PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TTIC.O. 885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
4
1. is submitted that the words "disposed of for Her Majesty's service" mean only a conveyance as contemplated in the preamble, i.e., a conveyance by the officers of the Ordnance to such other public officer as may be indicated by Order in Council. As the grantor had vested the estate for ever in the Ordnance, it was necessary to insert words giving to the grantee the power of passing it to another Department; hence the worde
disposed of for Her Majesty's service."
If it is possible to construe the words as contended for the War Department, it is also possible to construe them as we contend. Then the construction which would defeat the manifest intention of the grantor must be rejected, and that which gives effect to the intention must be adopted.
It is sufficient to show that under the grant there is no power to sell to a private person; but it may be added that if it is held no such right exists, then the Colonial Government has strong equitable grounds for claiming restitution of the property. The land was vested in the Queen as part of Her Colonial Domain, for the benefit of her subjects in this Colony. It is no longer required for the service for which, it was granted, and the taxpayers of the United Kingdom should not benefit by it any more than the taxpayers of this Colony benefit by the sale of Crown lands in the United Kingdom.
September 16, 1886.
(Signed)
LIONEL COX, Procureur-General.
The Law Officers of the Crown are requested to advise the Secretary of State for
War-
1. Whether the sale to Mr. Pouguet of the old military hospital, Port Louis, has . been legally effected? And if not
2. What course should be taken by the Secretary of State as to the application of the proceeds of sale, having reference to his claim to be reimbursed sums expended by him in maintaining and improving the property?
Opinion.
1. In our opinion the sale to Mr. Pouguet of the old military hospital at Port Louis has not been legally effected.
2. The Secretary of State should endeavour to make some arrangement as to the proceeds of sale with the Colonial Government. He has no legal claim to be re- imbursed any sums expended by him in maintenance and improvement; but as to the latter (viz., the sums expended in improvement) he has a fair ground for consideration.
Royal Courts of Justice,
December 8, 1886.
(Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
1162/94.
No. 814.
(JAMAICA.)
L
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE. MY LORD,
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir J. Pauncefote's
Royal Courts of Justice, January 18, 1887. letter of the 21st ultimo, stating that he was to transmit to us papers relating to the case of the British vessel
Natalie." That that vessel, laden with a cargo of guano from the Pedro Cays, a bank situated some 40 miles to the south of Jamaica, was seized by the United States authorities at Norfolk, Virginia, for an alleged breach of the United States navigation laws, on the ground that those cays were part of the territory of the United States of America.
That she was, however, subsequently released, and that her owners, Messrs. Elliott and Fanning, who were British subjects resident in Nova Scotia, were now putting forward a claim for compensation, in which they requested the support of Her Majesty's Government.
That it should be mentioned that Messrs. Cordova and Co., the charterers of the "Natalie" and owners of her cargo, originally invoked the assistance of Her Majesty's Government in support of a claim for damages which they, in those capacities, had made upon the United States Government, but that Her Majesty's Government had declined to afford them support in its prosecution, on the ground that they were American citizens and not British subjects.
That our attention was specially invited to Mr. West's Despatch No. 269, Com- mercial, of the 27th November, 1885, reporting the seizure of the "Natalie," and to Sir E. Hertslet's Memorandum of the 11th December 1884, on the right of sovereignty claimed by the Crown over the Pedro Cays; and that Sir J. Pauncefote was also further to add that those cays had, as a matter of fact, been in the actual possession of Great Britain for 22 years, having been occupied during that time by lessees from the Crown, who had paid royalties to the Crown.
That Sir J. Pauncefote requested that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to (1) whether the right of Great Britain to the possession of the Pedro Cays was in any way open to question; and (2) if not, whether a claim could properly be made by Her Majesty's Government against the Government of the United States on behalf of Mossrs. Elliot and Fanning for such an amount as might, on further inquiry, be considered reasonable to compensate them for the seizuro and detention of their vessel under the circumstances already detailed.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report-
That, upon the facts laid before us, the right of Great Britain to the possession of the Pedro Cays is not, in our opinion, open to question, and that Her Majesty's Government can properly sustain the claim of Messrs. Elliott and Fanning against the United States Government in respect of the wrongful seizure and detention of the "Natalie."
But before putting forward the claims for compensation made by the owners of the "Natalie," we respectfully suggest that the United States Government should be asked to state on what grounds they consider the. Guano Islands, Pedro Cays, and Morant Cays to appertain to the United States, those islands having been taken possession of by Her Majesty's Government in 1862 and 1863.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE,
J. PARKER DEANE.
The Most Hon. the Marquess of Salisbury,
&c.
O
79871.-3.
&c.
&c.
List of Papers.
Mr. West, No. 269, November 27, 1884.
"
No. 19, Telegraphic, November 28, 1884.
To Mr. West, No. 221, November 29, 1884. Mr. West, No. 272, December 1, 1884.
25.-3/94.