PERIOD FROM 1871 TO 1905. 877 



the treaty of 1818. And it is a natural and strong inference, as I 

 have in that communication pointed out, that the charge of violation 

 of custom-house regulations was an afterthought, brought forward 

 in order to sustain proceedings commenced on a different charge and 

 found untenable. 



In the suit that is now going on in the admiralty court at Halifax, 

 for the purpose of condemning the vessel, still further charges have 

 been added. And the Government of Canada seek to avail them- 

 selves of a clause in the act of the Canadian Parliament of May 22, 

 1868, which is in these words : " In case a dispute arises as to whether 

 any seizure has or has not been legally made or as to whether the per- 

 son seizing was or was not authorized to seize under this act * * * 

 the burden of proving the illegality of the seizure shall be on the 

 owner or claimant." 



I can not quote this provision without saying that it is, in my judg- 

 ment, in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as of 

 those of the common law. That a man should be charged by police 

 or executive officers with the commission of an offense and then be 

 condemned upon trial unless he can prove himself to be innocent is a 

 proposition that is incompatible with the fundamental ideas upon 

 which the administration of justice proceeds. But it is sought in the 

 present case to carry the proposition much further, and to hold that 

 the party inculpated must not only prove himself innocent of the of- 

 fense on which his vessel was seized, but also of all other charges upon 

 which it might have been seized that may be afterward brought for- 

 ward and set up at the trial. 



Conceiving that if the clause I have quoted from the act of 1868 can 

 have effect (if allowed any effect at all) only upon the charge on 

 which the vessel was originally seized, and that seizure for one offense 

 can not be regarded as prima facie evidence of guilt of another, 

 the counsel for the owners of the vessel have applied to the prose- 

 cuting officers to be furnished with a copj of the reports made to the 

 Government of Canada in connection with the seizure of the vessel, 

 either by Captain Scott, the seizing officer, or by the collector of cus- 

 toms at Digby, in order that it might be known to the defendant and 

 be shown on trial what the charges are on which the seizure was 

 grounded, and which the defendant is required to disprove. This 

 most reasonable request has been refused by the prosecuting officers. 



Under these circumstances I am instructed by my Government to 

 request of Her Majesty's Government that the solicitors for the own- 

 ers of the David J. Adams in the suit pending in Halifax may be fur- 

 nished, for the purposes of the trial thereof, with copies of the reports 

 above mentioned. And I beg to remind your lordship that there is 

 no time to be lost in giving the proper direction if it is to be in season 

 lor the trial, which, as I am informed, is being pressed. 

 I have, etc., 



E. J. PHELPS. 



Mr. P helps to Lord Iddesleigh. 



LEGATION or THE UNITED STATES, 



London, December 3, 1886. 



MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 

 note of the 30th November, on the subject of the Canadian fisheries, 



