PERIOD FROM 1871 TO 1905. 821 



been nailed to her mast was doubtless a copy of the warrant which 

 commanded the marshal or his deputy to make the arrest. 



The undersigned is informed that there was no intention whatever 

 of so adjusting the paper that its contents could not be read, but it 

 is doubtless correct that the officer of the court in charge declined to 

 allow the document to be removed. Both the United States consul- 

 general and the captain of the David J. Adams were made acquainted 

 with the reasons for the seizure, and the only ground for the state- 

 ment that a respectful application to ascertain the nature of com- 

 plaint was fruitless, was that the commander of the Lansdowne, 

 after the nature of the complaint had been stated to those concerned 

 and was published, and had become notorious to the people of both 

 countries, declined to give the United States consul-general a specific 

 and precise statement of the charges upon which the vessel would be 

 proceeded against, but referred him to his superior. 



Such conduct on the part of the officer of the Lansdowne can hardly 

 be said to have been extraordinary under the present circumstances. 



The legal proceedings had at that time been commenced in the 

 court of vice-admiralty at Halifax, where the United States consul- 

 general resides, and the officer at Digby could not have stated with 

 precision, as he was called upon to do, the grounds on which the in- 

 tervention of the court had been claimed in the proceedings therein. 



There was not, in this instance, the slightest difficulty in the United 

 States consul-general and those interested in the vessel obtaining the 

 fullest information, and no information which could have been given 

 by those to whom they applied was withheld. 



Apart from the general knowledge of the offenses which it was 

 claimed the master had committed, and which was furnished at the 

 time of the seizure, the most technical and precise details were readily 

 obtainable at the registry of the court, and from the solicitors of the 

 crown, and would have been furnished immediately on application 

 to the authority to whom the commander of the Lansdowne requested 

 the United States consul-general to apply. No such information 

 could have been obtained from the paper attached to the vessel's mast. 



Instructions have, however, been given to the commander of the 

 Lansdowne and other officers of the marine police, that, in the event 

 of any further seizure, a statement in writing shall be given to the 

 master of the seized vessel of the offenses for which the vessel may be 

 detained, and that a copy thereof shall be sent to the United States 

 consul-general at Halifax, and to the nearest United States consular 

 agent, and there can be no objection to the solicitor for the crown 

 being instructed likewise to furnish the consul-general with a copy 

 of the legal process in each case, if it can be supposed that any fuller 

 information will thereby be given. 



Mr. Bayard is correct in his statement of the reasons for which 

 the David J. Adams was seized, and is now held. It is claimed that 

 the vessel violated the treaty of 1818, and consequently the statutes 

 which exist for the enforcement of the treaty, and it is also claimed 

 that she violated the customs laws of Canada of 1883. 



The undersigned recommends that copies of those statutes be fur- 

 nished for the information of Mr. Bayard. 



Mr. Bayard has, in the same dispatch, recalled the attention of Her 

 Majesty's minister to the correspondence and action which took place 

 in the year 1870, when the fishery question was under consideration, 



