694 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



6. I observe that under the Article it is laid down that where it is 

 decided that a vessel shall be subjected to a judicial examination she 

 shall be sent for trial before the Vice-Admiralty Court at Halifax. 

 As to this I have to observe that there are Vice- Admiralty Courts at 

 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and St. John, New Bruns- 

 Avick, and at Quebec, and that there appears to be no reason for in- 

 A'oking exclusively the jurisdiction of the Court at Halifax which is 

 possessed in an equal degree by the other Vice-Admiralty Courts 

 mentioned. 



7. As it is expressly stated that the Article under consideration is 

 for the purpose of executing Article I of the Convention of 1818 I 

 presume that it is not intended to interfere in any way with the oper- 

 ation of the Customs Law of the Dominion, which, as you are aware, 

 has been repeatedly put in force against fishing vessels neglecting to 

 comply with its requirements. Care should be taken in any arrange- 

 ment which may be come to with the United States that there should 

 be no misapprehension in regard to this point. 



8. I may in conclusion observe that, although it may no doubt be 

 the case, as stated by Mr. Bayard in his letter of November 15th, 1886, 

 that arrangements resembling in some respects that which he has 

 advocated in the draft Article III, have been adopted by European 

 Governments, including that of Her Majesty, for the settlement of 

 fisheries disputes, it is open to question whether the local and political 

 circumstances were in these cases identical with those present in the 

 case of the Canadian fisheries. I would suggest that it would be 

 worth while to enquire in reference to such cases w r hether the extent 

 of coast line to be protected is as great, whether the points in dispute 

 involve the construction of treaties and the right of resorting to 

 legislation for their enforcement, or whether they are not rather 

 limited to the more trivial disputes which arise wherever fishermen 

 of different nationalities frequent the same fishing grounds. 



9. I shall take the earliest opportunity of laying before you a 

 fuller statement of the views of my Government. I have, however, 

 thought it advisable to lose no time in making you aware of the gen- 

 eral character of the objections which, in spite of its earnest desire 

 to be guided by your recommendations in regard to these matters, it 

 will probably urge against the adoption in any shape of the Article 

 under consideration. 



I have, &c., (Signed) LANSDOWNE. 



The Right Hon. Sir HENRY HOLLAND, 



c6c., c&c., dec. 



No. 237. 1887, March 24-' Letter from the Marquis of Salisbury to 

 Mr. White (United States Minister at London] enclosing Draft 

 Protocol communicated by Mr. Adams to the Earl of Clarendon in 

 1866. 



FOREIGN OFFICE, 24th March. 1887. 



SIR, In a note of the 3rd December last, addressed to my prede- 

 cessor, Mr. Phelps was good enough to transmit a copy of a despatch 

 from Mr. Bayard, dated the 15th of the preceding month, together 

 with an outline of a proposed ad interim arrangement " for the set- 

 tlement of all questions in dispute in relation to the fisheries on the 

 north-eastern coast of British North America." 



