British Arg., p. 178.

to forthwith deliver the vessel to the British authorities, and Commander Parr had no authority whatever to give the alleged consent, and thereby waive any delivery of the vessel to the British authorities.

The Government of the United States contends that the delivery of the Winifred to Commander Parr was a delivery "to the authorities of the nation alone having jurisdiction," and that Commander Parr, representing as he did the sovereign power of Great Britain, presumptively had authority to consent to a waiver of the rights of Great Britain, and that his consent is binding upon and estops that nation from making a claim against the United States.

The Argument on behalf of Great Britain relating to the claim of the Winifred contains a letter from the Secretary of State for the United States under date of October 31, 1894, by which it appears that the Department of State had confused the case of the Winifred with the claim of the Henrietta. The letter is used for the purpose of showing an admission on the part of the United States.

The letter of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, written under date of November 13, 1895, subsequent to the letter of Mr. Gresham and prior to the date of the treaty under which this High Commission convenes, states the position of the United States with reference to the claim of the Winifred.

R., 1800, line The Honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE:

40.

SIR Referring to my telegram of the 9th instant, I have the honor to state that the British schooner Winifred was seized by steamer Rush July 20, 1892, for violation of the proclamation of the President of the United States and the British Bering Sea act of Parliament of 1891, and the order in council of 1891, and the order in council of May 9, 1892. The seizure was made about 15 miles from Annak Island. After being towed to Unalaska, information was furnished by Capt. C. L. Hooper, commanding the revenue steamer Corwin, to the effect that the Winifred was liable to seizure and her master and crew to arrest for violation of the United States revenue laws, previous to entering the Bering Sea.

Upon consultation between Commander Evans, U. S. N., and Captain Parr, of Her Majesty's Navy, the latter waived his Government's right of custody until she could be tried for violation of the United States revenue laws.

By direction of Commander Evans, the Winifred was formally seized for violation of the United States revenue laws and taken to Sitka by the Albatross. She was subsequently condemned by the United States court at Sitka and sold, and the money has been turned into the Treasury.

Respectfully, yours,

W. E. CURTIS, Secretary.

The United States deny all liability for damages sustained by the owner of the Winifred, but the schedule attached to the claim in the Argument contains some items, reference to which will be made.

The seal skins charged for were all taken in violation of the law of the nation to which the owner of the Winifred owed allegiance, and to award any sum for a catch of seals made contrary to the laws of both countries would be against public policy. This rule of law seems to have been partially regarded, for no claim for a prospective catch which would have been taken in violation of the Convention of 1892 between the United States and Great Britain is made.

The value of this vessel of 13 tons is placed at $2,000. She was built in 1869, repaired somewhat in 1892, and the value of $770 placed upon her by Exhibit, 330, the appraisers was a liberal one.

There is no testimony in the Record upon which to base the item "Time and expenses of owner, $200," and there is no evidence that the crew suffered hardships or were detained. The Captain was detained at Sitka because he was arrested for a violation of the laws of the United States.

These claims are, moreover, personal claims, not included in the Convention.

line 60.

THE WANDERER.

CLAIM NO. 25.

This claim is submitted under the terms of the fifth paragraph of the convention creating this High Commission.

The Government of the United States, animated by a sense of justice and by a desire that all liability should be definitely and fully settled and determined, and all possible claims and causes of complaint or wrongdoing removed, was willing that all claims which the people of Her Majesty's Government believed themselves to have suffered by reason of the acts of the Government of the United States in asserting her supposed rights in Bering Sea should be investigated, and full redress afforded by this High Par. 5, con- Commission, and consented to the submission of these g, additional claims set out by name in paragraph 5 of the convention of February, 1896, although not admitting any liability.

vention

Feb. 8,

1896.

The claimants availed themselves of the opportunity afforded for the submission of their alleged grievance and produced witnesses to inform the High Commission of the ground of their complaint.

The United States, for the first time informed of the nature of this claim, insist that the testimony clearly shows that the claimants suffered no damages arising from any act or omission on the part of any officer in their service, or on the part of any agent clothed with their authority.

The Wanderer, as claimed by the master and owner R., 1537, line of the vessel, had been sealing in the spring of 1889 on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

10.

15.

In the early part of May, after having engaged an Indian crew for sealing in Bering Sea, the vessel proceeded up the west coast of Vancouver Island R., 1537, line until off Cape Scott, a distance of nearly 1,000 miles from Bering Sea, when the Indians refused to proceed further on the journey toward Bering Sea. Captain Paxton, questioned as to the reason for the interruption of the voyage, testified:

Q. What was the occasion of their going back on you? A. They heard from another vessel that the Americans were threatening to make seizures, and they refused to go. Q. What reason did they then assign to you for refusing to go?

A. All they wanted to know was whether I was a rich man or a poor man; if I had lots of money to pay them if I got seized. I told them no. They then refused to go.

R., 1537, line

19.

34.

Q. Was there any reference made by them to the fact of R., 1537, line their having been in Bering Sea before and after (having) being seized?

A. Yes. They said they had suffered great hardships and would not go again unless I would guarantee their pay for what skins they might have when the vessel got seized. Q. What did you do then?

A. Went back to Victoria.

On cross-examination Captain Paxton testified:

R., 1537, line 43.

Q. You say these Indians threatened you about the 9th R., 1538, line or 12th of May?

A. Yes; something like that.

Q. And they were afraid they would not get their pay?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For the skins they actually took?

A. Yes; that is, if the vessel was seized, and I don't think

they would either.

25.

Q. They asked you if you were a rich man or a poor man? R., 1538, line A. Yes.

Q. If you had been a rich man they would have gone?

A. Yes.

Q. And because you told them you were a poor man they would not go?

A. No.

The only other witness produced on behalf of Great Britain who had a personal knowledge of the occur

43.

R., 1541, line 40.

R., 1541, line 65.

R., 1542, line

7.

R., 1544, line 21.

R., 1544, line 38.

R., 1544, line 62.

rences was Auguste Bjerre, mate of the vessel at the time.

Q. Did you continue to go to Bering Sea?

A. No, sir; we had to turn back.

Q. Why?

A. Because the Indians refused to go.

Q. Will you say what was the occasion of their refusing to go to Bering Sea?

A. The Indians were scared to go; they were scared of seizure. Some of them, I believe, had been seized before, and they had been talking with other Indians while they were away from the vessel out hunting, and they were scared of the vessel being seized, and as they knew that Captain Paxton had nothing but the vessel they were afraid they would get no pay if they were seized.

Q. Now, off Cape Scott, on the occasion in question, what was the conversation?

A. Well, they were scared, as some of them had been seized before. They were scared to go into the Bering Sea with Captain Paxton. They knew that he had nothing but his vessel, and they were scared that if the vessel was seized and he lost her they would get no pay for the season's work.

Q. Was there any other reason assigned for their refusing to go to Bering Sea.

A. No, sir; not that I know of.

On cross-examination this witness testified as follows:

Q. Did anyone on the Sapphire tell your Indians that there were going to be seizures in Bering Sea?

A. I do not know where the Indians heard that there' was going to be seizures in Bering Sea. The first time they spoke about it was at sea.

Q. Did you know where they heard it?

A. They heard it in their canoes while they were out hunting. Q. Captain Paxton himself did not want to turn around because he was afraid of seizure?

A. Captain Paxton, I fancy, wanted to go to the Bering Sea if he could get his Indians to go.

Q. And it was because the Indians did not wish to go with him that he could not go?

A. Yes; that was the reason that he could not go.

Q. Confine yourself to the one time, and tell us what they said then.

A. The Indians said that suppose they went to Bering Sea and the vessel was seized; they knew that Captain