། ། ། །
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
19
C.O.885
Reference :-
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
2
season. The claims may therefore properly embrace the value of the vessels, their equipment, and the loss of profits by reason of the interruption of the season of the year 1886; but if the claimants ask to be paid the value of their vessels, they cannot also claim the loss of profits during the succeeding seasons. On the other hand, if they make a claim for the profits which would have been earned during the seasons 1887 and 1888, they are not entitled to claim, at the same time, the full value of the vessels as in the year 1886.
If the claims are to be made on a basis of loss of profit they must be wholly re- modelled, and the capital items representing the full value of the ships in 1886 must be omitted, the only claim admissible being one for deterioration in value by reason of the detention and want of repair of the vessels as compared with the estimated deterioration that would have taken place in the usual course of the voyages up to the 5th September 1887, when it appears that the vessels were actually released.
In order to sustain any claim for estimated loss of profits during 1888, it would have to be shown that it was not reasonably possible to refit and equip vessels only released on the 5th September 1887 so that they might be used during any part of the season
of 1888.
We see no
Turning now to the particular claim for each vessel, we fine the revised claim of the "Thornton" set out on page 142 of the further correspondence 1887. objection to the items of Exhibit A. making up 814,101, subject to proper verification of the items and amounts, and the production of vouchers, and to what we say below as to the charge of $7 per skin.
As to the amount of $2,250 claimed under Exhibit C., there is no objection in principle to the claim, assuming that the expenses were incurred directly in consequence of the seizure, and are properly vouched.
With regard to the items in Exhibit D., the owners are entitled to some amount in respect of the estimated previous profits of the seal catch of 1886, but we are unable to judge from the accounts, as made out, whether the proper allowance has been made for expenses. The skins are charged in this exhibit, as well as in exhibits A. and E., at 87 each, but it is quite clear that very considerable expense would have been incurred before the owners of the vessel would have been in a position to realize the value of the skins, and, though the objection is to a certain extent met by the memorandum on page 143, we think the deduction should be made to appear clearly on the face of the claim.
As to Exhibit E., it is clear that some amount of interest may be claimed, but its exact amount must depend on the particular items of the other exhibits as sent in, and this applies to the case of all three vessels.
The particulars of the next claim, that of the
Carolina," appear as revised on
page 138 of the further correspondence. To the items making up the sum of $14,161, in Exhibit A., we see no objection, subject to the same reservation as mentioned in the case of the Thornton," and the same remark applies to $1,500 claimed in Exhibit C.
44
Exhibit D. will also have to be amended by allowing for the expenses which would have been incurred before the skins could have been actually brought into the market, and we notice that this is not met in the case of the "Carolina," as, to some extent, it is in the case of the other two vessels by any memorandum, though the amount is given of some of the expenses in Exhibit F.
44
Dealing on the same principles with the particulars of the claim in the case of the Onward," which appear on page 4 of the further correspondence 1888, we see no objection to Exhibit A., though we notice that the fines imposed on the captain and mate are included, which is not done in the other cases. We think it is an expense which may properly be claimed unless it is included, as we should expect it to be, in Exhibit C.
The other exhibits, which are in identical form with those in the case of the *Carolina," call for no further remarks than those we have already made on that
case.
With regard to the vessels "W. P. Sayward," "Grace," "Anna Beck," "Dolphin," "Alfred Adams," and "Ada," seized in the Behring's Sea during the season of 1887. upon the facts before us, these seizures were entirely unwarranted, and the claims for compensation should be pressed.
·
In respect of the Schooner Favorite," which was warned to cease operations under threat of seizure, the simple question is whether the threat was intended to be put in force, and whether she bonâ fide ceased to fish in consequence.
3
We have little doubt that both these questions would be answered in her favour, and in her case also a claim should be pressed, though the measure of damages will be different from that in the case of the other vessels, and would, in the absence of special circumstances, be the actual loss occasioned by reason of the interruption of the fishing.
We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
&c.
}
Page 60Page 61
9214/92. (2.)
J
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
61
C.O.
Reference :-
885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
MY LORD,
No. 114A.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, March 14, 1888. WB were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Julian Pauncefote's letter of the 22nd ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us, and in connection with the papers relative to the same subject which were referred to us on the 30th January for our Report, a Memorandum of a further verbal communication made by Prince Ratibor, on behalf of the German Imperial Government, to your Lordship on the 9th February last.
That your Lordship understood the alternative suggestion thus made by Prince Ratibor, and embodied in the Memorandum, to amount practically to a proposition that Her Majesty's Government should agree to extend the operation of the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and Germany to fugitives from German Protectorates who might take refuge in any part of the British dominions, in which latter category, however, it was clearly understood that the Protectorates of Her Majesty could not be included.
That the Extradition Treaty now in force between Great Britain and Germany only applied (see Article I. thereof) to " persons who, being accused or convicted of a crime "committed in the territory of the one party shall be found within the territory of the "other party;" and that the German Imperial Government had on former occasions specifically stated to that of Her Britannic Majesty that although the Emperor of Germany possessed, in their view, suzerainty over his Protectorates (and consequently, as would no doubt be held, jurisdiction therein for purposes of extradition), the Protectorates themselves were not regarded as being German territory ("Gebiete") in the sense in which that term would be applicable to the integral portions of the German Empire.
That the nature and extent of the suzerainty over, and jurisdiction within, the State- protected territories of the Empire claimed by the German Government might conveniently be gathered from the following documents, to which Sir Julian Paunce- fote was especially to direct our attention :-
1. Mr. Scott's No. 315 of the 10th August 1886, and inclosed Memorandum.
2. Count Hatzfeldt's note verbale of the 1st September 1886.
3. Sir E. Malet's No. 344 of the 14th September 1887, and inclosed Memorandum. That it would appear to be impossible, without some modification or extension of the wording of Article I. of the Treaty above alluded to by Agreement between the High Contracting Parties, to carry out the desire of the Imperial Gorman Government. That there were, however, at least two precedents to be found in Extradition Treaties at present in force for the employment of a more comprehensive form of wording, which, if, having regard to the legal and political considerations involved, it were thought otherwise open to no objection, might probably meet the exigencies of the present case.
That by Article X. of the Ashburton Troaty between Great Britain and the United States of the 9th August 1842, provision was made for the extradition of persons who, being charged with the commission of certain offences therein mentioned within the jurisdiction of the one Contracting Party, should be found within the territories of the other party.
That immediately after the passing of "the Extradition Act, 1870," a General Draft Treaty was drawn up in consultation with the then Law Officers of the Crown for communication to foreign. Governments.
That Article 1 of that General Draft was worded as follows:- "It is agreed that Her Britannic Majesty
shall, on requisition made in their name by their respective Diplomatic Agents, deliver up to each other reciprocally any persons, except native subjects of the party upon whom the requisition may be made, who, being accused or convicted of any of the crimes herein-after specified. committed within the jurisdiction of the requiring party, shall be found within the territories of the other party,
• 74779.-20. 25.-6/13.