780 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



the treaty in respect to the purposes for which American fishermen 

 may enter British ports, it provides no forfeiture or penalty for any 

 such entry unless accompanied either (1) by fishing or preparing to 

 fish within the prohibited limits, or (2) by the infringement of re- 

 strictions that may be imposed by orders in council to prevent such 

 fishing or the drying or curing of fish, or the abuse of privileges 

 reserved by the treaty, or (3) by a refusal to depart from the bays or 

 harbors upon proper requisition. 



It thus plainly appears that it was not the intention of Parliament, 

 nor its understanding of the treat} 7 , that any other entry by an Ameri- 

 can fishing vessel into a British port should be regarded as an infrac- 

 tion of its provisions, or as affording the basis of proceedings 

 against it. 



No other act of Parliament for the carrying out of this treaty has 

 ever been passed. It is unnecessary to point out that it is not in the 

 power of the Canadian Parliament to enlarge or alter the provisions 

 of the act of the Imperial Parliament, or to give to the treaty either 

 a construction or a legal effect not warranted by that act. 



But until the effort which I am informed is now in progress in the 

 Canadian Parliament for the passage of a new act on the subject, 

 introduced since the seizures under consideration, I dp not under- 

 stand that any statute has ever been enacted in that Parliament which 

 attempts to give any different construction of effect to the treaty from 

 that given by the act of 59 George III. 



The only provincial statutes which, in the proceedings against the 

 David J. Adams i that vessel has thus far been charged with infring- 

 ing are the colonial acts of 1868, 1870, and 1883. It is therefore fair 

 to presume that there are no other colonial acts applicable to the case, 

 and I know of none. 



The act of 1868, among other provisions not material to this discus- 

 sion, provides for a forfeiture of foreign vessels " found fishing, or 

 preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, in British waters within 

 three marine miles of the coast," and also provides a penalty of $400 

 against a master of a foreign vessel within the harbor who shall fail 

 to answer questions put in an examination by the authorities. Xo 

 other act is b;y this statute declared to be illegal ; and no other penalty 

 or forfeiture is provided for. 



The very extraordinary provisions in this statute for facilitating 

 forfeitures and embarrassing defense, or appeal from them, not mate- 

 rial to the present case, would, on a proper occasion, deserve very 

 serious attention. 



The act of 1883 has no application to the case, except upon the 

 point of the omission of the vessel to report to the customs officer 

 already considered. 



It results, therefore, that at the time of the seizure of the David J. 

 Adams and other vessels there was no act whatever, either of the 

 British or colonial parliaments, which made the purchase of bait by 

 those vessels illegal, or provided for any forfeiture, penalty, or pro- 

 ceedings against them for such a transaction, and even if such pur- 

 chase could be regarded as a violation of that clause of the treaty 

 which is relied on, no law existed under which the seizure could be 

 justified. It will not be contended that custom-house authorities or 

 colonial courts can seize and condemn vessels for a breach of the 

 stipulations of a treaty when no legislation exists which authorizes 



