Legation of
the United States,
London, January 13, 1887.
(Received January 24.)
No. 416.]You will observe that Her Majesty’s Government have not seen fit to interfere
in the matter.
[Inclosure in No. 416.]
Lord Iddesleigh to
Mr. Phelps.
Foreign
Office, January 11,
1887.
Sir: Her Majesty’s Government have considered
the request contained in your note of the 2d ultimo, to the effect that
the owners of the David J. Adams may be furnished
with copies of the original reports stating the charges on which that
vessel was seized by the Canadian authorities; and I have now the honor
to state to you
[Page 452]
that if the
owners of this vessel are legally entitled to be furnished with those
reports they can obtain them by the process of the courts; and there
seems no ground for the interference of Her Majesty’s Government with
the ordinary course of justice.
As regards the means of obtaining information for the purposes of the
defense, I would point out that in the report of the Canadian minister
of marine and fishery, of which a copy was communicated to you on the
23d July last, it is stated that from a date immediately after the
seizure “there was not the slightest difficulty in the United States
consul-general, and those interested in the vessel, obtaining the
fullest information,” and that “apart from the general knowledge of the
offenses which it was claimed the master had committed, and which was
furnished at the time of the seizure, the most technical and precise
details were readily obtainable at the registry of the court, and from
the solicitors of the Crown.”
With respect to the statement in your note that a clause in the Canadian
act of May 22, 1868, to the effect that, “In case a dispute arises as to
whether any seizure has or has not been legally made, or as to whether
the person 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,” is in violation of the principles of national
justice, as well as of those of the common law, I have to observe that
the statute referred to is cap. 61 of 1868, which provides for the issue
of licenses to foreign fishing vessels, and for the forfeiture of such
vessels fishing without a license; and that the provisions of Article
10, to which you take exception, are commonly found in laws against
smuggling, and are based on the rule of law that a man who pleads that
he holds a license or other similar document shall be put to the proof
of his, plea and required to produce the document.
I beg leave to add that the provisions of that statute, so far as they
relate to the issue of licenses, has been in operation since the year
1870.
I have, etc.,
