EXECUTIVE MANSION, _September 12, 1888_.
_To the Senate_:
Responding to the inquiries contained in the subjoined resolution of the
Senate of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor to state in reply to the
subject first therein mentioned, calling upon the Executive for "copies
of all communications, if any, addressed by his direction to the
Government of Great Britain, remonstrating with that Government against
the wrongs and unfair treatment to our citizens by the action of the
Canadian Government in refunding to vessels and cargoes which pass
through the Welland and other Canadian canals nearly the entire tolls
if they are destined to Canadian ports, while those bound for American
ports are not allowed any such advantage, and the breach of the
engagement contained in the treaty of 1871 whereby Great Britain
promised to the United States equality in the matter of such canal
transportation; also copies of any demand made by his direction upon
Great Britain for the redress of such wrongs, and the replies of Great
Britain to such communication and demand," that I herewith transmit
copies of all communications between the Department of State and the
United States consul at Ottawa, which are accompanied by copies of the
orders of the Canadian officials in relation to the subject inquired of;
also correspondence between the Department of State and the British
minister at this capital, with copies of the documents therein referred
to.
I also inclose, as connected therewith, a copy of Executive Document
No. 406, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, first session,
containing the answer of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated
July 23, 1888, in reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives
relating to the navigation of the Welland Canal, and the documents thus
transmitted comprise the entire correspondence in relation to the
subjects referred to in that portion of the resolution of inquiry which
is above quoted.
The second branch of inquiry is in the words following:
And also that there be communicated to the Senate copies of all papers,
correspondence, and information touching the matter of the refusal of
the British Government, or that of any of her North American dominions,
to allow the entry at Dominion seaports of American fish or other
cargoes for transportation in bond to the United States since the 1st
day of July, 1885.
It will be remembered that though the fishing articles of the treaty of
1871 expired on the said 1st day of July, 1885, a temporary arrangement
was made whereby the privileges accorded to our fishermen under said
articles were continued during the remainder of that year's fishing
season.
No instance of refusal by the Canadian authorities since July 1, 1885,
up to the present time to allow the entry at Dominion seaports of
American cargoes other than fish for transportation in bond across the
territory of Canada to the United States has been made known to the
Department of State.
The case of the fishing steamer _Novelty_, involving, among
other things, a refusal, on July 1, 1886, of the right to permit the
transshipment of fish in bond at the port of Pictou, Nova Scotia, was
duly communicated to Congress in my message of December 8, 1886, a copy
of which I herewith transmit. (Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress,
second session, p. 1.)
On page 16 of this document will be found a copy of a communication
addressed by the Secretary of State to the British minister, dated June
14, 1886, on the subject of the refusal of transshipment of fish in
bond. At page 24 of the same publication will be found the protest of
the Secretary of State in the case of the _Novelty_, and at pages
49-50 are the response of the British minister and report of the
Canadian privy council.
On the 26th of January, 1887, a revised list of cases of alleged ill
treatment of our fishing vessels in Canadian waters was furnished by the
Secretary of State to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate,
in which the above case is included, a copy of which, being Senate
Executive Document No. 55 of the second session Forty-ninth Congress, is
herewith inclosed; and in the report by Mr. Edmunds, from the Committee
on Foreign Relations (No. 1683 of the same session), the case referred
to was again published. And, as relating to the subject of the
resolution now before me, the following pertinent passage, taken from
the said report, may be of interest:
As regards commercial and other friendly business intercourse between
ports and places in the Dominion and the United States, it is, of
course, of much importance that regulations affecting the same should
be mutually reasonable and fairly administered. If an American vessel
should happen to have caught a cargo of fish at sea 100 miles distant
from some Canadian port, from which there is railway communication to
the United States, and should be denied the privilege of landing and
shipping its cargo therefrom to the United States, as the Canadians
do, it would be, of course, a serious disadvantage; and there is, it
is thought, nothing in the treaty of 1818 which would warrant such an
exclusion. But the Dominion laws may make such a distinction, and it is
understood that in fact the privilege of so shipping fish from American
vessels has been refused during the last year.
I also respectfully refer to Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 54,
Forty-ninth Congress, second session, being a communication from the
Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries to Hon. George F. Edmunds, chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, dated February 5, 1887, which is
accompanied by a partial list of vessels injuriously treated by the
Canadian authorities, based upon information furnished to the United
States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.
This list is stated to be supplementary to the revised list which had
been transmitted to the committee by the Secretary of State January 26,
1887.
Of the sixty-eight vessels comprised in this list it is stated that six,
to wit, the _Nellie M. Snow_, _Andrew Burnham_, _Harry G. French_,
_Col. J.H. French_, _W.H. Wellington_, and _Ralph Hodgdon_, were
refused permission to transship fish. None of these cases, however, were
ever reported to the Department of State by the parties interested, or
were accompanied by affidavit; nor does it appear the facts ever were
investigated in any of the cases by the parties making the reports,
which were obtained by circulars issued by order of the Commissioner of
Fish and Fisheries. The concluding inquiry is as follows:
And also that he communicate to the Senate what instances have occurred
since the 3d of March, 1887, of wrongs to American fishing vessels or
other American vessels in the ports or waters of British North America,
and what steps, if any, have been taken in respect thereto.
Soon after the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, the negotiation
which had been proceeding for several months previously progressed
actively, and the proposed conference and the presence at this capital
of the plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, out of which the since
rejected treaty of February 7, 1888, eventuated, had their natural
influence in repressing causes of complaint in relation to the
fisheries. Therefore since March 3, 1887, no case has been reported to
the Department of State wherein complaint was made of unfriendly or
unlawful treatment of American fishing vessels on the part of the
Canadian authorities in which reparation was not promptly and
satisfactorily obtained by the United States consul-general at Halifax.
A single case of alleged unjust treatment of an American merchant
vessel, not engaged in fishing, has been reported since March 3, 1887.
This was the ship _Bridgewater_, which was first brought to the
attention of the Department of State by the claimant by petition filed
June 1, 1888.
On June 18, 1888, legal counsel, who appeared and desired to be
heard, filed their formal authority and the claim was at once duly
investigated, and on June 22, 1888, a communication was addressed by the
Secretary of State to the British minister, which sets forth the history
of the claim, and a copy of which is herewith transmitted; and of this
formal acknowledgment was made, but no further reply has been received.