## Facts

- The United States brought an international claim against Great Britain on behalf of Jesse Lewis, a U.S. citizen and owner of the Gloucester fishing schooner *David J. Adams*.
- The dispute arose from Canadian enforcement actions against American fishing vessels operating near Canadian coasts under treaty arrangements governing U.S. fishing-related activities and related commercial incidents.
- On August 6, 1905, the *David J. Adams* entered Canadian waters in Nova Scotia (within St. Mary’s Bay) and anchored briefly to buy fresh bait and take on ordinary supplies connected with its fishing voyage.
- During this stop, the crew also used dories to obtain lobster for personal use.
- Canadian fishery officers boarded and seized the vessel, asserting that the bait purchase and related conduct violated treaty limits and Canadian regulatory requirements (including rules tied to customs entry and fishery control within the coastal limit).
- The vessel was taken to Digby, Nova Scotia, and forfeiture proceedings were commenced in a local Canadian court.
- The ship was condemned and sold, and Lewis lost what was described as his principal property interest.
- The United States asserted that the seizure and condemnation were wrongful because (a) buying bait and similar supplies was a permitted incident of treaty fishing liberties and (b) the forfeiture process was carried out without a real opportunity for the master/owner to defend before condemnation.
- The claim was submitted under the Special Agreement of August 18, 1910, establishing an arbitral process for specified U.S.–U.K. pecuniary claims arising from fisheries enforcement; the tribunal issued its award on December 9, 1921.

## Issues

1. Whether the *David J. Adams*’s brief stop within Canadian waters to purchase bait and obtain ordinary supplies was a permitted incident of U.S. fishing liberties under the applicable treaty arrangements, such that seizure was internationally wrongful.
2. Whether Canada’s forfeiture proceedings satisfied the Special Agreement’s requirement of reasonable notice and a fair chance to present a defense before condemnation of an American vessel.
3. If Great Britain was responsible, what compensation (including interest) was owed for the loss of the vessel, outfits/stores, and fishing earnings.

## Decision

- The Tribunal held that Great Britain was internationally responsible for the seizure and condemnation of the *David J. Adams*.
- The Tribunal concluded that a brief stop to purchase bait and obtain supplies, when connected to the exercise of treaty fishing liberties and not undertaken as general trade, could not be treated as unlawful fishing activity justifying forfeiture.
- The Tribunal found that the forfeiture process failed to provide reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend, contrary to the Special Agreement governing these claims.
- The Tribunal also treated the forfeiture as an excessive, confiscatory response when measured against the asserted infraction.
- The Tribunal awarded the United States $8,800 in damages, with interest at 5% per year from August 6, 1905 until payment.

## Legal Principles

- An international tribunal may interpret and apply the relevant treaty and special-compromis terms to decide state responsibility for enforcement actions against foreign vessels.
- Treaty fishing liberties include necessary commercial incidents (such as buying bait and provisioning) when done for the fishing voyage and not as ordinary port trade, absent clear treaty language forbidding those incidents.
- Where a special agreement requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to defend before condemnation, failure to provide that notice and opportunity can make the resulting forfeiture an internationally wrongful act.
- Sanctions imposed through fisheries enforcement must bear a reasonable relation to the alleged offense; confiscatory forfeitures can breach international obligations when applied to conduct treated as allowed, or when imposed through unfair process.
- Monetary reparation may include vessel value, associated gear/stores, lost earnings, and interest to compensate for the time-value loss from prolonged deprivation.

## Conclusion

The Tribunal held Great Britain responsible for Canada’s seizure and forfeiture of the *David J. Adams* because the vessel’s brief stop to buy bait and obtain supplies was treated as a permissible incident of U.S. fishing liberties and because the condemnation was entered without reasonable notice and a real chance to defend as required by the Special Agreement; it awarded $8,800 plus 5% interest from August 6, 1905.


Jesse Lewis (The David J. Adams) Claim (United States v. Great Britain), 6 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards 85