CO885-(13-15) — Page 427

2

Annex.

Reply to letter of Mr. Attorney-General Olney.

I the "Wanderer" and the "Favourite

of the above-mentioned Act, it is conceded that it would be contrary to the intent and had been arrested for any alleged breach spirit of the legislation that the British naval authorities should release the vessels before trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, but it must be observed that in the case of the "Wanderer" the ground of seizure as given, by the Commander of the "Concord" was the possession of an unsealed gun and ammunition in contravention of "The Behring Sea Award Act, 1894," and section 10 of the President's Proclama- tion; and in the case of the Favourite," as given by the commander of the Mobican," was the possession of an unsealed gun, in contravention of Article 6 of the Paris Award, and section 10 of the Act of Congress.

No allegation was made in either case that the vessels had committed, or attempted to commit, any actual breach of "The Bebring Sea Award Act, 1894." therefore, as it was clear, upon the face of the proceedings, that the arrest was not Inasmuch, justifiable, it does not appear that the British naval authorities acted contrary to the intent or spirit of the legislation in question. It is not disputed that in the case of a vessel arrested upon an alleged breach of the Acts in question additional breaches might be assigned, assuming the seizing officer to be in a position to adduce evidence of such additional breaches; but in this case, as has already been pointed out, there was up to the time of the release of the vessels no allegation of any such charge.

While it is conceded that it was never intended that the naval authorities should take upon themselves to decide questions which undoubtedly could only be decided by a British Court of Admiralty, it was, on the other hand, equally never intended that vessels should be interfered with, arrested, and handed over to the naval authorities upon any charges other than those which were the subject of the Behring Sea Award and consequent legislation.

It is, moreover, quite clear to me from the proceedings that the seizing officer purported to act under section 10 of the Act of Congress (Public, No. 48 of the 6th April 1894) which is not binding upon British subjects.

R. E. W.

3

If you consider that there are no grounds for modifying these conclusions, I am to say that Lord Salisbury would be glad to learn what answer should be made to the United States contention that "additional breaches of the law could be assigned and made the subject of condemnation proceedings at any time before the trial.'

Lord Salisbury would be glad at the same time to be favoured with such general observations on the papers submitted as you may desire to offer.

I have, &c.

(A.) To Law Officers

(B) Law Officers

(C.) To Law Officers

(D.) Law Officers

(E.) Lord Chancellor Herschell

FRANCIS BERTIE.

List of Papers.

March 19, 1895. April 1, J May 21, June May 29,

25

7,

"2

July 3,

17

(F.) Proposed draft to Viscount Gough.

(G.) Communication from United States' Legation

NOTE. This is the Foreign Office Letter of July 11, referred to in the foregoing Opinion of the Attorney-General.

SIR,

the

FOREIGN OFFICE to the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Foreign Office, July 11, 1895.

I HAVE the honour to transmit to you, by direction of the Marquess of Salisbury, papers noted in the accompanying list, which relate to the seizures of the British sealing-vessels" Wanderer" and "Favourite" by the United States' cruisers "Concord " and "Mohican" in the months of June and August of last year, for alleged infringe- ment of "The Behring Sea Award Act, 1894.”

These documents comprise references to the late Law Officers of the Crown on the above-mentioned cases, with the opinions received from them, together with an opinion given by the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) on the case of the (Papers A, B, C, D, and E).

Wanderer

Upon these opinions an instruction was prepared to Viscount Gough, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, which is herein inclosed (Paper F), and I am to request that you will be good enough to inform Lord Salisbury whether, having regard

to the circumstances of the two cases as set forth in the papers submitted to the late Law Officers of the Crown, you approve the terms of this instruction.

Since the date of the above-mentioned communications the United States Chargé l'Affaires in London has communicated a despatch (Paper G) from the Department of State at Washington, dealing further with the seizures of the two sealing-vessels, and I am to inquire whether, in your opinion, the arguments contained in this communi- cation are such as should in any way modify the conclusions arrived at by the Earl of Kimberley, and, if so, to what extent.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.885

Reference :-

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

1