522 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



I have telegraphed Mr. Phelps, our Minister at London, to make 

 earnest protest to Her Majesty's Government against such arbitrary, 

 unlawful, unwarranted and unfriendly action on the part of the 

 Canadian Government and its officials; and have instructed Mr. 

 Phelps to give notice that the Government of Great Britain will be 

 held liable for all losses and injuries to citizens of the United States 

 and their property caused by the unauthorized and unfriendly action 

 of the Canadian Government to which I have referred. 

 I have, &c., 



(Sd.) T. F. BAYARD. 



312 No. 194. 1886, May 30: Translated cipher telegram from the 

 Secretary of State of the United States to the United States 

 Minister at London. 



Call attention of Lord Rosebery immediately to Bill number 136, 

 now pending in the Parliament of Canada assuming to execute treaty 

 of 1818, also circular 371, by Johnson. Commissioner of Customs 

 ordering seizure of vessels for violation of treaty. Both are arbi- 

 trary and unwarranted assumptions of power, against which you are 

 instructed earnestly to protest, and state that the United States will 

 hold Government of Gt. Britain responsible for all losses which may 

 be sustained by American citizens in the dispossession of their prop- 

 erty growing out of the search, seizure, detention or sale of their 

 vessels lawfully within territorial waters of British Nth. America. 



BAYARD. 



No. 195. 1886, June 0; Letter from Mr. Phelps to the Earl of Rose- 

 bery (British Foreign Secretary}. 



LEGATION or THE UNITED STATES, 



London, 2nd June, 1886. 



MY LORD, Since the conversation I had the honour to hold with 

 your Lordship on the morning of the 29th ultimo, I have received 

 from my Government a copy of the Report of the Consul General of 

 the United States at Halifax, giving full details and depositions rela- 

 tive to the seizure of the " David J. Adams," and the correspondence 

 betw y een the Consul General and the Colonial authorities in reference 

 thereto. 



The Report of the Consul General, and the evidence annexed to it, 

 appear fully to sustain the points I submitted to your Lordship in the 

 interview above referred to, touching the seizure of this vessel by the 

 Canadian officials. 



I do not understand it to be claimed by the Canadian authorities 

 that the vessel seized had been engaged, or was intending to engage, 

 in fishing within any limit prohibited by the Treaty of 1818. The 

 occupation of the vessel was exclusively deep sea fishing, a business 

 in which it had a perfect right to be employed. The ground upon 

 which the capture was made was that the master of the vessel had 

 purchased of an inhabitant of Nova Scotia, near the port of Digby 



