PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
9
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
I will now proceed to consider the individual cases.
The "Ariel."
In this case the liability for the seizure is admitted by the Russian Government. The claim, which is to be found at p. 22 of the Blue Book Č. 7028, appears to be made out upon the proper principle. Following out, however, what I have suggested, if the claim for 18,746 dollars or a corresponding amount for similar items stands, interest should be charged thereon, and a figure inserted for the loss of the use of the schooner during the season of 1892. It would be inconsistent with a laim for the total value and interest thereon from 1892 to claim for the loss of the use of the schooner in subsequent seasons, and if a claim for loss of sealing during the season is made, loss of provisions, ammunition, and stores cannot be claimed as well. I do not know upon what principle the amounts have been reduced in the Colonial Office estimates, nor why the outfit of the schooner has been excluded, but, of course, in any settlement there will have to be a considerable reduction in the gross amount. The wages of the crew cannot be claimed, as they would have been expended in any event.
The "Willie McGowan."
The claim in this case, C. 7028, pp. 31 and 102, is made out upon the right principle, except that the item 1,000 dollars for stock of provisions, &c., cannot be claimed if the item for loss of the employment of the vessel is claimed, and I should think the claims for seal-skins would have to be reduced. The observations I have already made in the case of the "Ariel" apply to this case.
The "Maria."
In this case the claim should, I think, at present be pressed, but at the same time I must add that I regard the story of the "Maria as very suspicious. The fact that her log-book had not been kept for four days, and that the vessel had obviously been for some time, in the proximity of the islands, lends strong colour to the suggestion of the Russian Government that her boats had been sealing in territorial waters. I agree. however, with the remarks of the Colonial Office that nothing but a judicial investigation will elicit the truth. The claim is made out upon a right basis, except that the figures are round figures, and, I should think, excessive, and they should be considerably reduced. The estimate of 1,200 sking is obviously excessive, and a lump sum of 6,C00 dollars for outfit is unsatisfactory. The owner ought certainly to give further particulars as to how these figures are arrived at, especially in view of the suspicion which attaches to this case.
"Rosie Olsen."
I regard this case also as one of very great suspicion, if it be true that the ship's log had not been kept for several days. I agree, however, with the Colonial Office criticisms, and think that the case cannot, at any rate at present, be withdrawn. As regards the claim, it is made out upon a right basis, but the estimate of the catch is obviously greatly exaggerated, and the items provisions, ammunition, slop-chest, com- passes, &c., appear to be very exaggerated, and cannot be claimed with the last item.
The "
Carmolite."
In my opinion this case cannot ultimately be pressed. If the master's story is true that she was well out of sight of territorial waters when sighted by the "Vitiaz," I can see no reason why he should have sot sail and stood to the eastward. The Canadian statement admits that the vessel was sailing away to the eastward for an hour and a-half. I have little doubt myself that the boats of the "Carmolite territorial waters. As regards the claim, the value of the schooner and the amount of "had been sealing within the season's catch seem very exaggerated, and the amount claimed for the stock of provisions must be excluded if a claim is made for the use of the schooner during the season. I think, however, that it may not be possible ultimately to press this case. The same observations apply as in previous cases as regards the non-posting of the log-book.
3
Vancouver Bello."
This case should, at present at any rate, be pressed, though the evidence as to the distance of the vessel and her boats from the islands is not satisfactory, and it is to be noted that when the smoke of the cruiser was first seen a signal was given to summon the boats, which was unnecessary if they were well outside territorial waters. I however, that the Russian statements are not altogether satisfactory. The figures of agree, the claim are obviously very exaggerated, and the item of 10,000 dollars, including the loss of the ship for the year 1893, cannot be pressed in its entirety if the value of the ship and interest is claimed.
"W. P. Sayward.”
Unless some satisfactory evidence can be obtained from the boats that they were outside the 3-mile limit, I do not think this claim should be pressed.
"E. B. Marvin.” "Annie Moore."
Upon the facts before me neither of these claims can be pressed.
L
“ C. H. Tupper."
I agree entirely with the observations made by Mr. Anderson that a claim for 10,500 dollars cannot be supported, the vessel not having been interfered with until the 10th August. Assuming, however, that there is satisfactory evidence that the vessel did abandon sealing solely by reason of the interference of the Russian cruiser, a moderate claim should be pressed.
"W. P. Hall.”
The same remarks apply in the case of the " W. P. Hall."
With regard to all the above cases, in the absence of a settlement, both as to the merits and as to the items, it is in my judgment of extreme importance that some Joint Commission should be appointed which can investigate the facts.
+
To the Most Hon. The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G., &c.
I have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.