ותחרור
RELURU OFFICE
Reference :-
TILLC.O. 885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
2
Having regard to the doubts which have been raised and the questions which arise from the confirmation of the Queensland Act by the Order in Council of the 17th May 1888, it would, in our opinion, be prudent to pass an Imperial Statute giving Her Majesty power by Order in Council to place any British Settlement under the control or guidance of the Governor of any adjacent or neighbouring British Possession, and at the same time declaring valid the instruments in the present case, so as to remove any doubts upon the point.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
·
24,600.
MY LORD,
No. 132.
(CANADA.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, November 28, 1888. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir Julian Pauncefote's letter of the 3rd instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the enclosed Report, dated the 7th July last, of a Committee of the Canadian Privy Council upon the present position of the cases of the Canadian sealing- schooners which had been seized from time to time by the United States authorities in Behring's Sea.
That other papers and correspondence bearing on the same subject were also enclosed,* and amongst them Sir Julian Pauncefote was to direct our more particular attention to the following documents :—
1. Colonial Office letter of the 20th October, and Memorandum thereon, dated the 23rd October, by the Honourable F. Bertie, of the Foreign Office;
2. The Report on the question with which we favoured your Lordship on the 20th August of last year, Confidential No. 5597, p. 97; and
3. The instructions, based on that Report, which were subsequently forwarded to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington. (To Sir L. West, 10th September 1887.)
That the contents of that despatch were duly communicated by Her Majesty's Minister to the United States Government on the 23rd September 1887 (see Sir L. West's No. 272, of the 23rd September 1887).
That it was not, however, considered by Her Majesty's Government expedient during the pendency of the Fisheries Conference at Washington, which began its sittings shortly afterwards, to press the question more urgently upon the attention of the Government of the Tnited States, and that in fact no detailed reply to those representations had as yet been received from them.
That it was considered, moreover, that it would be impolitic to take action in the matter until the Presidential and general elections, which were then any further imminent, in the United States, were concluded, but that it would thereafter become necessary to decide what further representations (if any) should be made.
That it was suggested in the Minute of the Dominion Privy Council that the owners of the vessels scized should not be compelled to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States against the decisions of the State Tribunals, but that diplomatic redress should alone and at once be resorted to.
That it was, moreover, pointed out that some doubts existed as to whether such appeals would lie, and that the giving of bonds to secure the release of the vessels might involve an admission of the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States in the matter, while it was of course contended that, inasmuch as the seizures in question took place upon the high seas, those Courts could have no such jurisdiction.
That it was thought possible that if those appeals were not prosecuted to the final tribunals, the United States' Government might attempt to put forward the contention that the owners had a legal remedy in those courts which they neglected to seek, and that they had thus forfeited their right to diplomatic intervention.
That, on the other hand, it was conceived that the position which Her Majesty's Government could properly take up with respect to such a contention would be that they, as a Government, were not concerned with nor bound by the steps either taken, or neglected to be taken, by the owners as private individuals; but that, as a Govern- ment, they were entitled to demand, and "did demand, reparation for the violation of their flag upon the high seas, which was an international claim, and, as such, only capable of vindication and adjustment through diplomatic channels.
That Sir Julian Pauncefoto was to request that we would take the Minute of the Canadian Privy Council of the 7th July into our consideration, together with the other papers transmitted with his letter, and that we would favour your Lordship
* Confidential Print, 1886, No. 5438; 1887, No. 5559; 1888, No.
A 52950,-38. 25-12/88.
2