DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 579 



346 And your Lordship remarks, in your note of August '24, 

 "It is clearly right, according to practice and precedent, that 

 such diplomatic action should be suspended pending the completion 

 of the judicial inquiry." 



This is a proposition to which the United States' Government is 

 unable to accede. 



The seizures complained of are not the acts of individuals claim- 

 ing private rights which can be dealt with only by judicial determi- 

 nation, or which depend upon facts that need to be ascertained by 

 judicial inquiry. They are the acts of the authorities of Canada, who 

 profess to be acting, and in legal effect are acting, under the author- 

 ity of Her Majesty's Government. In the Keport of the Canadian 

 Minister of Marine and Fisheries, which is annexed to and adopted 

 as a part of Lord Rosebery's note, it is said : 



The Colonial Statutes have received the sanction of the British Sovereign, 

 who, and not the nation, is actually the party with whom the United States 

 made the Convention. The officers who are engaged in enforcing the Acts of 

 Canada, or the laws of the Empire, are Her Majesty's officers, whether their 

 authority emanates directly from the Queen or from her Representative the 

 Governor-General. 



The ground upon which the seizures complained of are principally 

 justified is the allegation that the vessels in question were violating 

 the stipulations of the Treaty between the United States and Great 

 Britain. This is denied by the United States' Government. The 

 facts of the transaction are not seriously in dispute, and, if they were 

 could be easily ascertained by both Governments without the aid of 

 the judicial Tribunals of either. And the question to be determined 

 is the true interpretation of the Treaty as understood, and to be 

 administered between the High Contracting Parties. 



The proposition of Her Majesty's Government amounts to this, 

 that before the United States can obtain consideration of their com- 

 plaint that the Canadian authorities without justification have seized 

 and are proceeding to confiscate American vessels, the result of the 

 proceedings in the Canadian Courts, instituted by the captors as the 

 means of the seizures, must be awaited, and the decision of that Tri- 

 bunal on the international questions involved obtained. 



The interpretation of a Treaty when it becomes the subject of dis- 

 cussion between two Governments is not, I respectfully insist, to be 

 settled by the judicial Tribunals of either. That would be placing 

 its construction in the hands of one of the parties to it. It can only 

 be interpreted for such a purpose by the mutual consideration anii 

 agreement which were necessary to make it. Questions between indi- 

 viduals arising upon the terms of a Treaty may be for the Courts 

 to which they resort to adjust. Questions between nations as to na- 

 tional rights secured by Treaty are of a very different character 

 and must be solved in another way. 



The United States' Government is no party to the proceedings insti- 

 tuted by the British authorities in Canada, nor can it consent to 

 become a party. The proceedings themselves are what the United 

 States complain of as unauthorized, as well as unfriendly. It would 

 be inconsistent with the dignity of a Sovereign Power to become a 

 part}' to such proceedings, or to seek redress in any way in the Courts 

 of another country for what it claims to be the violation of Treaty 

 stipulations by the authorities of that country. 



