836 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



which is made a part of it, attempts in very general terms to sustain 

 their authority. He says : 



" It is claimed that the vessel (the David J. Adams] violated the 

 treaty of 1818, and consequently the statutes which exist for the en- 

 forcement of the treaty." 



It is not clear from this language whether it is meant to be asserted 

 that if an act, otherwise lawful, is prohibited by a treaty, the com- 

 mission of the act becomes a violation of a statute which has no ref- 

 erence to it, if the statute was enacted to carry out the treaty, or 

 whether it is intended to say that there was in existence, prior to the 

 seizure of the vessel in question, some statute which did refer to the 

 act complained of and did authorize proceedings or provide a penalty 

 against American fishing vessels for purchasing bait or supplies in 

 a Canadian port to be used in lawful fishing. 



The former proposition does not seem to require refutation. If the 

 latter is intended, I have respectfully to request that your lordship 

 will have the kindness to direct a copy of such act to be furnished to 

 me. I have supposed that none such existed, and neither in the re- 

 port of the Canadian minister, nor in the customs circulars or warn- 

 ings thereto appended, in which attention is called to the various legis- 

 lation on the subject, is any such act pointed out. 



The absence of such statute provision either in the act of Parlia- 

 ment (59 Geo. Ill, c. 38) or in any subsequent colonial act, is not 

 merely a legal objection, though quite a sufficient one, to the validity 

 of the proceedings in question. It affords the most satisfactory 

 evidence that up to the time of the present controversy no such con- 

 struction has been given to the treaty by the British or by the colonial 

 parliament, as is now sought to be maintained. 



No other attempt is made in the report of the Canadian minister to 

 justify the legality of these seizures. 



It is apparent from the whole of it that he recognizes the necessity 

 of the proposed enactment of the act of the Canadian Parliament 

 already alluded to in order to sustain them. 



This remark is further confirmed by the communciation from the 

 Marquis of Lansdowne, governor-general of Canada, to Lord Gran- 

 ville, in reference to that act, annexed by Lord Rosebery to his second 

 note to the British minister of July 23, 1886, a copy of which was 

 sent me by his lordship, in connection with his other note of same date 

 above referred to. 



I do not observe upon other points of the minister's report not 

 bearing upon the points of note to Lord Rosebery. So far as they 

 relate to the communications addressed to the British minister by Mr. 

 Bayard, the Secretary of State will doubtless make such reply as may 

 seem to him to be called for. 



In various other instances American vessels have been seized or 

 driven away by the provincial authorities when not engaged or pro- 

 posing to engage in any illegal employment. 



Some of these cases are similar to that of the Adams, the vessels 

 having been taken possession of for purchasing bait or supplies to 

 be used in lawful fishing, or for alleged technical breach of custom- 

 house regulations, where no harm was either intended or committed, 

 and under circumstances in which for a very long time such regula- 

 tions have been treated as inapplicable. 



