834 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



My note to Lord Rosebery was confined to the discussion of the 

 case of the David J. Adams, the only seizure in reference to which 

 the details had then been fully made known to me. The points pre- 

 sented in my note, and the arguments in support of them, need not 

 be repeated. 



No answer is attempted in Lord Rosebery's reply. He declines to 

 discuss the questions involved on the ground that they are " now oc- 

 cupying the attention of the courts of law in the Dominion, and may 

 possibly form the subject of an appeal to the judicial committee of 

 Her Majesty's privy council in England." 



He adds: 



" It is believed that the courts in Canada will deliver judgment in 

 the above cases very shortly, and until the legal proceedings no^f 

 pending have been brought to a conclusion, Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment do not feel justified in expressing an opinion upon them, either 

 as to facts or the legality of the action taken by the colonial author- 

 ities." 



And your lordship remarks, in your note of September 1, " it is 

 clearly right, according to practice and precedent, that such diplo- 

 matic action should be suspended pending the completion of the 

 judicial inquiry." 



This is a proposition to which the United States Government is 

 unable to acce"de. 



The seizures complained of are not the acts of individuals claim- 

 ing private rights which can be dealt with only by judicial determi- 

 nation, or which depend upon facts that need to be ascertained by 

 judicial inquiry. They are the acts of the authorities of Canada, 

 who profess to be acting, and in legal effect are acting, under 

 the authority of Her Majesty's Government. In the report of the 

 Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, which is annexed to and 

 adopted as a part of Lord Rosebery's note, it is said : 



" The colonial statutes have received the sanction of the British 

 sovereign who, and not the nation, is actually the party with whom 

 the United States made the convention. The officers who are engaged 

 in enforcing the acts of Canada, or the laws of the Empire, are Her 

 Majesty's officers, whether their authority emanates directly from 

 the Queen or from her representative, the governor-general." 



The ground upon which the seizures complained of are principally 

 justified is the allegation that the vessels in question were violating 

 the stipulations of the treaty between the United States and Great 

 Britain. This is denied by the United States Government. The f acis 

 of the transaction are not seriously in dispute, and, if they were, 

 could be easily ascertained by both Governments without the aid of 

 the judicial tribunals of either, and the question to be determined is 

 the true interpretation of the treaty as understood, and to be admin- 

 istered between the high contracting parties. 



The proposition of Her Majesty's Government amounts to this, 

 that before the United States can obtain consideration of their com- 

 plaint that the Canadian authorities without justification have seized 

 and are proceeding to confiscate American vessels, the result of the 

 proceedings in the Canadian courts, instituted by the captors as the 

 means of the seizures, must be awaited, and the decision of that tri- 

 bunal on the international questions involved obtained. 



