John Welsh to William M. Evarts, November 9, 1878

No. 198. Mr. Welsh to Mr. Evarts.

Sir: I received from Lord Salisbury, late in the evening of the 7th instant, his reply to your dispatch, No. 150, of the 28th of September last, in relation to the disturbance of American fishermen by certain inhabitants of Newfoundland. I sent you by cable yesterday, in cipher, such a summary of this reply as our limited time enabled us to prepare, and I now inclose two copies of the letter in print, with which we have been furnished through the courtesy of the foreign office.

I have, &c.,

Report on differences that arose between British and United States fishermen in January, 1878, by Captain 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 eatching herring on the 6th January, 1878, in direct violation of title XXVII, chap. 102, sec. 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 any time 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 sec. 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, or set or put out any such net, seine, bunt, or 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, sec. 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 the 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 XVIII 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 them by government being situated thereon (see Mark Bolt’s evidence).
• 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 that 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 who 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 commuicated with them, and by the evidence of others to the effect that they remained for about a fortnight or more, “until the herrings slacked,” and with respect to their loss of the 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-convicting 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, sec. 12, of the consolidated statutes.