CO885-(13-15) — Page 38

། ཟ། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

2

(1.) Whether the proclamation was sufficient to validate for all purposes, in Bechu- analand and elsewhere, marriages contracted in Bechuanaland before annexation; and (2.) Whether the proclamation should be amended by inserting a proviso such as that contained in certain of the Imperial Acts referred to above, and in the Queensland Act.

That you would also be glad to receive any general observations that might occur to us, as to the wording of the proclamation.

We were also honoured with a further letter from Mr. Bramston, dated the 5th of July, stating that, with reference to his previous letter of that date, on the subject of a legislative proclamation for validating marriages in Bechuanaland, he was directed by you to transmit to ns for our consideration a copy of a despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson, enclosing a legislative proclamation for validating certain marriages in the British territory of Basutoland.

That Mr. Bramston was also to enclose a copy of Her Majesty's Order in Council of 2nd February 1884, which stated briefly in its recitals the status of the territory of Basutoland, and conferred on Her Majesty's High Commissioner the legislative authority under which he had acted in that case.

That Mr. Bramston was further to enclose copies of so much of the Legislative Regulations issued by Sir Phillip Wodehouse in 1870 as were referred to in the present proclamation and were material in the case.

That it would be seen from the opening recital in the Order in Council of 1884 that Basutoland became British territory in 1868, and that the question in the present case. as in the Fiji and Bechuanaland cases, appeared to be whether such a legislative proclamation validated, for all purposes contemplated by the Imperial Act 28 and 29 Victoria, chapter 64, marriages celebrated in Basutoland before 1868.

That it would be observed that Sir Hercules Robinson had inserted a proviso in the Basutoland proclamation of this kind, the absence of which had formed the subject of correspondence in the Bechuanaland case.

We have taken the matters above referred to into our consideration and have the honour to

Report

That it is not clear that some of the marriages described are not already legal and valid, and moreover, so far as Bechuanaland is concerned, the proclamation would legalise marriages solemnised in the manner therein mentioned.

We are, however, of opinion, having regard to the questions that might be raised upon the wording of these proclamations, that it would be desirable to pass an Act similar to the Fiji Marriage Act, 1878, but with the addition of the proviso which, probably through inadvertence, was omitted from that Act.

The Right Hon. Sir Henry Holland,

&c.

Bart., M.P.

&c.

&c.

+

We have, &c., (Signed)

RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE.

17,383.

No. o

(CANADA)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Royal Courts of Justice, August 20, 1887. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Philip Currie's letter of the 8th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted in the accompanying list relative to the seizure of three British Colombian seal schooners named respectively the "Thornton," the Carolina," and the "Onward," by the United States' revenue cruizer the "Corwin " in Behring's Sea on the 1st August of last year, and the subsequent trial, conviction, and sentence to fine and imprisonment of the respective masters of those schooners by the United States' Tribunals for killing fur-bearing animals in contravention of United States' Statute Law, in waters, as was alleged, within American jurisdiction.

That the circumstances attending the seizure of those three vessels, as well as the grounds upon which, as was understood, the proceedings of the captain of the "

"" Corwin were justified by the United States' Government, were to be found very clearly set forth in the late Earl of Iddesleigh's despatch to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington of the 30th October 1886 (see Confidential Print, Part I., p. 24), in the extract from the "Daily British Colonist," Victoria, of the 7th October 1886, which formed the enclosure in Mr. Evan Macgregor's letter to Sir J. Pauncefote of the 4th November 1886 (see Confidential Print, Part I., pp. 28 and 29), and in the Confidential Foreign Office Memorandum of the 19th October 1886, on the right of British Colonial vessels to fish for seals in the Behring's Sea.

That a

map indicating the extent of the Behring's Sea, over which the claim of the United States Government to jurisdiction was believed to extend, and the exact positions of the schooners at the time of their seizure, would be found opposite page of the last-mentioned Memorandum, in which were also embodied (at p. 5) the material portions of the Treaty of the 30th March 1867, by which Russia purported to cede the territory of Alaska and certain of the waters of the Behring Sea, therein more particularly defined, to the United States.

That the text of the United States' Statute (Public, No. 120, of the 1st July 1870), by virtue of the provisions of which the seizure of the schooners and the punishment of their respective masters purports to have been effected, was to be found on pp. 14 and 15 of the Confidential Print, Part I., already referred to.

That it would be seen that, at the time of the seizures in question, none of the three schooners was at a distance of less than 50 miles from the nearest land, and that it would be seen, therefore, that any forcible interference with them, under such circum- stances, by a ship of war of a foreign nation, was, as having taken place upon the high seas, entirely without warrant or justification.

That the Commander of the "Corwin," however, justified his action on the ground, in which the American Government appeared to acquiesce, that the whole of the Behring Sea, which is within the boundaries set forth in the 1st Article of the Treaty of the 30th March 1867, and which extends to a distance of several hundreds of miles to the cast of the westerly boundary of Alaska, was comprised within American territorial waters, and that that view was also maintained by the Judge of the United States' District Court for Alaska, before whom the case was heard, and formed the principal ground upon which his Judgment was based.

That it was not clear whether any appeal against the decision of the District Court had been lodged by the owners or masters of the three British schooners, or either of them, nor was it known whether such appeal, if not already instituted, was still them.

open to

But that it appeared that an action was pending at the suit of the owners of certain American vessels, which were seized under similar circumstances, against the Commander of the "Corwin," and that that action was being defended by the American Government.

That meanwhile, without prejudice to, or conclusion of, any of the questions involved, orders had been issued by the President of the United States for the discontinuance of

& 30069.-26. 25,--987.