PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
חזיו
6
Reference :-
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
the assumption of the so-called Protectorate has been acquiesced in by France which has interests in the adjoining territory, and by the Alcaides themselves, (4) that the British Government has interfered by its Commissioners in the Government and for the good order of the territory, (5) that this interference has been acquiesced in by the Alcaides and in particular by the Alcaide of the locus in quo, Swarra Kunda.
When to these facts are added the further facts (stated in Mr. Llewelyn's telegram of the 8th March 1894) that the inhabitants of Swarra Kunda regard Her Majesty as their Sovereign, and that the Alcaide has himself invoked the authority of Her representives-we are of opinion that the Secretary of State will be justified in considering these facts as establishing that Her Majesty has de facto jurisdiction in the territory and over the matter in question within the meaning of the Statute of 1890, and that the Supreme Court of Gambia may try the native in question.
This opinion sufficiently explains the nature of the reply proper, in our judgment, to be addressed to Mr. Llewelyn.
The Most Hon.
The Marquess of Ripon,
&c
&c. &c.
We have, &c. (Signed)
C. RUSSELL.
JOHN RIGBY,
5164.
GENTLEMEN,
No. 55.
(CANADA.)
FOREIGN OFFICE to LAW OFFICERS.
I HAVE the honour to transmit to you, by direction of the Earl of Rosebery, the
Foreign Office, March 8, 1894. further papers noted in the accompanying list which relate to the seizure of the British ship "Coquitlan" at Port Etches in 1892, for an alleged breach of the United States' revenue laws.
The case has already received the consideration-of yourselves or of your predecessors in office on four occasions, and the Reports then given on the questions raised are enclosed. (See papers A, B, C, and D.) The papers which accompanied the references on each occasion are also sent herewith in case you should find it necessary further to consult any of them, and they have been placed, for convenience of reference, in a separate bag.
The last occasion upon which you reported on this subject was the 18th March 1893, and upon the 24th April of the same year a note was presented by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to the United States' Government, following generally the terms recommended in your Report. A copy of this note is enclosed in Sir J. Pauncefote's despatch No. 109 of the 4th May (paper E).
On the 20th September the, Colonial Office forwarded a petition from the owners' solicitor, suggesting that, if an adverse decision were given in the United States' Court, the United States Government might be approached with a view to obtain the imposition of a personal penalty on the master in place of the forfeiture of the vessel.
Such a course was, however, considered inexpedient at that time, as it might have been construed as tantamount to an admission that the vessel had committed an offence cognizable in the United States' Courts; but Sir J. Pauncefote was authorised, in the event of the vessel being condemned and her forfeiture decreed, to apply for a mitigation of the penalty as desired by the owners, but without prejudice to the diplomatic claim for redress which had been already made.
The case meanwhile pursued its natural course, and was in due time tried at Sitka, in the District Court of Alaska, where judgment was recorded against the vessel in November last, and the' owners, in discharge of their obligation under the bail bonds into which they had entered, offered to deliver the vessel to the United States' authorities. This was reported to Lord Rosebery by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and at his instance Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was informed of the facts, and instructed, by telegraph (paper marked F), to endeavour to stop the sale of the vessel and to procure her return to her owners pending a diplomatic settlement of the question.
The owners were at the same time warned, through the Canadian Government, not to lose their right of appeal against the judgment of the Court.
In reply, Sir J. Pauncefote reported in his despatch No. 231 (paper G), that he had, on receipt of the telegraphic instructions above referred to, reminded the United States' Government that he had received no reply to his communication of the 24th April, and had pressed strongly that the vessel should be delivered back to her owners pending the result of the diplomatic discussion. He had, moreover, added that there was no dispute about the facts, and that he felt sure Mr. Gresham would conclude after examination that there could be no dispute about the law. Mr. Gresham, on his part, had expressed regret at the delay which had taken place in answering the note of the 24th April, and had promised an early decision. the desirability of preventing any action such as the sale of the ship, but thought it He (Mr. Gresham) concurred in would be very satisfactory if the owners would appeal to the Supreme Court with a view of obtaining a judgment which would accelerate the action of the Executive, and would be conclusive for the future in all cases of a similar kind.
A copy of the judgment of the Court at Sitka is enclosed in the Colonial Office letter of the 21st December (paper H).
It will be seen that the decree for the forfeiture of the ship is based on the finding that she had violated certain provisions of the United States' Customs Act in transferring cargo within the 12-mile limit (so called) of the coast without having reported or
79871.-12. 25.-4/94.