24,085.
No. 196.
(CANADA.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
HEPLEC.O. 885
חרון
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
Royal Courts of Justice,
December 5, 1890.
Cont. Print,
No. 498 (1896).
Do No. 5880 (1887). Do..
MY LORD,
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir P. Currie's letter of the 27th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted in the margin, relative to the question of the seizures by the Authorities of the United States of America of certain British vessels when engaged No.(). in seal fishing in Behring's Sea.
No. 578 (1899).
(1800). Bir 3. Pauncefote,
That that question had been referred on previous occasions to the Law Officers of No. 141 7th Nor the Crown, whose reports on the points submitted to them were dated August 20, 1887, July 17, and November 28, 1888, October 1, 1889, May 27, August 1 and 18, 1890.
That among the British vessels so dealt with in 1887 was the "W. P. Sayward” of Victoria, captured by the United States revenue cruiser "Rush," and sent to Sitka for trial before the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska (from Admiralty September 5, 1887; from Colonial Office September 15, 1887; from Sir L. West, February 3, 1888).
That claims for compensation were advanced by the owners of the vessel, together with a statement of the circumstances under which the capture was made, particulars
of which would be found in enclosures 5, 6, and 7 of a letter from the Colonial Office dated January 23, 1888. Sir Julian Pauncefote, Her Majesty's representative at Washington, in his despatch That a revised statement of those claims was sent home by No. 110 of August 6, 1890.
That on the 25th of July 1888, a letter was received from the Colonial Office reporting that the " W. P. Sayward" had been released under bond; that that bond was granted on condition that an appeal should be prosecuted from the Alaska District Court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That, in reply to an inquiry addressed to him, Sir J. Pauncefote reported on the 20th April 1889, that the record of appeal was filed on the 30th of October 1888, but that the case would not be reached for about three years.
That Mr. Edwardes, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, having been instructed to ascertain the views of Mr. C. Carlisle, the legal adviser of the British Legation, as to what steps might be taken to obtain an early hearing of the case, reported the result of his inquiries on that point in his despatches Nos. 172, 173, 178, and 180 of September 2nd and 23rd 1889.
That a transcript of record, in the case of the would be found in Mr. Edwarde's despatch No. 177 of September 19th 1889.
W. P. Sayward v. United States," That Mr. Carlisle having now been consulted as to the possibility of obtaining, within a shorter period, a decision of the Supreme Court on the question of law raised by the appeal, had reported that in his opinion the Supreme Court had no power to entertain an appeal from the District Court of Alaska, and that that opinion appeared to be shared by many other competent persons, including Mr. Senator Ingalls, who actually introduced a Bill into the Senate for the purpose of amending that supposed defect in the administration of justice.
That Mr. Carlisle, however, recommended as the best course for the owners of the vessel in question to pursue, that they should move the Supreme Court at once to advance their appeal. That if the motion should be successful, the hearing of the appeal would come on immediately, and the Court would either dismiss the appeal for want of power to entertain it, or would decide the question of law involved. That in the former case application should, in Mr. Carlisle's opinion, be made at once for a writ of prohibition, which would raise the question of law forthwith and in a safer and more convenient form than on the appeal. That if, however, the Supreme Court should refuse the motion to advance the appeal, Mr. Carlisle recommended that the appeal should be withdrawn in order to allow of an application for a writ of prohibition being made forthwith. (See Sir J. Pauncefote, No. 143 of November 7, 1890.)
That Sir P. Currie was to request that we would take the papers transmitted with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether the course recommended by Mr. C. Carlisle was one which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, might advantageously be followed, and that he was to add that your Lordship would, at the same time, be glad to be
a 61207.-32. 25-12/90-