ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1311 



"In regard to the necessity for the instant imposition of such 

 restrictions upon the arrest of vessels, you will, I believe, agree with 

 rne, and I will therefore ask you to procure such steps to be taken 

 as shall cause such orders to be forthwith put in force under the 

 authority of Her Majesty's Government," 



Heading the letter in that way, it looks as though it really had 

 something to do with this question of bays and it had, to this extent, 

 but to this extent only, that previous to this the British Government 

 had agreed that seizures of fishing- vessels should not be made except 

 within the 3-mile limit. Afterwards, fishing- vessels (engaged at 

 other times in fishing) wished to exercise trading privileges, wished 

 to get bait, and things of that sort, and Mr. Bayard applied the 

 previous instructions and said that vessels should be interferred 

 with only if they were fishing; that these vessels were not fishing; 

 and that therefore they should not be interfered with. But the old 

 instructions were drawn with a view to prevent fishing within the 3 

 miles. Mr. Bayard now was trying to apply those instructions to 

 vessels that were not fishing at all to vessels that went right into 

 the ports, and commenced to trade there, or purchase bait or sup- 

 plies there. I will make that more clear when I come to the letter. 

 It is necessary that I should say that much at present. The follow- 

 ing letter is along the same lines, and where the asterisks are is a 

 sentence which would have made it quite clear (United States Argu- 

 ment, p. 193) : 



"Again, in a note to the British minister, dated May 29, 1886, the 

 Secretary of State wrote : 



" ' I have also been furnished with a copy of circular No. 371, pur- 

 porting to be from the customs department at Ottawa, dated May 7, 

 1886, and to be signed by J. Johnson, commissioner of customs, as- 

 suming to execute the provisions of the treaty between the United 

 States and Great Britain, concluded October 20, 1818, and printed 

 copies of a warning, purporting to be issued by George E. Foster, 

 minister of marine and fisheries, dated at Ottawa, March 5, 1886, of 

 a similar tenor, although capable of unequal results in its execution.' " 



Now, may I read from United States Case Appendix, p. 774, the 

 sentence omitted there: 



" Such proceedings I conceive to be flagrantly violative of the 

 reciprocal commercial privileges to which citizens of the United 

 States are lawfully entitled under statutes of Great Britain and the 

 well-defined and publicly proclaimed authority of both countries, 

 besides being in respect of the existing conventions between the two 

 countries an assumption of jurisdiction entirely unwarranted and 

 which is wholly denied by the United States." 



Then, I go on, in the United States Argument, p. 193 : 

 " In the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and friendly rela- 

 tions, I give you my earliest information on this subject, adding thaj; 

 I have telegraphed Mr. Phelps, our minister at London, to make 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61^3, vol 10 27 



