PERIOD FEOM 1811 TO 1905. 897 



Had his lordship perused more attentively my note to his prede- 

 cessor in office, Lord Rosebery, under date of June 2, 1886, to which 

 reference was made in my note to Lord Iddesleigh of September 11, 

 1886, I think he could not have failed to apprehend distinctly the 

 construction of that treaty for which the United States Government 

 contends and the reasons and arguments upon which it is founded. 



I have again respectfully to refer your lordship to my note to Lord 

 Rosebery of June 2, 1886, for a very full and, I hope, clear exposi- 

 tion of the ground taken by the United States Government on that 

 point. It is unnecessary to repeat it, and I am unable to add to it. 



In reply to the observations in my note to Lord Iddesleigh of Sep- 

 tember 11, 1886, on the point whether such discussion should be sus- 

 pended in these cases until the result of the judicial proceedings in 

 respect to them should be made known, a proposition to which, as I 

 stated in that note, the United States Government is unable to accede, 

 his lordship cites in support of it some language of Mr. Fish, when 

 Secretary of State of the United States, addressed to the United 

 States consul-general at Montreal in May, 1870. From the view then 

 expressed by Mr. Fish the United States Government has neither dis- 

 position nor occasion to dissent. But it can not regard it as in any 

 way applicable to the present case. 



It is true beyond question that when a private vessel is seized for an 

 alleged infraction of the laws of the country in which the seizure 

 takes place, and the fact of the infraction, or the exact legal construc- 

 tion of the local statute claimed to be transgressed, is in dispute, and 

 is in process of determination by the proper tribunal, the Government 

 to which the vessel belongs will not usually interfere in advance of 

 such determination and before acquiring the information on which 

 it depends. And especially when it is not yet informed whether the 

 conduct of the officer making the seizure will not be repudiated by 

 the Government under which he acts, so that interference will be un- 

 necessary. This is all, in effect, that was said by Mr. Fish on that 

 occasion. In language immediately following that quoted by Lord 

 Iddesleigh he remarks as follows (italics being mine) : 



" The present embarrassment is that while we have reports of sev- 

 eral seizures upon grounds as stated by the interested parties, which 

 seem to be in contravention of international law and special treaties 

 relating to the fisheries, these alleged causes of seizure are regarded 

 as pretensions of over zealous officers of the British navy and the colo- 

 nial vessels which will, as we hope and are bound in courtesy to ex- 

 pect, be repudiated by the courts, before which our vessels are to be 

 brought for adjudication." 



But in the present case the facts constituting the alleged infraction 

 by the vessel seized are not in dispute, except some circumstances 

 of alleged aggravation not material to the validity of the seizure. 

 The original ground of the seizure was the purchase by the master of 

 the vessel of a small quantity of bait from an inhabitant of Nova 

 Scotia, to be used in lawful fishing. This purchase is not denied by 

 the owners of the vessel, and the United States Government insists, 

 first, that such an act is not in violation of the treaty of 1818, and 

 second, that no then existing statute in Great Britain or Canada 

 authorized any proceedings against the vessel for such an act, even if 



92909 S. L>oc. 870, 61-3, voi 3 18 



