SEIZURES IN 1817. 47 



will appear from Mr. Rush's note of August 4, 1817, to Mr. Bagot." 

 It is evident, however, that no question of fishing outside of the limit 

 of three marine miles from the shore was involved in those seizures. 

 Mr. Bagot in his answer of August 8, 1817, to Mr. Rush, after refer- 

 ring to Captain Chambers' instructions and report, copies of which 

 he encloses, says : 



By these papers you will perceive that the vessels in question were 

 in the habit of occupying, and were, at the time of their seizure 

 actually occupying, for the purposes of their fishery, the settled 

 harbors of His Majesty's dominions, in violation of the orders at all 

 times enforced against all foreign vessels detected in making similar 

 encroachments, and of which it is not to be supposed that the masters 

 of these vessels could have been ignorant.^ 



Notwithstanding Lord Castlereagh's promise to revoke the orders 

 under which these fishing vessels were seized, every effort was made 

 to secure their condemnation and forfeiture, and proceedings for 

 that purpose were instituted in the courts of Xova Scotia.'' 



All of these seizures were ultimately held by the courts to have 

 been illegal and the vessels were restored to their owners.*' The 

 results of these proceedings and the position taken by the United 

 States on the questions presented were subsequently stated by John 

 Quincy Adams, after he became Secretary of State, in his instruc- 

 tions of July 28, 1818, to Messrs, Gallatin and Rush, the Plenipoten- 

 tiaries on the part of the United States in the negotiation of the 

 treaty of 1818, as follows : 



By the decree of the judge of the vice-admiralty court at Hali- 

 fax, on the 29th of August last, in the case of several American 

 fishing vessels which had been captured and sent into that port, a 

 copy of which is also now transmitted to you, it appears that all 

 those captures have been illegal. An appeal from this decree was 

 entered by the captors to the appellate court in England, and the 

 owners of the captured vessels were obliged to give bonds to stand 

 the issue of the appeal. Mr. Rush was instructed to employ suit- 

 able counsel for these cases if the appeals should be entered, and, as 

 we have been informed by him, has accordingly done so. If you do 

 not succeed in agreeing upon an article on this subject, it will be 

 desirable that the question vpon the Hght should be solemnly argued 

 before the lords of appeals, and that counsel of the first eminence 

 should be employed in it. Judge Wallace agreed with the advocate 

 general that the late war completely dissolved every right of the 

 people of the United States acquired by the treaty of 1783. But it 

 does not appear that this question had been argued before him, and 

 the contrary opinion is not to be surrendered on the part of the 



<» Appendix, p. 297. ^ Appendix, p. 299. '^ Appendix, p. 308. 



