580 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



Still less could it consent to be made indirectly a party to the suits 

 by being required to await the result of such defence as the individ- 

 uals whose property is implicated may be able and may think proper 

 to set up. Litigation of that sort may be indefinitely prolonged. 

 Meanwhile fresh seizures of American vessels upon similar grounds 

 are to be expected, for which redress would in like manner await the 

 decisions of the local Tribunals, whose jurisdiction the captors invoke 

 and the United States' Government denies. 



Nor need it be again pointed out how different may be the ques- 

 tion involved between the Governments from that which the proceed- 

 ings raise in the Canadian Courts. Courts in such cases do not ad- 

 minister Treaties. They administer only the Statutes that are passed 

 in pursuance of treaties. If a Statute contravenes the provisions' of 

 a Treaty, British Courts are nevertheless bound by the Statute. And 

 if, on the other hand, there is a Treaty stipulation which no Statute 

 gives the means of enforcing, the Court cannot enforce it. 



Although the United States' Government insists that there is no 

 British or Colonial Act authorising the seizures complained of. if 

 the British Courts should nevertheless find such authority in any 

 existing Statute, the question whether the Statute itself or the con- 

 struction given it is warranted by the Treaty would still remain. 

 And also the still higher question, whether if the strict technical 

 reading of the Treaty might be thought to warrant such a result, it is 

 one which ought to be enforced between Sovereign and friendly na- 

 tions acting in the spirit of the Treaty. 



The United States' Government must therefore insist that, irre- 

 spective of the future result of the Canadian legal proceedings, the 

 authority and propriety of which is the subject of dispute, and with- 

 out waiting their conclusion, it is to Her Majesty!s Government it 

 must look for redress and satisfaction for the transactions in ques- 

 tion, and for such instructions to the colonial authority as will pre- 

 vent their repetition. 



While, as I have observed, Lord Eosebery declines to discuss the 

 question of the legality of these seizures, the able and elaborate Re- 

 port on the subject from the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fish- 

 eries, which is made a part of it, attempts in very general terms to 

 sustain their authority. He says: 



It is claimed that the vessel (the David J. Adanis) violated the Treaty of 

 1818, and consequently the Statutes which exist for the enforcement of the 

 Treaty. 



It is not clear from this language whether it is meant to be asserted 

 that if an act, otherwise lawful, is prohibited by a Treaty, the 

 347 commission of the act becomes a violation of a Statute which has 

 no reference to it, if the Statute was enacted to carry out the 

 Treaty, or whether it is intended to say that there was in existence, 

 prior to the seizure of the vessel in question, some Statute which did 

 refer to the act complained of and did authorise proceedings or pro- 

 vide a penalty against American fishing vessels for purchasing bait 

 or supplies in a Canadian port to be used in lawful fishing. The 

 former proposition does not seem to require refutation. If the latter 

 is intended, I have respectfully to request that your Lordship will 

 have the kindness to direct a copy of such Act to be furnished to me. 

 I have supposed that none such existed, and neither in the Report of 



