876 CORBESPONDENCE, ETC. 



And I would pray that in the case recited, and many others that can 

 be shown if required, we may be protected from local laws and their 

 enforcement that abridge our rights and have never received the sanc- 

 tion of the two great contracting powers in the construction and 

 agreement of the treaty of 1818. 



I have &c. SOLOMON JACOBS. 



$1.17.] NOETH SYDNEY, C. B., October IS, 1886. 



Molly Adams, 117 tons. Captain Jacobs to harbor commissioners. 



M. J. PHUEEN. 



To amount of harbor dues 



Received payment. 



No. 100. 



$1.00.] Dominion of Canada. Harbor dues. 



MALPEQUE, P. E. I., 1886. 

 Received from Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner Molly Adams, from 



118 tons register, the sum of $1, being harbor dues at this port. 



EDWARD LARKINS, 



Harbor Master. 



No.. 



Dominion of Canada. Harbor dues. 



PORT MULGRAVE, N. S., August SO, 1886. 



Received from Solomon Jacobs, master of the schooner Mollie Adams, from 

 North Bay, 117 tons register, the sum of $1.50, being harbor dues at this port. 

 [SEAL.] DUNCAN C. GILLIES, 



Harbor Master. 



Mr. Phelps to Lord Iddesleigh. 



LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 



London, December #, 1886. 



MY LORD: Referring to the conversation I had the honor to hold 

 with your lordship on the 30th November, relative to the request of 

 my Government that the owners of the David J. Adams may be fur- 

 nished with a copy of the original reports, stating the charges on 

 which that vessel was seized by the Canadian authorities, I desire 

 now to place before you in writing the grounds upon which this 

 request is preferred. 



It will be in the recollection of your lordship, from the previous 

 correspondence relative to the case of the Adams, that the vessel was 

 first taken possession of for the alleged offense of having purchased 

 a small quantity of bait within the port of Digby, in Nova Scotia, to 

 be used in lawful fishing. That later on a further charge was made 

 against the vessel of a violation of some custom-house regulation, 

 which it is not claimed, so far as I can learn, was ever before insisted 

 on in a similar case. I think I have made it clear in my note of the 

 2d of June last, addressed to Lord Rosebery, then foreign secretary, 

 that no act of the English or of the Canadian Parliament existed at 

 the time of this seizure which legally justified it on the ground of the 

 purchase of bait, even if such an act would have been authorized by 



