34 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



References are made to interferences with the Rattler, the 



40 Julia Ellen, and the Shiloh to illustrate the attitude then taken 

 by the United States. But a perusal of the whole correspond- 

 ence will establish that, although these vessels were refused commer- 

 cial privileges, the objections made by the United States were to 

 the manner in which the Customs Laws were enforced and to the 

 alleged violent and hostile conduct of certain Canadian officers, rather 

 than to the validity of the Canadian Customs Acts as applied to 

 American fishermen. 



For instance, the letter from Mr. Bayard, the United States Secre- 

 tary of State, of the 9th August, 1886, from which an extract is given 

 in the American Case, closes with the following request (United 

 States Case, App., p. 824) : 



In the interests of amity, I ask that this misconduct may be prop- 

 erly rebuked by the Government of Her Majesty, 

 and Mr. Bayard's subsequent letter to Sir L. West of the 18th August, 

 1886, referring to all these cases (Rattler, Julia Ellen, and Shiloh}, 

 says (United States Case, App., p. 830) : 



Such conduct cannot be defended on any just ground, and I draw 

 your attention to it in order that Her Britannic Majesty's Govern- 

 ment may reprimand Captain Quigley for his unwarranted and rude 

 act. 



The unwarranted and rude act referred to was that which is men- 

 tioned in the last paragraph of the letter: 



The firing of a gun across their bows was a most unusual and 

 wholly uncalled for exhibition of hostility, and equally so was the 

 placing of armed men on board the peaceful and lawful craft of a 

 friendly nation. 



The correspondence regarding the David J. Adams is also signifi- 

 cant as showing the attitude of the United States. In his letter of 

 the 26th January, 1887, to the Marquis of Salisbury, Mr. Phelps 

 (United States Ambassador at London) said (United States Case, 

 App., p. 900) : 



"And quite aside from any question arising upon construction of 

 the treaty, the provisions of the custom-house acts and regulations 

 have been systematically enforced against American ships for alleged 

 petty and technical violations of legal requirements in a manner so 

 unreasonable, unfriendly, and unjust as to render the privileges 

 accorded by the treaty practically nugatory. 



" It is not for a moment contended by the United States Govern- 

 ment that American vessels should be exempt from those reasonable 

 port or custom-house regulations which are in force in countries 

 which such vessels have occasion to visit. If they choose to 



41 violate such requirements their Government will not ITftempt 

 to screen them from the just legal consequences. 



" But what the United States Government complain of in these 

 cases is that existing regulations have been construed with a tech- 

 nical strictness, and enforced with a severity in cases of inadvertent 



