C
MY LORD,
No. 89A.
(CANADA.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, August 2, 1895.
I was honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bertie's letter
and
of the 11th July,* transmitting the papers relating to the seizures of the British sealing- vessels "Wanderer" and "Favourite," by the United States' cruisers "Concord Mohican," for alleged infringement of "The Behring Sea Award Act of 1894." Mr. Bortie stated that he was to request me to inform your Lordship whether, having regard to the circumstances of the two cases as set forth in the papers submitted to the late Law Officers, I approved the terms of the proposed instruction to Viscount Gough, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, and whether the arguments contained in a despatch (Paper G) from the Department of State at Washington were such as should in any way modify the conclusions arrived at by the Earl of Kimberley, and, if so, to what extent.
Mr. Bertie further stated that, if I considered that there were no grounds for modifying these conclusions, your Lordship would be glad to learn what answer should be made to the United States' contention, that "additional breaches of the law could "be assigned and made the subject of condemnation proceedings at any time before
the trial.'
In obedience to your Lordship's commands, I have taken the consideration, and have the honour to
papers into
my
2
carriage of goods, or terminal charges within the meaning of the Agreement of 1889. I have not overlooked Clause 50 of that Agreement, but the inclusion of the wharf as part of the railway for railway purposes, so as to make it subject to Schedule 2, is not sufficient, in my opinion, to deprive the Government of the right to alter the law respecting the wharfage charges properly so-called. So far as the question is one for me I see no reason why the Governor should not assent to the law.
I have &c.
To the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c. Colonial Office.
&c.
&c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
16096.
Report-
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
LLC.O.8
885
That, in my opinion, the arguments contained in Attorney-General Olney's letter of the 18th June 1895 are not sufficient to necessitate any modification of the conclusions arrived at by the Earl of Kimberley.
Assuming a vessel to be seized upon the ground that there is reason to believe that a breach of the Act of 1894 has been committed, it would, in my opinion, be open to the seizing officers to support their claim to condemnation by evidence of an offence against the Act which had come to their knowledge subsequently to the seizure. It is possible that some mistake may have arisen owing to the fact that the Acts of 1891 and 1893 contained a provision as to onus of proof in the event of shooting implements being found on board ships (see section 1 (5) of Act of 1891, and section 1 (6) of Act of 1893). This provision was not re-enacted in the Act of 1894.
The possession of arms might in some circumstances be evidence of an offence under sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Act of 1894 if unaccounted for, or if coupled with other circumstances of a suspicious character.
He
It is, in my opinion, very undesirable that the Commander of a British vessel should take upon himself the responsibility of releasing vessels which have been seized and sent into his custody upon a charge of an offence against the Acts. most certainly should not do so without distinct notice to the United States' authorities. It is clearly intended that where a ship has been seized the merits should be investigated by the proper legal tribunal.
I annex a suggested reply to Mr. Attorney-General Olney's letter.
The Most Hon.
The Marquess of Salisbury,
&c.
&c.
I have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
U 85905.-19.
25.-9 95.
* Printed on p. 2.
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO