Appendix to the Memorial. 189 



Being now in possession of the views of the Dominion Gov- 

 ernment on the subject, I have the honor to offer the following 

 observations. 



Your Excellency, while claiming compensation, admits that 

 IMr. Olney at the time he was Secretary of State for the United 

 States advised against an appeal to the Privy Council and under 

 his instructions Mr. Bayard made representations to Her Majesty's 

 Government with a view to obtain remission of the forfeiture, 

 the result being that the Canadian Government offered in the 

 circumstances and as an act of grace and favor, to remit the 

 forfeiture on condition of the payment by the defendant of all 

 costs and charges, together with a nominal fine of one dollar 

 ($1.00). Of this offer the State Department expressed cordial 

 appreciation, although it was afterwards refused by the owner of 

 the vessel. 



Your Excellency says that the Department of State and the 

 United States was not a little embarrassed by the unexpected re- 

 fusal of the owner to accept the offer which the Dominion Govern- 

 ment, as an act of grace and favor had made, and that "it appre- 

 ciated the delicacy of a complete change of its attitude in the treat- 

 ment of the case, especially after having invoked the exercise of 

 executive clemency in the remission of the forfeiture," but you 

 add that your "Government never intended to concede the right 

 of Her Majesty's Government to seize the vessel for fishing out- 

 side the three-mile limit." 



There was, however, clearly no thought of such a concession 

 either having been asked or given, because there never was any 

 serious doubt raised in the diplomatic discussions respecting the 

 seizure that it was made within the three-mile limit. It was not 

 because of any doubt as to the position of the vessel at the time 

 of the fishing for which she was condemned that the clemency 

 of the Crown was asked or granted, but rather because it was 

 contended that the trespass was involuntary and not deliberate. 



The question of the exact position of the vessel at the time 

 of the seizure was distinctly raised at the trial, and was as dis- 

 tinctly decided by the Court of Vice Admiralty, and afterwards 

 confirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeal. 



It was never suggested, so far as His Majesty's Government 

 are aware, at the trial or on the appeal that the Islands in the 



