PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PEC.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
manner in which the search was conducted.
2
These two officers state, moreover, that the men who command the sealing-schooners are most anxious to carry out all regula- tions to the letter
Her Majesty's Government have also been informed that the United States naval officers considered themselves authorised by their instructions to board indiscriminately all British sealers.
Your Excellency will observe from the foregoing summary that the complaints of the sealing-vessels against the United States revenue-cruisers belong to three different categories:-
1. The seizure of vessels for alleged offences on evidence, obviously insufficient.
2. The exercise of the right of search in cases where no suspicion exists as to an offence having been committed.
3. Vexatious and inquisitorial interference.
With regard to the question of seizure, it was pointed out in a telegram, No. 58, from the Earl of Kimberley to your Excellency of the 28th April, 1894, and it has since been notified to the United States Government on several occasions, that the United States cruisers are only empowered by the British Order in Council to seize British vessels contravening the provisions of the British Act of Parliament, which contains no provision similar to section 10 of the United States Act, and that the United States naval officers have therefore no power to seize British vessels merely on the ground that they have sealing apparatus or implements on board. The British Act of Parliament only gives a power to seize where an offence has been committed, and the Order in Council authorises the seizure and detention of any British vessel which has become liable to be forfeited. Even by the United States Law, no general power is conferred to board and search vessels without specific grounds of suspicion. I have already requested 'your Excellency, in my Despatch, No. 157, of the 27th September last, to inform the United States Government that British naval officers will in future decline to take over any British vessel seized by an American cruiser unless the declaration alleges a specific offence which is a contravention of the British Act of Parliament.
There appears to have been some misconception on the part of the United States naval officers, who have attempted to apply United States law to British vessels, as is shown by the clearance certificate granted to the " E. B. Marvin " by Lieutenant Carmine, United States navy, in which the Proclamation of the President and the United States Regulations are quoted. A copy of this certificate is enclosed the Admiralty letter of
the 21st November. It should be brought to the notice of the United States Govern- ment, with the request that the naval officers may be informed that their powers, as far as British vessels are concerned, exist solely in virtue of the British Act of Parliament, and the Order in Council issued under it, and are restricted within the limits of the provisions by which those powers are therein defined.
The exercise of the right of search is likewise subject to restrictions.
The Act of Parliament contains no section enabling an officer to stop and examine any vessel such as existed in the Seal Fishery Acts of 1891 and 1893. The Arbitration Award required that the offences specified in Articles T. and II. should be prohibited, but did not require any preventive action before the commission of the offence. If an officer has reasonable cause to suspect a vessel of having committed an offence, it is open to him to stop and examine her, but he is clearly not justified, in the absence of any specific ground for suspicion, in stopping and examining every vessel he meets as a purely precautionary or preventive measure.
In any case, the vexatious and uncalled-for interference reported during the past season gives just cause for complaint. Amongst the points agreed to by the Secretary of the Treasury with reference to the instructions to chc United States naval officers in May 1894 were the following
That the masters of the sealing-vessels should be protected from inquisitorial exami- nation; that no sealing-vessel should be seized by reason of the absence of a licence or of fishery implements being found on board; that the United States naval instruc- tions as to the mode of dealing with scaling-vessels should be similar to the British naval instructions; and that the naval officer who examines a sealing-vessel shall leave a certificate with her master for his protection against interference.
These provisions, which had special reference to the arrangement for sealing up arms in 1894, show the spirit in which the instructions for carrying out the Award were issued, and it is essential that an international agreement involving questions of so delicate a nature should be administered with mutual forbearance and moderation.
3
Hor Majesty's Government feel sure that it is not the intention or desire of the United States Government that men engaged in a perfectly legitimate occupation, who, according to both British and American reports, are most anxious to observe strictly the regulations imposed for public reasons on that occupation, should be treated as if they were continually engaged in trying to evade and break the law, and subjected to unnecessary loss and trouble. The right of searching British vessels was conferred on United States officers on the assumption that they would exercise their powers with the same consideration as would in like circumstances be shown to such vessels by Her Majesty's naval officers, and Her Majesty's Government have no doubt that, when the matter is brought to the notice of the United States Government, they will issue such orders as will put an end to an interference with British vessels on the high seas which has given rise to so many complaints, and which is not warranted by the provisions of Your Excellency will address a note to the United States Government in the sense of this Despatch, and make such further representations as you may deem advisable.
I am, &c.
British law.
SALISBURY.
i