692 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



consider favourably any recommendations made in connection with, 

 these matters by Her Majesty's Government. 



Owing to the absence from Ottawa of some of my Ministers, it is 

 not probable that I shall be able to obtain a final expression of their 

 views for two or three days. I may, however, in the meantime refer 

 briefly to some of the points which will undoubtedly be raised before 

 the proposal, even in its amended shape, can be entertained. 



1. It would appear from the words of the Article, that a jurisdic- 

 tion in all cases of seizure is to be given to the naval officers in com- 

 mand of the two " national vessels " detailed for this service. One 

 of these officers will presumably belong to the American and the 

 other to the British naval service. My Government will, I have no 

 doubt, object to empowering a tribunal thus constituted, in which no 

 Canadian representative will have a place, to deal with offences 

 committed within Canadian territory, and against Canadian law. 



2. Such a tribunal would not be competent to deal in a manner 

 which would inspire public confidence, with intricate questions affect- 

 ing international rights, such as those which have been raised in con- 

 nection with the Fisheries dispute. 



3. A floating tribunal, such as that which would be constituted 

 under the Article, would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining evi- 

 dence as to matters of fact. The offences for which vessels have been, 

 or are likely to be seized, are as a rule committed in close proximity 

 to the shore, and the bulk of the evidence relating to the offence is ob- 

 tained from persons resident on shore, and could not be obtained 

 by an examination merely of the masters and crews of the seized ves- 

 sel, or of the vessel by which the seizure was made. This would be 

 the case more especially in regard to such violations of the Conven- 

 tion, as might be involved by the purchase of bait or of supplies. In 

 the same way evidence in regard to the precise position of a vessel 

 alleged to have been fishing w T ithin the proscribed limits could often 

 not be obtained, except by investigation conducted on shore. Such 

 evidence could, it is submitted, be obtained with greater ease and 

 rapidity by the local authorities, or by the Department of Marine 

 and Fisheries, to w T hich all cases of seizure are at once reported by 

 telegram, and which has great facilities for conducting local enquiries 

 upon the spot, through its officers. In a large number of cases, such 

 evidence has been obtained by the department within a few hours 

 of the seizure, and you will see, on reference to the reports which I 

 have from time to time sent you, that where the facts thus elicited did 

 not appear to point to a deliberate or serious contravention of the law, 

 instructions for the release of the vessel were at once sent from 

 Ottawa by telegram. 



4. The most formidable of the objections which are likely to be 

 urged against Mr. Bayard's proposal is, however, that which will be 

 founded upon the belief that it would be impossible for the four 

 national vessels selected as cruisers to cover the whole of the lengthy 

 coast line along which acts of trespass by American fishing vessels 

 are to be anticipated. Two of these vessels would, I apprehend, be- 

 come responsible for the coast from the mouth of the St. Lawrence 

 to Cape Breton, and two others for the whole of the coast from Cape 

 Breton to the Bay of Fundy. These vessels would, I presume, be 

 instructed to navigate in couples. If this were not done it would be 

 impossible to 6btain an examination, such as that contemplated un- 



