PERIOD FROM 1871 TO 1905. 783 



If it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recall the 

 instructions which I have shown had been previously and so ex- 

 plicitly given relative to the interference with American vessels, 

 surely notice should have been given accordingly. 



The United States have just reason to complain, even if these re- 

 strictions could be justified by the treaty or by the acts of Parliament 

 passed to carry it into effect, that they should be enforced in so harsh 

 and unfriendly a manner without notice to the Government of the 

 change of policy, or to the fishermen of the new danger to which they 

 were thus exposed. 



In any view, therefore, which it seems to me can be taken of this 

 question, I feel justified in pronouncing the action of the Canadian 

 authorities in seizing and still retaining the David J. Adams to be 

 not only unfriendly and discourteous, but altogether unwarrantable. 



The seizure was much aggravated by the manner in which it was 

 carried into effect. It appears that four several visitations and 

 searches of the vessel were made by boats from the Canadian steamer 

 Lansdowne, in Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia. The Adams was 

 finally taken into custody and carried out of the Province of Nova 

 Scotia, across the Bay of Fundy, and into the port of St. John, New 

 Brunswick, and without explanation or hearing, on the following 

 Monday, May 10, taken back by an armed crew to Digby, Nova 

 Scotia. That, in Digby, the paper alleged to be the legal precept 

 for the capture and detention or the vessel was nailed to her mast 

 in such manner as to prevents its contents being read, and the request 

 of the captain of the David J. Adams and of the United States con- 

 sul-general to be allowed to detach the writ from the mast for the 

 purpose of learning its contents was positively refused by the pro- 

 vincial official in charge. Nor was the United States consul-general 

 able to learn from the commander of the Lansdowne the nature of 

 the complaint against the vessel, and his respectful application to 

 that effect was fruitless. 



From all the circumstances attending this case, and other recent 

 cases like it, it seems to me very apparent that the seizure was not 

 made for the purpose of enforcing any right or redressing any wrong. 

 As I have before remarked, it is not pretended that the vessel had been 

 engaged in fishing, or was intending to fish in the prohibited waters, 

 or that it had done or was intending to do any other injurious act. 

 It was proceeding upon its regular and lawful business of fishing in 

 the deep sea. It had received no request, and of course could have 

 disregarded no request, to depart, and was, in fact, departing when 

 seized; nor had its master refused to answer any questions put by 

 the authorities.* It had violated no existing law, and had incurred 

 no penalty that any known statute imposed. 



It seems to me impossible to escape the conclusion that this and 

 other similar seizures were made by the Canadian authorities for the 

 deliberate purpose of harassing and embarrassing the American fish- 

 ing vessels in the pursuit of their lawful employment. And the in- 

 jury, which would have been a serious one, if committed under a 

 mistake, is very much aggravated by the motives which appear to 

 have prompted it. 



I am instructed by my Government earnestly to protest against 

 these proceedings as wholly unwarranted by the treaty of 1818, and 

 altogether inconsistent with the friendly relations hitherto existing 



