902 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



that I suggested, on the part of the United States, in my note to Lord 

 Iddesleigh of September 11, 1886, that an ad interim construction of 

 the terms of the treaty might be agreed on, to be carried out by in- 

 structions to be given on both sides without prejudice to the ultimate 

 claims of either, and terminable at the pleasure of either. In an 

 interview I had the honor to have with his lordship, in which this 

 suggestion was discussed, I derived the impression that he regarded 

 it with favor. An outline of such an arrangement was therefore sub- 

 sequently prepared by the United States Government, which, at the 

 request of Lord Iddesleigh, was submitted to him. 



But I observe, with some surprise, that in his note of November 

 30, last, his lordship refers to that proposal made in my note of llth 

 September, as a proposition that Her Majesty's Government " should 

 temporarily abandon the exercise of the treaty rights which they 

 claim and which they conceive to be indisputable." 



In view of the very grave questions that exist as to the extent of 

 those rights, in respect to which the views of the United States Gov- 

 ernment differ so widely from those insisted upon by Her Majesty's 

 Government, it does not seem to me an unreasonable proposal that 

 the two Governments, by a temporary and mutual concession, without 

 prejudice, should endeavor to reach some middle ground of ad interim 

 construction, by which existing friendly relations might be pre- 

 served, until some permanent treaty arrangements could be made. 



The reasons why a revision of the treaty of 1818 can not now, in 

 the opinion of the United States Government, be hopefully under- 

 taken, and which are set forth in my note to Lord Iddesleigh of Sep- 

 tember 11, have increased in force since that note was written. 



I again respectfully commend the proposal above mentioned to the 

 consideration of Her Majesty's Government. 

 I have, etc., 



E. J. PHELPS. 



Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps. 



[Extract] 



No. 520.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 



Washington, January 27, 1887. 



SIR: Your dispatch No. 416, of the 12th instant, transmitting a 

 copy of the note, dated the llth, received by you from the late Lord 

 Iddesleigh, in response to your note of December 2, 1886, requesting 

 copies of the papers in the case of the David J. Adams, has been re- 

 ceived. 



The concluding part of Lord Iddesleigh's note seems to demand at- 

 tention, inasmuch as the argument employed to justify the provisions 

 of Article 10 of the Canadian Statutes, cap. 61 of 1868, which throw 

 on the claimant the burden of proving the illegality of a seizure, 

 appears to rest upon the continued operation of Article 1 of that 

 statute, relative to the issue of licenses to foreign fishing vessels. The 

 note in question states "that the provisions of that statute, so far as 

 they relate to the issue of licenses, has [have?] been in operation since 

 the year 1870." 



