It will be observed that an answer to the complaint in respect to pilotage
dues at Halifax may not be expected for a short time.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 101.]
Report of a committee of the Canadian privy
council.
[Extract.]
The committee of the privy council have had under consideration a
dispatch, dated 8th May, 1889, 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 right of a vessel to be governed by the
laws and regulations of her 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 so applied, seamen having been allowed to be shipped
before foreign consular 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 countries.
The minister reports that in December last the shipping master for the
port of St. John informed the minister of marine that the United States
consul, acting under instructions from his Government, had 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 seamen for all foreign vessels
had been effected at the shipping office, and he had continued shipping
them, and he asked for instructions as to the course to be pursued.
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 country and 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 snipping men at his
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 seamen’s act to be
produced to the collector of customs, to the effect that all the
requirements of the act have 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 mentioned in
section 126 of the act, including of course American vessels.
Instructions were accordingly given to the collector of customs and
shipping master at the port of St. John, N. B.
The minister observes there can be no doubt as to the right of the
Government of Canada to enforce the different provisions of the act in
question.
That the aim of the Government 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 watch
can be kept over deserters, and the practice of crimping restrained the
more easily.
[Page 466]
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 might 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 foreign
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.
