6362,
No. 86.
(CANADA.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR to COLONIAL OFFICE.
You
[The Report of the Law Officers leaves this case in an unsatisfactory state. will see that the reference to them, Foreign Office, March 18, 1895 (which rather prefers the case as against the Wanderer") states that the ship was seized for having an unsealed gun on board, and this is the ground alleged by the commander of the "Concord in his Declaration of Seizure (Enclosure 3 to Mr. Goschen's No. 224, November 21, 1894, 21263/94).
This is no offence against English law, though it appears to be so against American
law.
But the Law Officers say that this objection is technical if the officer did what he was justified by British law in doing, though he did it on erroneous grounds; and that, as hunting or pursuing seals would be a breach of the British Act, and as the ship, which was beating to windward (Enclosure 9 to 224), was under the same canvas as she generally used in dodging about for seals (Enclosure 6), the United States officer might reasonably think she was seal hunting, therefore we cannot claim compensation, especially as the Admiral released the ship without a decision of the Court upon the facts.
Sealing is not carried ou from the deck of a ship, and in this case part of the crew were below asleep (Enclosure 8 to 224) and the boats were on board, circumstances which the Law Officers do not mention, though they would seem to negative the suggestion that the fact of the ship being under a trysail was evidence that she was hunting.]
1 May,
J. B.
House of Lords, S.W.
The case is one of much difficulty, owing to the action of the person who concealed the gun and ammunition. He was in the employ of the owner of the vessel, and if the owner has sustained injury, the person chiefly to blame appears to me to be the servant he employed.
There was, I think, ample ground for suspecting that illegal seal hunting was in contemplation. Whether there was proof of an infraction of the law is another matter. The United States cruiser grounded the seizure on what was an offence against the United States law, but not an offence against British law (I presume this was so as it is so stated, though I have not before me the United States law said to be violated).
I think this affords fair ground for a representation to the United States Govern- ment, and that it may be inexpedient to treat a seizure on such a ground as free from objection. The United States Government may no doubt answer that, apart from this, there was sufficient justification for the seizure. seem desirable, if they do so, not to press the matter further.
And it might, of course, which I suggest appears worthy of consideration. The Canadian Government would At all events the course be sure to take grave exception, in view of the ground upon which the seizure was based, to no steps being taken. The point that there was other justification for the action of the United States cruiser had better come from the United States Government than from ourselves.
May 29, 1895.
0
85965.-12.
25.--6,95.
* No. 82.
H.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O. 885
Reference :-
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO