« AnteriorContinuar »
from the Dominion Government upon the subject of the discrimination complained of between the United States and British vessels in the matter of pilotage dues at Halifax, to which reference is made in your note of the 18th ultimo, when I shall have the honor of addressing a further communication to you. I have, etc., (For the Marquis of Salisbury.)
T. V. LISTER.
(Inclosure 2 in No. 101.)
Report of a committee of the Canadian privy council.
The committee of the privy council have had under consideration a dispatch, dated 8th May, 1809, from the right honorable the secretary of state for the colonies, forwarding an extract from a letter from the foreign office, inclosing a note from the American chargé d'affaires in London, complaining of the action of Canadian shipping masters in relation to the shipment of crews by United States vessels in Canadian ports, and claiming reciprocal treatment in Canada to that extended to British vessels in the United States ports in this matter.
The minister of marine and fisheries, to whom the said dispatch and inclosures have been referred, submits that it appears from Mr. Bayard's dispatch to the American chargé d'affaires that exception is taken to the action of the shipping master at the port of St. John, N. B., in requiring masters of American vessels to ship their seamen before him instead of the United States consul; and it is claimed that, as the laws of the United States provide that all seamen shipped on board of American vessels in foreign ports shall sign articles before the United States consular officers, the rigbt of a vessel to be governed by the laws and regulations of ber own country should not be interfered with. It is also claimed that, while under the laws of the United States shipment of seamen on foreign vessels in United States ports might be required to be made before the United States shipping commissioners, the law has never been 80 applied, seamen having been allowed to be shipped before foreign consnlar officers, on the ground that such action was demanded by international comity. It is further stated that the United States Government expected and required reciprocal treatment for its vessels in the ports of other couutrios.
The minister reports that in December last tho shipping master for the port of St. Jobn informed the minister of marine that the United States consul, acting under instructions from his Govern:vent, bad claimed the right to engage seamen for American vessels, and disputed his right to interfere in any way in the engagement of seamen for United States vessels, and that he had found on his appointment to office as the shipping master that the engagement of seamon for all foreign vessels bad been effected at the shipping office, and he had continued shipping them, and he asked for instructions as to the course to be pursned.
That the shipping master was duly advised that his action was legal and that by section -126 of Chapter 74, Revised Statutes, the provisions of the act relating to shipping of seamen extended and applied to ships in the merchant service of every foreign conutry aid to all persons in relation to such ships, in the same manner as the provisions extended and applied to ships in the British merchant service, and it would be necessary, therefore, that seamen belonging to United States ships, should be shipped at his office, but at the same time there was no objection whatever, to the United States consul shipping men at bis office also, if he wished to do so.
The minister represents that a certificate of the shipping master is necessary under the thirty-second section of the soamen's act to be produced to the collector of customs, to the effect that all the requirements of the act bave been complied with.
That the opinion of the minister of justice was obtained stating that the provisions of this section applied to the foreign vessels inentioned in section 126 of the act, including of course American vessels.
Instructions were accordingly given to the collector of customs and shipping mast ter at the port of St. John, N. B.
The minister observes there can be no doubt as to the right of the Governinent of Çanada to enforce the different provisions of the act in question.
That the aim of the Governinent of Canada in effecting the legislation now objected to, was to restrain the evils attendant upon the crimping of seamen and to prevent desertion. Seamen being required to appear before the shipping master of the port before engagement a much stricter watchi can be kept over voserters, and the practice of crimping restrained the more easily.
F R 892-30
The minister represents that it appears from Mr. Bayard's dispatch and from reports made to the minister of marine by Her Majesty's consuls at the ports of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, that while, under the existing laws of the United States, shipment of seamen on foreign vessels in the ports of the United States wight be required to be made before United States shipping commissioners, the law has not been so applied, and the shipment of seamen has been and is still permitted to be made before the foreign consular officer, in accordance with foreigu regulations.
The minister under the foregoing circumstances, considering the desire of the United States authorities that the ships of that country should not enjoy the benefit this legislation was designed to afford, and observing the practice now prevailing in the United States ports regarding British ships in this respect, recommends that while the operation of the different clauses of the shipping act so far as the rights of private persons may be concerned, can not be interfered with by your excellency without the authority of an act of Parliament, that Her Majesty's Government be informed that instructions will be issued to the collectors of customs and the different shipping officers not to insist upon a compliance with the provisions of the act requiring the shipment of foreign seamen before the shipping master, so far as American vessels are concerned, until further notice.
OTTAWA, September 20, 1889.
Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lincoln.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 22, 1889. SIR: Referring to your dispatch, No. 98, of the 9th instant, I inclose for your information copies of the Department circular to the governors of the States and Territories on the subject of provisional arrest in Great Britain. I am, etc.,
JAMES G. BLAINE.
(Inclosure in No. 103.)
Circular to governors of States and Territories.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 9, 1829. To his excellency,
The Governor of Sir: Applications both by telegraph and by letter are frequently made to this Department for its intervention to obtain the arrest and provisional detention of fugitives from justice in England, in advance of the presentation of the formal proofs upon which a demand for their extradition may be based. In such cases the only manner in which the Department can intervene is by informing the minister of the United States in London of the facts and instructing him to take the necessary measures. This the minister does by authorizing some one connected with the legation to make complaint on oath before a magistrate, in accordance with the requirements of the British extradition act of 1870. The form of this complaint is hereto annesel.
Attention is invited to its provisions and especially to the statement deponent is required to make that he is informed and believes that a warrant has been issued in the foreign country for the arrest of the accused. This Department, when requested to intervene in such a case, should always be enabled to inform the minister that such a warrant has been issued in order that the complaint before the British magistrate may be made in due form and without delay. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
JAMES G. BLAINE, (Inclosure: Form of complaint.)*
*Printed supra, p. 463.
Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lincoln.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 29, 1889. SIR: The Department is gratified to learn by your No. 101 of the 16th instant that the Canadian Government has directed the nonenforcement, for an indefinite period, of the act of 1856 as to shipping seamen before “ shipping masters," so far as American vessels are concerned; and you will take occasion so to inforın Her Majesty's Government.
As regards the discrimination against American vessels at Halifax in the matter of pilotage dues, the Department can not doubt that the expected decision of the authorities will be favorable. I am, etc.,
JAMES G, BLAINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE LEGATION OF GREAT
BRITAIN AT WASHINGTON.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Herbert.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, November 23, 1888. SIR: On the 22d of June last, I had the honor to address a note to Mr. Edwardes, chargé d'affaires ad interim of the British legation, touching the case of the American ship Bridgewater, the circumstances of which were fully detailed in that communication. On the 25th of the same month a note was received from Mr. Edwardes, in which he informed me that he had transmitted my note to his Government. Since that time no further communication in regard to the case has been received.
The telegrams of the Canadian officials referred to in my note seemed so clearly to admit the irregularity of the proceedings against the Bridgewater, and the principles of protection to disabled merchantmen which were involved were so important that it was hoped the Government of Her Majesty would concur with that of the United States in the opinion that a satisfactory adjustinent of the claim between the two Governments should speedily be reached. But as this Department has failed as yet to receive any reply to its representations, I would be obliged to you if you would bring the matter again to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and in so doing communicate an expression of the hope of this Government that a favorable answer may soon be returned. I have, etc.,
T. F. BAYARD.
Mr. Herbert to Mr. Bayard.
WASHINGTON, November 24, 1888. (Received November 26.) SIR: With reference to your note of yesterday's date, asking for an early settlement of the Bridgewater case, I have the honor to inform you that I telegraphed to Her Majesty's principal secretary of state
for foreign affairs, in the sense of your above-mentioned note, and have received a reply stating that the owner of the Bridgewater, before presenting the claim, commenced an action at law which is still pending, and that the Canadian Government is unable to express an opinion on the claim until the settlement of the case in the law courts. I have, etc.,
Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.
March 7, 1889. SIR: On the 4th December last the United States minister at this court transmitted to me a copy of a dispatch which he had received from the Secretary of State respecting the Mosquito reservation.
In that dispatch, of which a copy is inclosed herein, Mr. Bayard draws attention to a note addressed by my directions to the Nicaraguan minister for foreign affairs on the 10th September last, by Mr. Gastrell, Her Majesty's minister accredited to the Republics of Central America.
Owing to a complaint made to Her Majesty's Government by the chief of the Mosquito reserve in regard to certain proceedings on the part of Nicaraguan authorities which he deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Managua of 1860, I had instructed Mr. Gastrell to make a friendly remonstrance to the Government of Nicaragua and to draw their attention to the wording of the treaty, and to the interpretation given to it by the award of the Emperor of Austria.
For your information, I inclose a copy of my instructions to Mr. Gastrellit
Mr. Bayard prefaces his remarks on the matter to which he particularly desires to call attention by a brief historical review of the circumstances which led to the conclusion of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and of the convention between Great Britain and Nicaragua of 1860; but he observes that the latter was officially communicated to the Government of the United States, which, regarding it as a final withdrawal of British influence from the Mosquito country, expressed its satisfaction at a settlement that appeared to put an end to the disputes to which the Clayton-Bulwer treaty bad given rise.
I am therefore not called upon here to discuss any question other than the respective rights and duties of Great Britain and Nicaragua under the convention referred to.
As Mr. Bayard observes, differences arose between the Governments of Great Britain and Nicaragua in relation to the free port of Greytown, the payment of the annuity to the Mosquito Indians, and the precise extent of the rights of Nicaragua within the Indian reservation. By an exchange of diplomatic notes between the representatives of Great Britain and Nicaragua it was agreed that all of these questions should be submitted to the arbitration of the Emperor of Austria," whose decision was announced in July, 1881.
Mr. Bayard, however, states that the United States Government, not being a party to this agreement of arbitration, “is not bound by the awarı or the arbitrator, nor committed in any way to an admission of
* Landed to Mr. Blaine by Mr. Edwardes, March 28, 1889.
the right of Great Britain to interfere in disputes between the Republic of Nicaragua and the Indians living within her borders." And he entirely dissents from the view as to Great Britain's rights of, interren. tion expressed in the opinion or report on which the award is based.
Mr. Bayard contends that “the stipulations of the treaty of Managua relative to the privileges to be accorded to the Mosquito Indians were not for the benefit of Great Britain, and are not enforceable by her,” and he states that “the President can not but regard the continued exercise of the claim on the part of Great Britain to interfere on behalf of these Indians as the assertion of a British protectorate in another form.”
I may remark that the award of the Emperor was given more than seven years ago, and no objection has, till now, been made to it by the United States Government.
If the object contemplated by Her Majesty's Government had been an unconditional withdrawal of the protectorate of Great Britain, no convention would have been required or made; but Nicaragua entered into a distinct treaty arrangement with this country to secure certain rights and privileges to the Mosquito Indians as soon as the British protectorate should be withdrawn; and in the event, which has arisen, of the Mosquito Indians complaining that their rights are infringed by Nicaragua, by whom is remonstrance to be made to Nicaragua unless by Great Britain, with whom she bas concluded the convention in question ?
Mr. Bayard quotes as analogous to the present issue the treaty between the United States and France, Spain, and Russia for the cession, respectively to the United States of Louisiana, Florida, and Alaska, and he states that although difficulties have at times arisen between the Federal Government and the inhabitants of Louisiana and Florida, neither France nor Spain ever pretended that the treaty stipulations gave them a right to take part in the settlement of such disputes, and that were the Indians of Alaska to protest against alleged discriminations between the laws governing that Territory and the other Territories of the United States, the Emperor of Russia would not be authorized by the treaty of 1867 to demand a different treatment of those Indians. Mr. Bayard does not, however, say whether such intervention was, as in the present case, invoked by the inhabitants concerned, or whether the differences to which he refers were of a kind provided for in the treaties which he mentions.
Certain advantages were by the convention of 1860 secured to the Indians of the Mosquito Reserve, and Her Majesty's Government felt themselves in duty bound to bring to the notice of the Nicaraguan Gov. erument the cases specified in Mr. Gastrell's pote. Mr. Bayard is, however, under a misapprehension as to the extent of the intervention exercised by Her Majesty's Government. They do not claim “ to intervene in every dispute between the Mosquito Indians and their sovereign," but only within the limits of the report annexed to the Emperor of Austria's award quoted by Mr. Bayard.
They have no desire to assert a protectorate” in substance or in form, or anything in the nature of a protectorate, and it would give them the greatest possible satisfaction if the Nicaraguan Government and the Iodians would come to an amicable arrangement, under Article IV of the convention, and thus relieve this country from any further responsibility in regard to their affairs.
I have to request that you will read this dispatch to the Secretary of State, and leave a copy of it with bim, and you may inform him that