·| 2 | 3 | 4 |
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
This agreed statement was unanimously adopted by the Tribunal.
In the face of these facts, it is, in our opinion, not only undesirable but improper to alter the second paragraph of Article III. in the way proposed.
As regards the alteration of the words "in the Award of" to "by," we think these words should be retained, as the Award is the only authentie record of the questions determined by the Tribunal.
+
The proposal to substitute the words "shall have the right" for the words “it shall be open" to the United States Government "if it thinks fit," is not material, though we think here also it is better to follow the words of the Award.
3rd paragraph. The alteration in the 3rd paragraph is not material, and may be agreed to if it be thought desirable.
Schedule. We have already dealt with.
The Most Hon. the Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
5947.
MY LORD,
No. 105.
(CANADA.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, March 12, 1896. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir T. Sanderson's letter of the 3rd instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers relating to the seizures of certain British vessels by United States cruisers in Behring Sea.
That
your Lordship requested that we would take the matter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether, in the circumstances mentioned, the condemnation of the "Shelby," her equipment, and everything on board of her, and the proceeds thereof, in the sum of 1001. and the costs of the prosecution was legally sustainable, and, if not, what action Her Majesty's Government should take in the event of an appeal against the conviction being carried to the Supreme Court by the owners of the " "Shelby.'
"
In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report-
That the only evidence tending directly to show that the offence had been committed in the case of the "Shelby" is that of Lorensen, who states that the skins appeared to him to be "fresh-salted" and bloody. This evidence is in itself of very little value, and is opposed to the evidence of several witnesses who swear that there had been no seal-hunting since the 30th April.
But there is strong evidence to show that the vessel could not have been where she was seized on the 11th May if she had ceased hunting on the 30th April and started for Victoria. It appears to us that it is extremely probable that this can be accounted for only on the supposition that the vessel was not coming straight back, but was engaging in digressions in search of seals. The excuses made by the mate are utterly futile, and seem only to cast doubt on his denial of seal-hunting after the 30th April.
It is certainly a most suspicious circumstance that the master was not called; the excuse for not calling him is not satisfactory, and we should have expected, if, the defence was a good one, that an adjournment would have been asked for to call him, especially after the extraordinary evidence of the mate.
The judgment certainly cannot be supported on the ground put in the first place by the learned Judge; it is quite clear that the statutory presumption created by section 1, subsection 6, of the Act of 1893, has no application whatever to this case.
But it does appear that the vessel had been hanging about in the waters closed to hunting after the 1st May; the master is not called, and the mate's explanations are falsehoods. What was she doing there if not pursuing seals?
We, on the whole, think that the conviction was right, but the evidence is of such a nature that it is impossible to feel any confidence as to the result of the appeal. especially having regard to the fact that the Judge has in part based his conclusion on a ground of law which cannot be supported.
We do not advise that the fine should be remitted; we believe it to have been rightly inflicted, and we think that the owner ought to be left to his remedy by appeal if he is so advised.
The Most Hon, the Marquess of Salisbury,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
ROBERT B. FINLAY.
Ser Award. p. 14
of C. 7117, Vol. in
p. 83.
(
0
90536.-15.
25.--9/96.
*