PEKIOD FKOM 18*71 TO 1905. 831 



Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard. 



WASHINGTON, August 19, 1886. 



(Received August 20.) 



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

 yesterday informing me of the causes of complaint alleged by the 

 masters of several American fishing vessels against Captain Quigley, 

 of the Canadian cruiser Tensor. 



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



Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard. 



BRITISH LEGATION, September 1, 1886. 



(Received September 2.) 



SIR : With reference to your note of the 30th of July last, calling 

 attention to the cases of the Thomas F. Bayard and the Mascot. I 

 have the honor to inform you, in pursuance of instructions from Her 

 Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, that immediate inquiry 

 will be made into the matter with the view that the right secured by 

 the convention of 1818 to United States fishermen shall in no wise be 

 prejudiced. 



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



The Earl of Iddesleigh to Mr. Phelps. 



FOREIGN OFFICE, September 1, 1886. 



SIR: Her Majesty's Government have been anxiously considering 

 what further action they can take in the present state of the Canadian 

 Fisheries question to advance matters towards the friendly and 

 equitable solution so much desired by both Governments, and I 

 beg now to offer the following observations in order to explain the 

 difficulties which present themselves. 



There are two distinct issues involved. The one relates to the pre- 

 cise limits of the Treaty rights of American fishermen in Canadian 

 waters; the other to the legality of the measures adopted by the 

 Canadian authorities (having regard to the existing legislation) 

 against certain American fishing- vessels for an alleged violation of 

 Treaty. 



Both those issues are at the present time sub judice in the Canadian 

 Courts, and it is not improbable that they will be carried before the 

 competent Tribunal of Appeal in this country. 



If the ultimate decision should be favourable to the views of your 

 Government as regards the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818, the 

 principal question will be disposed of; and if the decision should be 

 adverse to those views, it will not preclude further discussion between 

 the two Governments and the adjustment of the question by diplo- 

 matic action. But it is clearly right, and according to practice and 

 precedent, that such diplomatic action should be suspended during 

 the completion of the judicial inquiry. 



