658 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



(&.) That no suit should be brought for an illegal seizure until one 

 month after notice in writing had been served on the seizing officer 



of an intention to sue, and the grounds of action ; 

 393 (c.) And, further, that a statute of limitations, in respect 



of all such illegal seizures, of three months only, was provided. 



The committee does not see any just ground of criticism of those 

 parts of this Act that relate to the conduct of American fishing 

 vessels coming within waters where fishing was prohibited; but 

 when it comes to the matter of just and reasonable judicial determina- 

 tion of any question arising, the committee does think that the 

 methods and limitations of procedure were harsh and unjust, and 

 beyond the right of the British Government to provide, under its 

 authority by the treaty to make only such restrictions as should be 

 necessary to prevent the abuse by the American fishermen of their 

 right to enter non-fishing waters. 



But the foregoing species of legislation has been considerably im- 

 proved upon, in an unjust direction, by the Dominion Act of the 

 22nd May, 1868 (31 Vic., cap. 61), which authorised the officials 

 to require any vessel which was not hovering on the coast, but which 

 had come within a harbour, to depart from such harbour on twenty- 

 four hours' notice, and, on failure of such departure, to bring her 

 into port for that mere cause, and without any suspicion or ground 

 of suspicion that she had violated, or intended to violate, either the 

 treaty or the laws of Canada, and without any limitation as to the 

 length of time she might be detained in port, or any security for just 

 and fair treatment of the American fishing vessel, which might have 

 sought shelter in such harbour, or come there for any of the lawful 

 causes named in the treaty. 



It also provided for punishing the master if he failed to answer any 

 question put to him touching the cargo or voyage. 



It also provided that the consent of the seizing person should be 

 necessary in order to enable the judge of the Admiralty Court to 

 release the vessel on proper security. 



It also, as in the case of the former Act, put the burden of proving 

 innocence on the claimant. 



It also provided that no suit should be brought for any illegal 

 conduct of those officers until after a month's notice in writing, and 

 that the notice should contain the cause of action. 



It also provided that " no evidence of any cause of action shall be 

 produced except such as shall be contained in such notice." 



It also provided that every such action should be brought within 

 three months after the cause of action had arisen. 



It also provided that if, in any such suit, judgment should be given 

 against the seizing person, and there should be a certificate of prob- 

 able cause, then the plaintiff should only recover 3 cents damages 

 and no costs, and that no fine beyond 20 cents should be imposed upon 

 the respondent. 



On the 12th May, 1870, the Dominion Act of 33 Vic., cap. 15, was 

 passed, repealing the 3rd section of the last-mentioned Act on the 

 subject of bringing vessels into port, &c., and provided, in lieu there- 

 of, that any of the officers or persons before-mentioned might bring 

 any vessel, being within any harbour in Canada, or hovering in Brit- 

 ish waters within 3 miles of the coast, into port, search her cargo, 

 examine her master on oath. &c., without any previous notice to de- 



