578 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



tioned were Americans there for the purpose of getting herring. I immediately 

 directed the Chief Officer to return and order the American boats to at once 

 report themselves to the collector of the port and get permits to load fish or 

 leave without further delay. One of the boatmen complied with the request 

 and obtained a permit to load fish for Eastport ; the others were very much 

 disturbed on receiving the above instructions and sailed away towards the 

 American side of the river and commenced blowing their fog horns, showing 

 their contempt. Other boats at a greater distance seeing our boat approaching 

 did not wait her arrival but up sail and left for the American shore. 



The above extract from the report of the Chief Officer of the 

 " General Middleton " goes to show that it was not his object to pre- 

 vent American boats from trading in sardines, but rather to prevent 

 them from so trading without having first conformed to the Customs 

 Law of Canada. 



The whole respectfully submitted. 



(Sd.) GEORGE E. FOSTER, 



Minister of Marine and Fisheries. 



No. 213. 1886, September llth: Letter from Mr. Phelps to the Earl 

 of Iddesleigh (British Foreign Secretary}. 



LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 



London, September 11, 1886. 



MY LORD: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your 

 note of September 1, on the subject of the Canadian fisheries. 



I received also on the 16th of August, last, from Lord Rosebery, 

 then Foreign Secretary, a copy of a note on the same subject, dated 

 July 23, 1886, addressed by his Lordship, through the British Min- 

 ister at Washington, to Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of State of the 

 United States, in reply to a note from Mr. Bayard to the British 

 Minister of May 10, and also to mine addressed to Lord Rosebery 

 under date of June 2. The retirement of Lord Rosebery from office 

 immediately after I received his note, prevented a continuance of 

 the discussion with him. And in resuming the subject with your 

 Lordship, it may be proper to refer both to Lord Rosebery's note 

 and to your own. In doing so I repeat in substance considerations 

 expressed to you orally in recent interviews. 



My note to Lord Rosebe/y was confined to the discussion of the 

 case of the David J. Adams, the only seizure in reference to which 

 the details had then been fully made known to me. The points pre- 

 sented in my note, and the arguments in support of them need not 

 be repeated. 



No answer is attempted in Lord Rosebery's reply. He declines to 

 discuss the questions involved on the ground that they are " now 

 occupying the attention of the Courts of Law in the Dominion, and 

 may possibly form the subject of an appeal to the Judicial Committee 

 of Her Majesty's Privy Council in England." 



He adds : 



It is believed that the Courts in Canada will deliver judgment in the above 

 cases very shortly, and until the legal proceedings now pending have been 

 brought to a conclusion, Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in ex- 

 pressing an opinion upon them, either as to facts or the legality of the action 

 taken by the Colonial authorities. 



