PERIOD PROM 1811 TO 1905. 773 



to $973.33, for violation of a certain convention between his late 

 Majesty, George the Third, King of Great Britain and Ireland, of the 

 one part, and the United States of America of the other part, made 

 on the 20th day of October, A. D. 1818, and for violation of the act of 

 Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, made and passed in the 

 fifty-ninth year of the reign of his late Majesty, George the Third, 

 King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being 

 chapter 38 of the acts of the said last Parliament, and passed in said 

 year. In addition to the above, an action has been instituted in the 

 vice-admiralty court at Halifax to have the vessel and cargo for- 

 feited. The charges are (1) that she violated the treaty of 1818; 



(2) that she violated the provisions of the act 59, George the Third; 



(3) that she violated the provisions of chapter 61 of the Canadian 

 acts of 1870, and chapter 23 of the acts of Canada, 1871. Also a suit 

 was instituted later for violating the customs act of Canada for 1883. 

 Under this act it is charged that the vessel did not report her arrival 

 at Digby to the customs officer. Digby is a fishing village without a 

 corporation, and, so far as I could learn, and I made special inquiry, 

 the harbor is not defined, and the practice has been that only vessels 

 having business at Digby entered at the custom-house. The records 

 of the office will show, and the collector admitted, that during his forty 

 years' service fishermen went in and out the bay at pleasure and were 

 never required to report. It is very plain that this suit was not insti- 

 tuted to vindicate the law, as the vessel was not apprehended on that 

 charge, but instituted to annoy and harass our fishermen. The other 

 suits are for violating the treaty of 1818, and statutes made under it. 

 I confidently report that the only charge against the vessel that can be 

 sustained, or that she is guilty of, is purchasing fish in British waters. 



My conclusions are therefore as follows : 



(1) That the David J. Adams was not fishing, had not fished, and 

 was not preparing to fish in British waters. 



(2) She did not conceal her name nor attempt to conceal her name. 



(3) She did not report to the custom-house at Digby, because she 

 did not enter the harbor of Digby, but only Digby Basin. 



(4) She purchased twelve barrels of fish for bait in British waters 

 for deep-sea fishing, and not to fish in such waters. 



I am, sir, your obedient servant, 



M. H. PHELAN, 



Consul- General. 



Mr. Bayard to Mr. P helps. (Communicated to the Earl of Rosebery 

 by Mr. Phelps, May 29.} 



[Telegraphic.] 



MAY 27, 1886. 



You will say to Lord Rosebery that every disposition exists on our 

 part to arrive at an amicable and just solution of Canadian fishery 

 and trade question, as the President has already manifested. Main 

 point now is to have Treaty of 1818 so interpreted as not to destroy 

 commercial intercourse, including purchase of bait for use in deep- 

 sea fishing. This was done by Great Britain in 1871, and its aban- 



