DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 519 



other officers of the Marine Police, that in the event of any further 

 seizures, a statement in writing shall be given to the master of the 

 seized vessel of the offences charged, and that a copy thereof shall 

 be sent to the United States Consul-General at Halifax, and to the 

 nearest United States Consular Agent. There can be no objection to 

 the Solicitor for the Crown being instructed likewise to furnish 

 the Consul-General with a copy of the legal process in each case, if 

 it can be supposed that any fuller information will thereby be given. 



Mr. Bayard is correct in his statement of the reasons for which the 

 " David J. Adams " was seized and is now held. It is claimed that 

 the vessel violated the Treaty of 1818, and consequently the statutes 

 which exist for the enforcement of that Treaty, and it is also claimed 

 that she violated the Customs Laws of Canada of 1883. The un- 

 dersigned recommends that copies of these statutes be furnished 

 for the information of Mr. Bayard. 



Mr. Bayard has in the same despatch recalled the attention of Her 

 Majesty's Minister to the correspondence and action which took 

 place in the year 1870, when the Fishery question was under con- 

 sideration, and especially to the instructions of the Royal Admiralty 

 to Vice-Admiral Wellesley, in which that officer was directed to ob- 

 serve great caution in the arrest of American fishermen, and to con- 

 fine his action to one class of offences against the Treaty. Mr. 

 Bayard, however, appears to have attached unwarranted importance 

 to the correspondence and instructions of 1870, when he refers to 

 them as implying an " understanding between the two Governments." 

 An understanding which should, in his opinion, at other times, and 

 under other circumstances, govern the conduct of the authorities, 

 whether Imperial or Colonial, to whom, under the laws of the Em- 

 pire, is committed the duty of enforcing the Treaty in question. 

 When, therefore, Mr. Bayard points out the " absolute and instant 

 necessity that now exists for a restriction of the seizure of American 

 vessels charged with violations of the Treaty of 1818," to " the condi- 

 tions specified under those instructions," it is necessary to recall the 

 fact that in the year 1870 the action of the Imperial Government 

 was probably influenced very largely by the prospect which then 

 existed of an arrangement such as was accomplished in the following 

 year by the Treaty of Washington, and that it may be inferred, in 

 view of the disposition made apparent on both sides to arrive at such 

 an understanding, that the Imperial Authorities, without any sur- 

 render of Imperial or Colonial rights, and without acquiescing in any 

 limited construction of the Treaty, instructed their Vice-Admiral in 

 British North America to confine his seizures to the more open and 

 injurious class of offences, which were especially likely to be brought 

 within the cognizance of the Naval Officers of the Imperial service. 



The condition of affairs at the present time is entirely different. 

 No circumstances exist which would seem to call for any such restric- 

 tive instructions. The Canadian Government, as has been already 

 stated, for six months left its fishing grounds open to American fisher- 

 men without any corresponding advantage in return, in order to 

 afford time for the action of Congress in regard to the President's 

 suggestion that a commission should be appointed to consider the 

 subjects involved in the Fishery clauses of the Treat} 7 of Washington. 

 Congress has evinced no desire to carry out that recommendation, 



