98
that the confiscation proceeded upon that alone, and that the view of Consul Abelson and the Chinese Authorities asked for proof of the excuse for the vessel's presence but was that the vessel must be confiscated for the literal breach of treaty.
I can also state that both Mr. Robertson and Mr. Mayer, though not officially, led me to understand that they did not doubt the truth of Quck Acheong's statement. The impression upon my mind was always that the Consul considered confiscation justified by the literal breach of Treaty, and that the fact of lawful punishment was only entitled to mitigation of the sentence.
They always denied that it had anything to do with the right to confiscation, which they said arose at once from the vessel's presence at a Fort, and the Consul at the first investigation gave in his adhesion to this view of the matter, so that it was not cured for.
(Signed) Edward M. Tottard.
Sub. 3d 1867