776 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



house of commons bill No. 136, now pending in the Dominion Parlia- 

 ment, entitled "An act further to amend the act respecting fishing 

 by foreign vessels." 



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



Sir L, West to Mr. Bayard. 



WASHINGTON, June #, 1886. 



(Received June 3.) 



SIR : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your notes of 

 the 20th and 29th of May on the subject of the seizure of American 

 fishing vessels in Canadian waters. 



I have, &c. L. S. SACHVILLE WEST. 



Mr. Phelps to Lord Rosebery. 



LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 



London, June 8, 1886. 



MY LORD : Since the conversation I had the honor to hold with your 

 lordship, on the morning of the 29th ultimo, I have received from my 

 Government a copy of the report of the consul-general of the United 

 States at Halifax, giving full details and depositions relative to the 

 seizure of the David J. Adams, and the correspondence between the 

 consul-general and the colonial authorities in reference thereto. 



The report of the consul-general and the evidence annexed to it 

 appear fully to sustain the point submitted to your lordship in the 

 interview above referred to, touching the seizure of this vessel by the 

 Canadian officials. 



I do not understand it to be claimed by the Canadian authorities 

 that the vessel seized had been engaged or was intending to engage 

 in fishing within any limit prohibited by the treaty of 1818. 



The occupation of the vessel was exclusively deep-sea fishing, a 

 business in which it had a perfect right to be employed. The ground 

 upon which the capture was made was that the master of the vessel 

 had purchased of an inhabitant of Nova Scotia, near the port of 

 Digby, in that province, a day or two before, a small quantity of bait 

 to be used in fishing in the deep sea, outside the three-mile limit. 



The question presented is whether, under the terms of the treaty 

 and the construction placed upon them in practice for many years 

 by the British Government, and in view of the existing relations 

 between the United States and Great Britain, that transaction affords 

 a sufficient reason for making such a seizure and for proceeding under 

 it to the confiscation of the vessel and its contents. 



I am not unaware that the Canadian authorities, conscious, appar- 

 ently, that the affirmative of this proposition could not be maintained, 

 deemed it advisable to supplement it with a charge against the vessel 

 of a violation of the Canadian customs act of 1883, in not reporting 

 her arrival at Digby to the customs officer. But this charge is not 

 the one on which the vessel was seized, or which must now be princi- 

 pally relied on for its condemnation, and standing alone could hardly, 



