PERIOD FROM 1871 TO 1905. 769 



violation of the act 59 Geo. Ill; (3) for alleged violation of the colo- 

 nial act of Nova Scotia of 1868 ; and (4) for alleged violation of the 

 act of 1870 and also that of 1883, both Canadian statutes. 



Of these allegations there is but one which at present I press upon 

 your immediate consideration, and that is the alleged infraction of 

 the treaty of 1818. 



I beg to recall to your attention the correspondence and action of 

 those respectively charged with the administration and government of 

 Great Britain and the United States in the year 1870, when the same 

 international questions were under consideration and the status of law 

 was not essentially different from what it is at present. 



This correspondence discloses the intention of the Canadian authori- 

 ties of that day to prevent encroachment upon their inshore fishing 

 grounds, and their preparations in the way of a marine police force, 

 very much as we now witness. The statutes of Great Britain and of 

 her Canadian Provinces, which are now supposed to be invoked as au- 

 thority for the action against the schooner David J. Adams, were then 

 reported as the basis of their proceedings. 



In his note of May 26, 1870, Mr. (afterwards Sir Edward) Thorn- 

 ton, the British minister at this capital, conveyed to Mr. Fish, then 

 Secretary of State, copies of the orders of the royal Admiralty to 

 Vice-Admiral Wellesley, in command of the naval forces " employed 

 in maintaining order at the fisheries in the neighborhood of the coasts 

 of Canada." 



All of these orders directed the protection of Canadian fishermen 

 and cordial co-operation and concert with the United States force sent 

 on the same service with respect to American fishermen in those 

 waters. Great caution in the arrest of American vessels charged with 

 violation of the Canadian fishing laws was scrupulously enjoined upon 

 the British authorities, and the extreme importance of the command- 

 ing officers of ships selected to protect the fisheries exercising the ut- 

 most discretion in paying especial attention to Lord Granville's ob- 

 servation, that no vessel should be seized unless it were evident, and 

 could be clearly proved, that the offense of fishing had been com- 

 mitted, and the vessel captured within three miles of land. 



This caution was still more explicitly announced when Mr. Thorn- 

 ton, on the llth of June, 1870, wrote to Mr. Fish: 



" You are, however, quite right in not doubting that Admiral 

 Wellesley, on the receipt of the later instructions addressed to him on 

 the 5th ultimo, will have modified the directions to the officers under 

 his command so that they may be in conformity with the views of the 

 Admiralty. In confirmation of this I have since received a letter 

 from Vice-Admiral Wellesley dated the 30th ultimo, informing me 

 that he had received instructions to the effect that officers of Her 

 Majesty's ships employed in the protection of the fisheries should not 

 seize any vessel unless it were evident, and could be clearly proved, 

 that the offense of fishing had been committed and the vessel itself 

 captured within three miles of land." 



This understanding between the two Governments wisely and effi- 

 ciently guarded against the manifest danger of intrusting the execu- 

 tion of powers so important and involving so high and delicate a 

 discretion to any but wise and responsible officials, whose prudence 



t)2909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 3 10 



