510 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



tended to prove that the captain was aware that he was acting 

 illegally. 



As to the substantial proposition of Mr. Bayard, I begged Mr. 

 Phelps to return the following answer: No one, as he was aware, 

 could be more anxious than I was to maintain the most cordial rela- 

 tions between the two countries. He well knew that I would go 

 more than half way to meet Mr. Bayard in this matter, but it would 

 be difficult to ask the Canadians to suspend their legal action if we 

 had nothing to offer them in the way of a quid pro quo. What I 

 would suggest would be this, that he should telegraph at once to 

 Washington to tell Mr. Bayard that I would do my best to induce the 

 Colonial authorities to suspend their action if some assurance could 

 be given me of an immediate readiness to negotiate on the question. 

 Mr. Phelps promised to do this. 



I am, &c., (Signed) EOSEBERY. 



No. 191. 1886 ', May: Report of the Canadian Minister of Justice. 



The undersigned having had under consideration the communica- 

 tion from Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, dated at Washington the 

 10th May instant, and addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at- Wash 

 ington, in reference to the seizure of the fishing vessel " David J. 

 Adams " submits the following observations in relation thereto. 



Mr. Bayard suggests that " the Treaty of 1818 was between two 

 nations, the United States of America and Great Britain, who, as 

 the contracting parties, can alone apply authoritative interpretation 

 thereto and enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation." 



As it may be inferred from this statement that the right of the 

 Parliament of Canada to make enactments for the protection of the 

 fisheries of the Dominion, and the power of the Canadian officers to 

 protect those fisheries are questioned, it may be well to state, at the 

 outset, the grounds upon which it is conceived by the undersigned 

 that the jurisdiction in question is clear beyond a doubt. 



(1.) In the first place the undersigned would ask it to be remem- 

 bered that the extent of t\m jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada 

 is not limited (nor was that of the provinces before the union) by 

 the sea-coast, but extends to three marine miles from the shore, as 

 to all matters over which any legislative authority can in any coun- 

 try be exercised within that space. The legislation which has been 

 adopted on this subject by the Parliament of Canada (and previously 

 to confederation by the provinces) does not extend beyond that limit. 

 It may be assumed that in the absence of any Treaty stipulation to 

 the contrary this right is so well recognised and established by both 

 British and American law, that the grounds on which it is supported 

 need not be stated here at large. The undersigned will merely add. 

 therefore, to this statement of the position, that so far from the right 

 being limited by the Convention of 1818 that Convention expressly 

 recognises the right. 



After renouncing the liberty " to take, cure, or dry fish on or within 

 three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, &c., there is a stipula- 

 tion that while American fishing vessels shall be admitted to enter 

 such bays, &c., for the purposes of shelter, and of repairing damages 



