John Welsh to William M. Evarts, August 24, 1878

No. 186. Mr. Welsh to Mr. Evarts.

Sir: Referring to your Nos. 33, 55, and 67, and to Mr. Hoppin’s No. 5, relating to certain alleged outrages upon American fishermen committed on the coast of Newfoundland, I have the honor to inform you that I have received a note from Lord Salisbury, inclosing the report of Captain Sulivan, of Her Majesty’s ship Sirius, upon these occurrences. I transmit herewith copies both of Lord Salisbury’s note and of its inclosure.

I have, &c.,

Report on the differences that arose between British and United States fishermen in January 1878, by Capt. George Lydian Sulivan, of Her Majesty’s ship Sirius.

Having carefully weighed the evidence given on oath before me by Newfoundland fishermen present at the time, together with that inclosed in the correspondence forwarded for my perusal, I am of opinion—

• That the Americans were using seines for catching herring on the 6th of January, 1878, in direct violation of Title XXVII, chapter 102, section 1, of the consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, viz: “No person shall haul or take herring by or in a seine or other such contrivance on or near any part of the coast of this colony or of its dependencies, or in any of the bays, harbors, or other places therein, at anytime between the 20th day of October and the 25th day of April.”
• That the American captains were setting and putting out seines and hauling and taking herring on Sunday, the 6th January, in direct violation of section 4, chap. 7, of the act passed 26th April, 1876, entitled “An act to amend the law relating to the coast fisheries,” viz, “No person shall between the hours of twelve o’clock on Saturday night and twelve o’clock on Sunday night haul or take any herring, caplin, or squid with net, seines, bunts, or any such contrivance for the purpose of such hauling or taking.”
• That they were barring fish in direct violation of the continuance of the same act, Title XXVII, chap. 102, section 1, of the consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, “or at any time use a seine or other contrivance for the catching or taking of herrings, except by way of shooting and forthwith hauling the same.”
• That, contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Washington, in which it is expressly provided that they do not interfere with the rights of private property or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose (see article 18 of the above-named treaty), they were fishing illegally, interfering with the rights of British fishermen and their peaceable use of that part of the coast, then occupied by them, and of which they were actually in possession—their seines and boats, their huts, gardens, and land granted by government being situated thereon.
• It is distinctly shown in the evidence that the cause of the difference commenced with the Americans by their persisting in shooting their seines on the Sunday, as the Englishmen who worked for them would not do it on that day, not only on account of its being illegal, but of their religious regard for the Sabbath, which is always strictly kept by them, and, although it must be observed that the result of this illegal fishing would have been that the Americans would have secured the whole of the herring in the bay on that day, to the exclusion of the rights and fair chances of all the others during the week, yet there is no evidence to prove that this or anything else but the fact of its being Sunday and the law and custom among themselves regarding it prompted them to demand that the seines should be withdrawn.
• It is shown by the evidence of all those witnesses present at the time when the Americans were remonstrated with, and told to take their seines up prior to any serious steps being taken, and it is also distinctly proved that no violence was resorted to until after the exasperating conduct of Captain Jacobs, the American master of a schooner concerned in this illegal fishing, who threatened them with a revolver if they prevented him or interfered with his seine.
• It does not appear that the native fishermen were aware of the illegality of hauling a seine in the month of January. It is, therefore, to be presumed that the Americans were also ignorant of that law, although their ignorance cannot exonerate them from the breach, nor does it exonerate John Hickey, an Englishman, who is charged with the same offense, and whom it is my intention to summon before me to answer to that charge.
• The statement of the Americans that they were compelled to leave the harbor and leave off fishing is entirely without foundation, which is proved by the evidence of those examined before me, among whom was Mr. Snellgrove, collector of customs, who was there a week after the occurrence, and communicated with them, and by the evidence of others to the effect that they remained for about a fortnight or more “untii the herring slacked,” and, with respect to their loss of their haul of herring by the seine being emptied, the fish were not their lawful property, having been illegally caught.

In support of this view of the conduct of the Americans, I am not only borne out by the evidence of the Fortune Bay fishermen, who made their statements in a remarkably frank and straightforward manner, but by the self-conflicting evidence of those very Americans themselves, whose depositions given on oath show them to have been illegally fishing, and who were liable thereby to the forfeiture of their seines, nets, &c., by chap. 102, section 12, of the consolidated statutes.