection with the discussions of 1886-1888, we may refer to the
following prints:

The United States and the Northeastern Fisheries: A History of the
Fishery Question. By Charles B. Elliott, LL. B., Minneapolis, 1887,

151 pp.

Isham, The Fishery Question: New York, 1887.

A paper read by the Hon William L. Putnam, of Portland, Maine, March 28, 1887, before the Fraternity, a social and literary club.

Diplomatic Fly-Sheets, Tuesday, March 15, 1887, containing a report by the St. Pancras foreign affairs committee on "The alleged Rights of American fishermen in British North-American waters.'"

A letter of William A. Day, counsel for the Grand Trunk Railway Company, of Canada, to the Hon. William Windom, Secretary of the Treasury, in the matter of consular sealing of goods for transportation through Canada. [No date.] This letter maintains the continuing force of Art. XXIX of the treaty of Washington.

The Fisheries Dispute. By John Jay, late minister to Vienna: New York,
1887. As may be seen at p. 9 of this pamphlet, the author of it
argues upon the assumption, the grounds of which are not disclosed,
that the convention of 1818 was "suspended," in the sense of being
supplanted by the treaties of 1854 and 1871. As has been seen, these
treaties merely granted for a term of years and for specific considera-
tions certain privileges which were not secured by the convention
of 1818.

For references to fisheries correspondence, see pp. 317-322 of Martin's
General Index to the Dip. Cor. and For. Rel. of the United States.

"On the part of the government of the Dominion of Canada an effort has been apparent during the season just ended to administer the laws and regulations applicable to the fisheries with as little occasion for friction as was possible, and the temperate representations of this Government in respect of cases of undue hardship or of harsh interpretations have been in most cases met with measures of transitory relief. It is trusted that the attainment of our just

rights under existing treaties and in virtue of the concurrent legislation of the two contiguous countries will not be long deferred and that all existing causes of difference may be equitably adjusted."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 3, 1889.

See report of Select Committee of the Senate on Relations with Canada,
July 21, 1890, S. Report 1530, 51 Cong. 1 sess.

As to the case of the Howard Holbrook, under the Newfoundland bait
act of 1889, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lincoln, min. to
England, March 30, 1891, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXIX. 439; also, as to
the seizure of the Rapid Transit, under the same act, see Mr. Uhl,
Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. White, Sept. 4, 1894, 198 MS. Dom. Let.
476. The act requires a license to be obtained for any exportation
of herring to foreign parts, and requires the licensee to give bond for
the landing of the cargo in the foreign country.
The Frederick Gerring, jr., having been condemned for unlawful fishing in
territorial waters, was afterwards restored on payment of a nominal
fine, with costs, it being alleged in extenuation that the vessel caught
a seine full of mackerel outside and drifted inside the line while
removing the fish from the seine. Gratification with the decision was
expressed by the Department of State. (Mr. Day, Act. Sec. of State,
to Mr. Hay, min. to England, July 19, 1897, MS. Inst. Gr. Br. XXXII.
172.)
As to the fine imposed on the American schooner Carrie E. Phillips at
Shelburne, see Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas. Feb.
9, 1898, 225 MS. Dom. Let. 335.

On the representation of the British ambassador that American fishing
vessels were in the practice of resorting to Canadian waters and
engaging in commercial transactions, without reporting their pres-
ence and business to the customs authorities, as required by the local
laws and regulations, the Secretary of the Treasury was requested
to communicate the complaint to the officials at Gloucester, Mass.,
and Eastport, Maine, whence the vessels complained of proceeded,
with instructions to notify such vessels sailing from those ports
"that the practice referred to will subject them to arrest and pun-
ishment by the Canadian authorities, and that in view of the nego-
tiations now pending between the Governments for an amicable
adjustment of fishing rights all causes of irritation should be
avoided." (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treas. Nov. 4, 1898,
232 MS. Dom. Let. 470.)

As to fishing in Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait on the Pacific coast,
see Mr. Adee, 2nd. Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Eatock, Oct. 28, 1897,
222 MS. Dom. Let. 59.

For an agreement between France and Great Britain in relation to the
Newfoundland fisheries, see For. Rel. 1904, 329.

February 15, 1892, a tentative understanding was reached between Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of State, and the delegates of the government of the Dominion of Canada, for the appointment of a commission of two experts to consider and report upon (1) the prevention of destructive methods of fishing in the territorial and contiguous waters of the two countries, and in waters outside their territorial

limits; (2) the prevention of the polluting and obstruction of such contiguous waters to the detriment of fishing and navigation; (3) the closed seasons which should be observed in such waters; and (4) the restocking and replenishing of such waters with fish. A formal agreement to this effect was concluded by an exchange of notes." Mr. Richard Rathbun, of the United States Fish Commission, was appointed commissioner on the part of the United States. President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 3, 1894, stated that the preliminary investigations of the commission were in progress. The time for the conclusion of these investigations was afterwards extended. The report of the commission was communicated to Congress February 24, 1897.d

The subject of the fisheries was embraced in the work of the joint high commission of 1898-99, whose labors were suspended in consequence of differences touching the Alaskan boundary.

V. WHALE FISHERIES.

§ 169.

In May, 1799, a copy was sent to the minister of the United States in London of what purported to be a proclamation issued by RearAdmiral Pringle, commanding at the Cape of Good Hope, forbidding all vessels, except British, to kill whales or seals on the coast of that colony within five leagues of land, and threatening, in case of disobedience to his orders, to seize them and send them to the Cape to be proceeded against according to law. It was stated that the American whaling ship Joanna had apparently been interfered with under the order, which the United States conceived to be "unlawful;" and the minister was instructed to lay the subject before Lord Grenville.

Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, to Mr. King, min. to England, May 11, 1799,
MS. Inst. to U. States Ministers, V. 127.

"I have the honor to acquaint you that complaints have been received from the Russian Government that in the month of Sep

a Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Herbert, British chargé, Oct. 4, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 317; Sir Julian Pauncefote, Brit. min., to Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, Dec. 5, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 324; Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, Brit. min. Dec. 6, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 326. See, as to the salmon fisheries in the Fraser River, For. Rel. 1894, 259.

For. Rel. 1892, 327; Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cogswell, M. C., Jan. 28, 1893, 190 MS. Dom. Let. 160.

c Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambass. Dec. 31, 1894, MS. Notes to Great Britain, XXII. 663.

H. Doc. 315, 54 Cong. 2 sess. 178 pp. In connection with the subject of protecting the fisheries, see S. Mis. Doc. 28, 44 Cong. 2 sess.; S. Rep. 365, 48 Cong. 1 sess.

tember, 1858, two female Russian subjects were abducted from the
village of Armansk, on the coast of the Province of Okhotsk, by the
crew of an American vessel. It has, however, been impossible to
identify the perpetrators, or even the vessel to which they belonged.
"That Government naturally feels seriously offended, especially as
other charges of misconduct against American vessels in the same
quarter had also been preferred. Unless such lawless proceedings
can be checked, it is to be feared that that Government will take
measures of prevention which would be very injurious to our whaling
interests in the North Pacific, by prohibiting the capture of whales
within a marine league of Russian territory. Under these circum-
stances, the propriety of issuing instructions to the collectors of the
several ports where whaling ships are cleared, to impress upon the
captains of such vessels necessity of their being vigilant toward pre-
venting any such unlawful acts on the part of their crew, is submitted
for your consideration."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cobb, Sec. of Treasury, Nov. 21, 1860, 53
MS. Dom. Let. 270.

An instruction in similar terms, with a view to give warning to the
masters of American whalers, was sent to the United States consul
at Callao. (Mr. Trescot, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Trevitt, consul
at Callao, Nov. 22, 1860, 30 MS. Despatches to Consuls, 13.)

In 1868 a correspondence took place between the United States and Russia, in consequence of the alleged interference of Russian officials with the operations of American whalers in the Sea of Okhotsk. The Russian Government, stating that "foreign whalers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the Russian gulfs and bays at a distance less than three miles from the shore, where the right of fishing is exclusively reserved to Russian subjects," disclaimed any intention to interfere with whaling operations elsewhere.

Dip. Cor. 1868, I. 462, 465, 467, 469, 470–473.

As to whaling at the Falkland Islands, see correspondence with the
British Government in 1854, infra, § 171.

VI. SEAL FISHERIES.

1. COASTS OF SOUTH AMERICA.

§ 170.

"I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 18th ult., in which you represent that American vessels have interfered in the fishery of sea dogs and other amphibious animals, upon points occupied by Spanish subjects on the coast of South America, such interference having in many instances been supported by force; and you therefore signify by order of His Catholic Majesty, that he has determined to prevent for the future a repetition of the infractions in question.

"The President of the United States, having been made acquainted with this representation, directs me to assure you that the United States are not inclined to countenance in any manner acts of their citizens in contravention of the rights of His Catholic Majesty nor to screen them from the lawful consequences resulting from such conduct, but, at the same time that he manifests this respect to the territorial sovereignty of Spain, he expects from the friendly relations of the two countries, that the rights of our citizens to navigate and use the seas, and to avail themselves of all the natural and common advantages incident to them, will be neither controverted nor interrupted."

Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to the Marquis of Casa Yrujo, Span. min.,
June 1, 1803, 14 MS. Dom. Let. 158.

2. CASE OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

§ 171.

"Having by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, been appointed chargé d'affaires to the Republic of Buenos Ayres, you will embark as speedily as possible for the place of your destination, in the United States sloop of war, the Peacock, now lying at Boston.

"On the ordinary duties you will have to perform as charged with the political interests of your Government, and the protection of your fellow-citizens in their lawful intercourse with the country to which you are sent, you need no particular instructions. Your general knowledge of the subject, the perusal of the instructions to your predecessors, and their correspondence with the Government, will be sufficient guides in that part of your duties.

“There are, however, subjects in the relations between the two countries on which it is necessary to put you more particularly in possession of the views of your Government-some of which subjects, for your negotiations, will require the exercise of that discretion, industry, and talent you are known to possess, and which led to your selection for the present n.ission.

"1. The first of these to which it is necessary to call your attention are the acts and pretensions of an individual at the Falkland Islands, pretending to or really possessing authority under the Government to which you are sent.

"A certain Lewis Vernet, who appears to have formed an establishment at Soledad, one of the Falkland Islands, has, within a few months past, captured three American vessels-the Breakwater, the Harriet of Stonington, and the Superior of New York-under pretense that they had infringed some unknown laws of the Republic of Buenos Ayres, for the protection of the fisheries. By the affidavit

« PředchozíPokračovat »