CO885-(13-15) — Page 450

+

26766/97.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ורון ח

19

C.O.885

Reference :-

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

GENTLEMEN,

No. 102B.

CANADA.

FOREIGN OFFICE to LAW OFFICERS.

Foreign Office, January 30, 1896.

I HAVE the honour to transmit to you, by direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the papers noted in the accompanying list which relate to the case of a British subject named William Gowrie, who was apprehended at the instance of the military authorities of Guantanamo, in Cuba, for alleged complicity in the insurrection

in that island.

It appears from the accompanying despatches (Papers B and G) from Mr. Ramsden, Her Majesty's Consul at Santiago de Cuba, who enters very fully into the details of the case, that Mr. Gowrie, who was the Chief Engineer of the Guantanamo Railway, was (with others) denounced to the authorities for assisting the rebels, arrested by General Cancellos, the Spanish Military Commander there, on the 28th October last, and consigned to the Morro Fortress at Santiago de Cuba on the 30th of that month.

Of the truth of the accusation Her Majesty's Government are not at present in a position to judge, but the evidence as yet produced against Mr. Gowrie appears at first sight to be extremely slight, consisting in the discovery in his house of a small revolver and of some empty cartridge cases of the new Mauser pattern. that the former had been in his possession for purposes of defence for twelve years Mr. Gowrie states past, and that the latter had been picked up by his children and used by them as playthings.

Mr. Ramsden himself appears to be convinced of the prisoner's innocence, and to have made every endeavour to get the case summarily dealt with by the local authorities. As, however, his efforts in this direction proved unavailing, the case was reported to the Secretary of State, who, in view of the delay which had already occurred, and which frequently characterizes Spanish legal proceedings, instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid to bring the facts to the notice of the Spanish Government, and to urge them to send orders to Cuba with a view to the immediate trial of Mr. Gowrie.

·

As the result, it would seem, of this action, Mr. Gowrie was, on the 12th December last, up to which date he had remained a prisoner in the Morro Fortress, handed over to the British Consul, by whom he was informed that, by the orders of General Martinez Campos, he was released, but that he must leave the island immediately, and would not be permitted to return to it.

Mr. Gowrie has now forwarded through the Consul the accompanying Protest (Inclosure in Paper K), complaining of his arrest on a charge which has never been made known to him; of his detention in prison for more than six weeks without

any form

of trial; of his summary expulsion from Cuba; and of the damage entailed upon him by this arbitrary treatment, which has involved the loss of a situation wherein he was earning 218 Spanish gold dollars per month, and the expenses necessarily accompanying his detention.

No formal claim for compensation has yet been advanced by Mr. Gowrie, but it seems reasonable to suppose that such a step may be taken by him at no distant date.

The case of Mr. Gowrie appears in its general character to have considerable analogy to the cases of British subjects arrested without definite charge, detained without trial, and finally arbitrarily expelled from Hawaii for alleged complicity in the Royalist Insurrection, which are submitted to you by the Secretary of State in another reference of same date with this letter. In the present case, however, there is no complaint of violence at the time of arrest, or of harsh treatment during the period of detention.

In these circumstances the question would seem to arise, whether Her Majesty's Government could properly put forward a claim (1) that Mr. Gowrie should be allowed to return to Cuba, and (2) for compensation in respect either of his arrest and imprisonment, or of his expulsion, or both; and, in the event of the answer to the latter question being in the affirmative, it will further become necessary to consider what approximate amount of compensation will fairly meet the merits and redress the injuries in this case.

15240-25-12,97 Wt 20260 D&S 5

Page 450Page 451

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

بسلنسس

Reference :-

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

4819.

I am to request that you will take the papers transmitted herewith into your consideration, and that you will favour the Marquess of Salisbury with your opinion on the questions submitted in this letter, and with any general observations which you may have to offer on the case.

I have, &c..

P.S.—Two spare copies of this reference are inclosed,

T. H. SANDERSON,

SIR,

(A.) Mr. Gollan

(C.) To Mr. Gollan

J

(E.) Mr. Gollan

(F.)

LIST OF PAPERS.

B.) Consul Ramsden

(No. 32) November 8, 1895.

49)

**

(n 5)

"

19

(D.) Sir H. Wolff

( 167)

"

33) 36)

21

*

(G.) Consul Ramsden

(No. 13. Telegraphic)

(H.) Sir H. Wolff...

(K) Congul Ramsden

(No.316) December 4

334)

15

"

39

(No. 14. Telegraphic)

59

(1.)

REPORT.

***** 3

In our opinion, a claim for compensation should be presented. Whether it can properly be pressed must depend on the question whether the Spanish Government are able to give explanations which may alter the aspect which the case at present bears.

As an insurrection actually existed in Cuba, the Spanish authorities were justified in arresting and imprisoning for a reasonable time any one whom they might reasonably suppose to be co-operating with the insurgents, and it does not appear that the proceedings against Mr. Gowrie were, in the first instance, taken otherwise than in good faith. Moreover, the British Consul rather invited proceedings by martial law instead of the dilatory proceedings of the regular Courts. We, therefore, do not think that any claim can be properly maintained in respect of the arrest and imprisonment.

As regards Mr. Gowrie's expulsion from the island, it cannot, we think, be denied that, apart from express Convention or Treaty, the Government of a State is not guilty of any infraction of international law by refusing to admit aliens, or requiring them to withdraw. Such a right ought, however, in the case of subjects of friendly States, to be exercised reasonably; and if there are grounds for alleging that the subject of a friendly State, after having been allowed to settle in the country, has been arbitrarily expelled, we think that a case arises for diplomatit representation by his Government.

Mr. Gowrie had been allowed to settle in Cuba, and upon the statements before us it certainly appears that there was an absence of any evidence to sustain the charge on which he had been imprisoned, and that he was required to leave the island merely by way of putting an end to the proceedings which must have ended in his acquittal. So far as the papers before us go, there does not appear to be the slightest reason to suppose that his continued residence in Cuba could have been regarded as involving danger to the State.

We think that a claim may fairly be put forward that Mr. Gowrie should be paid six months' salary, and a sum which will cover the cost of the removal of himself and his family from the island. As he has lost his post in Cuba, it does not appear to us that it would be advisable in his interest to ask that he should be allowed to return to the island. Having regard to his chance of obtaining other employment elsewhere, we think that the scale we have indicated may be adopted in fixing the amount which Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to obtain for him from the Spanish authorities.

We should, however, again point out that if the Spanish Government is able to explain his expulsion by showing that they had reason to suppose that it was ordered in the interest of public peace, the case would present a totally different aspect from that which it hears on Mr. Gowrie's statement; and if such explanation should be given, we do not think that the claim could be properly pressed.

Royal Courts of Justice,

February 26, 1896.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

No. 103.

(British Guiana.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, March 3, 1896.

We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 4th ultimo, stating that he was directed to transmit, for our consideration, the accompanying copy of a Despatch from the Acting Governor of British Guiana, forwarding copies of a case stated by a Committee of the Combined Court of that Colony for the opinion of Counsel upon a question which had arisen as to its rights and privileges, in respect of the imposition of fees for annual licenses to trade in gold, and requesting that we would favour you with our opinion on the questions submitted in

the case.

In obedience to your commands, we have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report-

1. That, in our opinion, the Governor and Court of Policy are not within their right

in imposing a fee or duty in respect of an annual license to trade in raw gold. Such a fee or duty can be imposed by the Combined Court only.

The Governor and Court of Policy may make such regulations as they think necessary to ensure the due payment of the royalty, and to exercise control over the miners. They might by Ordinance provide that dealers in raw gold must be licensed, and the Combined Court may impose a duty on the issue of such licenses. The Governor and Court of Policy cannot, under cover of their power of control, impose or fix the amount of duty to be paid in respect of licenses. This is in reality in the nature of a tax, or means of raising revenue.

of

2. This question does not arise in the view we take, but in any, event, we are opinion that the Combined Court could impose a duty or fee for revenue purposes.

3. There is such a difference. The Governor and Court of Policy can make a charge for the occupation or working of Crown lands, or getting the products, but such charge would not be accurately designated a tax or duty. Only the Combined Court can impose a tax or duty on the subsequent trading in such product.

We have, &c.

The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.

&c.

&c.

&c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

CASE for the Opinion of the Crown Law Officers of England upon a Question which has arisen as to the Rights and Privileges of the Combined Court of the Colony of British Guiana.

The Combined Court of the Colony of British Guiana desires to have the benefit of the opinion of the Crown Law Officers of England upon a question which has arisen as to the rights, privileges, and powers of the said Court.

2. The rights, privileges, and powers of the Combined Court depend upon two distinct tenures, namely,—

(1.) The power of raising the colonial, taxes to supply the sums required by the annual estimates of expenditure. This was a power existing prior to the Articles of Capitulation on the surrender of the Colony to the British Forces in 1803, and was confirmed by them; and

0

90$36.-12.

25.-3/96.