CO885-(13-15) — Page 320

8767.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

།?། ། ། ། །

ساسيتانيييييي

Reference :-

C.O.

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

No. 32A.

CANADA.

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE,

Royal Courts of Justice, MY LORD,

March 18, 1893. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter of the 15th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the further papers noted in the accompanying list relative to the seizure of the British steamship Coquitlan," at Port Etches, for an alleged breach of the United States Revenue Laws.

That it would be seen from Sir Julian Pauncefoto's despatches Nos. 20 and 24 of the 16th and 20th January last that the United States Secretary of State declined to abandon the prosecution of the "Coquitlan," and to release that vessel, on the ground that the seizure was made in waters over which the laws of the United States for the protection of the revenues extended.

That those despatches were, in due course, referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that Lord Ripon, in his reply, observed that, whether the seizure was made within the territorial waters of the United States or not, the alleged offence was undoubtedly committed outside the three-mile limit. That his Lordship pointed out that in a note to Lord Ashburton of the Ist August 1842, Mr. Webster, then United States Secretary of State, laid it down in unqualified terms that "a vessel on the high seas beyond the distance of a marine league from the shore is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs, and subjected exclusively to the juris- diction of that nation; and that the same doctrine was declared in Mr. Seward's lespatch to Mr. Tassard of the 10th August 1863 (see Wharton's “ Digest," Vol. I., P. 103).

That, again, Mr. Fish, in his despatch to Sir E. Thornton of the 22nd January 1875, admitted that the Revenue Laws referred to by Mr. Foster were practically obsolete, and were not enforced against foreign vessels.

ZA

1

That Lord Ripon went on to suggest, for your Lordship's consideration, that the attention of the United States Government should be called to the papers cited above, and that they should be informed that Her Majesty's Government could not admit that the United States Laws referred to applied to British vessels beyond those ordinary limits to the territorial waters of a State which were recognised by the law of nations. and that they could not, therefore, admit any right on the part of the United States Courts to assume and exercise jurisdiction over the " Coquitlan" in the present case, and must hold the United States Government responsible for any loss or damage sustained by the owners of that vessel owing to the proceedings of the United States authorities.

That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to call our attention to our two previous reports upon the case of the 9th September and 18th December last, and to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with them, and that he was to add that your Lordship was disposed to agree with Lord Ripon that a further remonstrance in the terms of his Lordship's letter should be addressed to the United States Government, but that before taking any action in the matter your Lordship desired to be favoured with our opinion as to whether the proposed terms of that remonstrance were right and proper in the circumstance, or whether, on the other hand, they might, from a legal point of view, be altered or modified with advantage, and, if so, in what manner, ani

to what extent.

That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to add that it appeared to your Lordship that the action of the United States Government in the case of the "Henrietta," which was also referred to us on the 15th instant, had a material bearing on the present case, and that, although for purposes of diplomatic representation, it would be better to keep the correspondence between the two Governments separate and distinct with regard to cach case, it might be convenient for us to have both sets of papers under our con- sideration at the same time, inasmuch as the questions of law raised in both cases were, to a great extent, analogous,

o 74772.-24.

25.-7/93.