PERIOD FROM 18*71 TO 1905. 771 



Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. 



No. 303.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 



Washington, May 28, 1886. 



SIR: With reference to my instruction No. 289 of the llth instant, 

 transmitting to you a copy of my note of the 10th of this month to 

 Sir Lionel West, Her Britannic Majesty's minister at this capital, 

 concerning the fishery question, I now inclose for your information a 

 copy of a further note on the same subject, which I addressed to Sir 

 Lionel West yesterday, inclosing also a copy of the report of the 

 United States consul-general at Halifax, which is referred to in my 

 note to Sir Lionel West. 



I am, &c., T. F. BAYARD. 



[Inclosure No. 1.] 



Mr. Bayard to Sir Lionel West, May 20, 1886. (See ante, p. 768.) 



t Inclosure No. 2.] 



Mr. Phelan to Mr. Porter. 



No. 82.] UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, 



Halifax, May 15, 1886. 



SIR: As instructed by message from the honorable Secretary of 

 State to personally report, fully and carefully, all the facts and pro- 

 ceedings connected with the seizure of the American schooner David 

 J. Adams by armed men from the Canadian steamship Lansdowne, I 

 left Halifax for St. John May 10, as soon after receiving the mes- 

 sage as the means of travel would permit. After leaving I learned 

 that the vessel had been taken back to Digby, where I proceeded, and 

 found her anchored close to the Lansdowne in Digby Harbor. 

 Shortly after my arrival Captain Scott, of the Lansdowne, formally 

 transferred the custody of the vessel to the collector of the port of 

 Digby to be held on a charge, as the collector informed me, of vio- 

 lating the customs act of 1883, the penalty being $400. He said if 

 this sum was paid and the vessel not claimed by the minister of fish- 

 eries he would release her. On the following morning, in order to get 

 at the facts in connection with the seizure, I addressed a note to the 

 collector asking him to furnish me a copy of the charges against the 

 vessel. He replied verbally that the vessel passed out of his posses- 

 sion, and was again in Captain Scott's custody. I then addressed 

 Captain Scott a communication asking him to state in writing, fully 

 and specifically, with as little delay as possible, why he detained this 

 vessel. 



Captain Scott replied by referring me to the deputy minister of 

 fisheries in Ottawa. The refusal of Captain Scott to give this infor- 

 mation, which I had a right to have, even without asking for it, was 

 not only discourteous to me, but an indignity to the nation whose 

 vessel he seized. The next morning I heard that a process in an ad- 

 miralty suit against the schooner was' served on the vessel. I went on 

 board and found that the process was served by affixing to the mast 

 with nails what I supposed to be a warrant or summons ; no part of 

 which, except the indorsement, was visible. I requested permission 



