DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE., ETC. 507 



cials, he reports that the " David J. Adams " was seized^ and is now 

 held: 



1st. For alleged violation of the Treaty of 1818 ; 

 2nd. For alleged violation of the Act 59 George III ; 

 3rd. For alleged violation of the Colonial Act of Nova Scotia 

 of 1818; and 



4th. For alleged violation of the Act of 1870, and also of 1883 

 both Canadian statutes. 



Of these allegations there is but one which at present I press upon 

 your consideration, and that is the alleged infraction of the Treaty 

 of 1818. 



I beg to recall to your attention the correspondence and action of 

 those respectively charged with the administration and government 

 of Great Britain and the United States in the year 1870, when the 

 same international questions were under consideration, and the status 

 of law was not essentially different from what it is at present. 



This correspondence discloses the intention of the Canadian au- 

 thorities of that day to prevent encroachment upon their inshore 

 fishing grounds, and their preparations, in the way of a marine police 

 force, very much as we now witness. 



The statutes of Great Britain and of her Canadian provinces, 

 which are now supposed to be invoked as authority for the action 

 against the schooner " David J. Adams," were then reported as the 

 basis of their proceedings. 



In his note of 26th May 1870 Mr. (afterwards Sir Edward) Thorn- 

 ton, the British Minister at this capital, conveyed to Mr. Fish, then 

 Secretary of State, copies of the Orders of the Royal Admiralty to 

 the Admiral Wellesley, in command of the naval forces " employed 

 in maintaining order at the fisheries in the neighbourhood of the 

 coasts of Canada." 



All of these orders directed the protection of Canadian fishermen, 

 and cordial co-operation and concert with the United States force 

 sent on the same service, with respect to American fishermen in those 

 waters. Great caution in the arrest of American vessels charged with 

 violation of the Canadian fishing laws was scrupulously enjoined 

 upon the British authorities, and the extreme importance of the 

 commanding officers of ships selected to protect the fisheries exercis- 

 ing the utmost discretion in paying especial attention to Lord Gran- 

 ville's observation, that no vessel should be seized unless it were 

 evident and could be clearly proved that the offence of fishing had 

 been committed and the vessel captured within three miles of land. 



This caution was still more explicitly announced when Mr. Thorn- 

 ton, on the llth of June, 1870, wrote to Mr. Fish : 



You are, however, quite right in not doubting that Admiral Wellesley, on the 

 receipt of the latter instructions addressed to him on the 5th ultimo, will have 

 modified the directions to the officers under his command, so that they may be 

 in conformity with the views of the Admiralty. 



In confirmation of this, I have since received a letter from Vice-Admiral 

 Wellesley, dated the 30th ultimo, informing me that he had received instruc- 

 tions to the effect that officers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the protec- 

 tion of the fisheries should not seize any vessel, unless it were evident and 

 could be clearly proved that the offence of fishing had been committed, and the 

 vessel itself captured within three miles of land. 



This understanding between the two Governments wisely and effi- 

 ciently guarded against the manifest danger of entrusting the execu- 



