Sulivan to Rear-Admiral Sir E. Inglefield, June 21, 1878

Captain Sulivan to Rear-Admiral Sir E. Inglefield.

Sir: In obedience to your orders dated the 8th instant, in which I am directed to inquire into the differences which arose between British and United States fishermen in Fortune Bay in January last, I have the honor herewith to inclose the evidence obtained from several witnesses, together with my report on the subject; and, in further remarking thereon, desire to call your attention to those points in the evidence which have led me to the conclusions contained in that report.

It will be seen therein that there are four statutes which bear on the subject, and which have been infringed by the American fishermen, viz: Act. cap. 6, 1876, in amendment of consolidated statutes (1872); cap. 102, the proviso of the same as regards barring.

By the same act, 1876, sec. 4, and art. 18 of the treaty of Washington—

1. With respect to the first of these, the witness Silas Fudge says: “I witnessed the disturbance at Long Harbor on Sunday, the 6th January last; lam certain it was the 6th; I saw the seines in the water, two of them Americans, again. He (i. e., Jacobs, an American) had his in the boat; he had shot once and discharged his seine into Farrel’s, who was working for him.”

John Cluett stated that he was in Long Harbor on Sunday in January last. “They (the Americans) commenced hauling herring on Sunday about midday; the first American seine shot was that of Jacobs; there were two more American seines shot. He (Jacobs) had just hauled herring and shot them into Farrel’s seine, who was working for him; we remonstrated about breaking the law and fishing Sundays.”

All the evidence of the other witnesses is corroborative of the above; and the fact is even acknowledged by the Americans in their own evidence, as appears by the statements inclosed in the correspondence on this subject. It is therefore evident that they were illegally fishing, using seines, and hauling herring in January last contrary to the above-quoted statute, which prohibits the same between the 20th October and 25th April in any year.

2. 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, cap. 6. This is proved by the evidence of all the witnesses.

John Saunders says: “In January last—one Sunday, I don’t know the date—the Americans laid out their seines, assisted by the English employed by them; the Newfoundlanders told them to take them up, as it was not legal their fishing on Sundays; there was no other reason for destroying nets but for fishing on Sundays. They went to McCauley, who had laid his seine out for barring herring; the Newfoundlanders said it should not be done on a Sabbath day.”

3. That the Americans were barring herring, that is, confining them in the seines for a considerable time, instead of forthwith, hauling them. By the evidence of Silas Fudge “He (Captain Jacobs) had shot once and discharged his seine into Tom Farrel’s, who was working for him.”

John Saunders says: “Jacobs upset his seine into Farrel’s seine, who was employed by him. Farrel was barring for the Americans, and was not allowed by Jacobs to haul his seine.”

Mark Bolt says: “The Americans do not bar fish; this was the first time I ever knew them to do so.”

Richard Hendriken says: “Samuel Jacobs would persist in hauling, and hauled once and barred them in Farrel’s net. Farrel was working for them, and had been barring herring for several days, perhaps about a fortnight, by the Americans’ orders. I believe it is illegal barring herring, but we have no power to stop it; it is no good telling a magistrate; they take no notice of him.”

4. That they were interfering with the rights of British fishermen in their peacable use of that part of the coast occupied by them, &c. By all the evidence given, it occurred on Tickle Beach, Long Harbor, on which, as was seen by us, was a Newfoundland fishing settlement, the land being granted by government, as stated by Mark Bolt, who says: “I have been in the neighborhood fourteen or fifteen years. The ground I occupy, 150 feet, was granted me for life by government, and for which I now pay a fee; there are two families on the beach; there were three in the winter; our living is dependent on our fishing off this settlement.”

The above are the main points in the evidence on which my report is founded.

In conclusion, I beg to inform you that I have forwarded a copy of the report to his excellency the governor of Newfoundland and the duplicate direct to their lordships, in order to insure their receiving it at the same time as the colonial office will.

I have, &c.,