DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 529 



American fishermen of the new and stringent restrictions it was 

 intended to enforce. 



If it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recall the 

 instructions which I have shown had been previously and so ex- 

 plicitly given relative to interference with American vessels, surely 

 notice should have been given accordingly. 



The United States have just reason to complain, even if these re- 

 strictions could be justified by the Treaty, or by the Acts of Parlia- 

 ment passed to carry it into effect, that they should be enforced in 

 so harsh and unfriendly a manner, without notice to the Government 

 of the change of policy, or to the fishermen of the new danger to 

 which they were thus exposed. 



In any view, therefore, which it seems to me can be taken of this 

 question, I feel justified in pronouncing the action of the Canadian 

 authorities in seizing and still retaining the " David J. Adams " to 

 be not only unfriendly and discourteous, but altogether unwar- 

 rantable. 



The seizure was much aggravated by the manner in which it was 

 carried into effect. It appears that four several visitations and 

 searches of the vessel were made by boats from the Canadian steamer 

 " Lansdowne " in Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia. The "Adams " 

 was finally taken into custody, and carried out of the Province of 

 Nova Scotia across the Bay of Fundy and into the port of St. John, 

 New Brunswick; and, without explanation or warning, on the fol- 

 lowing Monday, the 10th May, taken back by an armed crew to 

 Digby, in Nova Scotia. That, in Digby, the paper alleged to be the 

 legal precept for the capture and detention of the vessel was nailed 

 to her mast in such manner as to prevent its contents being read, and 

 the request of the Captain of the " David J. Adams," and of the 

 United States' Consul General, to be allowed to detach the writ from 

 the mast, for the purpose of learning its contents, was positively re- 

 fused by the provincial official in charge. Nor was the United States' 

 Consul General able to learn from the Commander of the " Lans- 

 downe " the nature of the complaint against the vessel, and his re- 

 spectful application to that effect was fruitless. 



From all the circumstances attending this case, and other recent 

 cases like it, it seems to me very apparent that the seizure was not 

 made, for the purpose of enforcing any right or redressing any 

 wrong. As I have before remarked, it is not pretended that the ves- 

 sel had been engaged in fishing, or was intended to fish, in the prohib- 

 ited waters, or that it had done, or was intending to do, any other 

 injurious act. It was proceeding upon its regular and lawful busi- 

 ness of fishing in the deep sea. It had received no request, and, of 

 course, could have disregarded no request, to depart, and was in fact 

 departing when seized; nor had its master refused to answer any 

 questions put by the authorities. 



It had violated no existing law, and had incurred no penalty that 

 any known statute imposed. 



It seems to me impossible to escape the conclusion that this and 

 other similar seizures were made by the Canadian authorities for the 

 deliberate purpose of harassing and embarrassing the American fish- 

 ing vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment, and the injury 

 which would have been a serious one if committed under a mistake, 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61^3, vol 4 44 



