CO885-(13-15) — Page 373

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PEPERNIC.O. 885

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

ཅ་ ་་་པ་་་ ་་་་

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

2

The facts of the case have formed the subject of strong comment on the part of the Canadian Government, as will be seen from the Colonial Office letter of the 8th May 1894 (Paper E).

They maintain that there is no evidence of a breach of the Anglo Russian Agreement; they point out that the "Worlock" had taken no seals, but openly entered the Russian port of Petropaulovsk with a clearance, seeking repairs, fuel, and water, in the enjoy- ment of rights for this object specially reserved under Article VI. of the Agreement, and they urge that, in view of the danger to British shipping of such interference on the part of the Russian authorities, a strong representation should be addressed to that Government on the subject.

The question therefore arises whether in all the circumstances of the case, Her Majesty's Government are justified in making such a representation as that desired by the Dominion Government, or whether they ought to refuse so. to do.

Should you be of the former opinion, Lord Kimberley would be glad to be informed upon what specific grounds a representation to the general effect desired might, from a legal point of view, most advantageously be based.

Should you, on the other hand, incline to the latter view, his Lordship would wish to be favoured with your suggestions as to the reasons which might most properly be assigned in support of a refusal to intervene in the matter.

1 am to request that you will take the papers transmitted herewith into your con- sideration, and that you will favour the Earl of Kimberley with your opinion on the questions specially submitted in this letter, as well as with any observations of a more general character which you may be disposed to offer on the case.

I am, &c.

(Signed) H. PERCY ANDERSON.

We have considered the question submitted to us in Sir H. Percy Ander son's letter of the 17th ultimo, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report-

That, in our opinion, Her Majesty's Government would not be justified in making such a representation as that desired by the Dominion Government, and that they ought to refuse to do so.

Among the reasons which might properly be assigned in support of the refusal to intervene in the matter, the following appear to us to be the most important:-

Under sub-section 4 of the 1st section of "The Seal Fishery (North Pacific) Act, 1893," a ship, or any portion of her equipment, may be detained if, in the judgment of the naval officer, the ship is preparing to be used in contravention of the Act, and under sub-section 6 of the same section, the fact of the ship being found having on board fishing and shooting implements within the specified waters is sufficient to constitute a prima facie case against her. The signed protocol, the accuracy of which is not impeached by the master, contains what appears to us a very suspicious statement of facts on the part of the master, and shows, among other things, that the log-book was not in order, that an unsatisfactory account was given of the two nets, that there was no apparent object of legitimate trading, and that the master himself proposed to go to Yokohama, though his reason for going there appears not to be satisfactory. If, in addition, the statement, in the opinion of the Commission, that appears from the ship's documents that her coming to Petropaulovsk was already decided upon in Victoria is to be taken as accurate, there would be a further strong reason for suspecting the whole story told by the master. That story is not of such a nature that the Russian authorities were bound to accept it.

it

We may add, though only as a warning to Her Majesty's Government, that it may be questionable whether the action of Her Majesty's Consul at Yokohama in not bringing the vessel to trial was in strict accordance with Clause 3 of M. Chichkino's letter of the 10th May 1893.

We consider the circumstances of this case so exceptional that the apprehensions of the Canadian Privy Council of danger arising from it to legitimate British enterprise in the Pacific are not well founded.

Royal Courts of Justice,

June 9, 1894.

We have, &c. (Signed)

JOHN RIGBY.

R. T. REID.

3

List of Papers.

(A.) Mr. de Bunsen, No. 129.

(B.) "Russia No. 1 (1893)."

(C.)

"Seal Fishery (North Pacific) Order in Council, 1893." (D.) Seal Fishery (North Pacific) Act, 1893." (E.) Colonial Office, May 8, 1893.

}