DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 509 



commercial non-intercourse by refusing to permit exportation of fish 

 in American bottoms. 



The report is attracting much attention, and I have telegraphed to 

 our Consular Agent at Digby for a statement of the facts. 



I should be glad to receive from you any information you may 

 have in relation to the collector's action. 

 Very truly, yours, 



(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD. 



To the Honorable SIR LIONEL S. S. WEST, 



&c., &c., &c. 



No. 190. 1886, May 4: Letter from the Earl of Rosebery (British 

 Foreign Secretary] to Sir L. S. S. West. 



(No. 20. Treaty.) FOREIGN OFFICE, 24th May, 1886. 



SIR, The American Minister called on me to-day, and said that 

 he had received a telegram from Mr. Bayard late on Saturday night 

 instructing him to ask me if the seizure of American fishing vessels 

 in Canadian waters could not be discontinued, and the vessels already 

 captured restored, of course, without prejudice, and on an under- 

 taking* to surrender them if required. 



Mr. Phelps went on to argue the construction of the Treaty of 

 1818, and said that though, at a first glance, its provisions might 

 seem to justify the Canadian authorities in the course which they had 

 taken, a general view of its whole scope contradicted that assump- 

 tion, which, in any case, was inconsistent with the cordial relations 

 existing between the two countries. In reply, I reminded Mr. Phelps 

 that that Treaty was concluded at a time when, after a war and a 

 period of great bitterness, the relations between Great Britain and 

 the United States were not so cordial as they are now. 



As regarded the construction of the Treaty, I could not presume 

 to argue with so eminent a lawyer as himself; I could not, however, 

 refrain from expressing the opinion that the plain English of the 

 clause seemed to me entirely to support the Canadian view. Nor 

 was it the fault of the Canadians that they had been compelled to 

 resort to the enforcement of the Treaty. I admitted, indeed, that the 

 responsibility did not lie on the American Government. But the 

 Senate had refused to sanction any negotiation on the matter, and 

 had therefore thrown back the Canadians on the provisions of the 

 Treaty of 1818. As regarded the seizure of the vessels which Mr. 

 Phelps had described as having transgressed unwittingly, I could 

 only say but little, as I had received no intelligence beyond what Avas 

 stated in the newspapers. If, however, they had erred unwittingly 

 it was not our fault, for \ve had issued a formal Avarning to American 

 fishermen that they would not be permitted, under the Treaty of 

 1818, to do certain things, and AVC had requested Mr. Bayard to issue 

 a similar notice. He, hoAvever, had declined to do so. I could 

 305 not, therefore, think that the American vessels had erred un- 

 wittingly, more especially, as, if I Avas rightly informed by 

 the neAvspapers, there were suspicious and furtive circumstances con- 

 nected with the case of the "David J. Adams," at any rate, which 



