330 ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 



ralty, or iu lieu tliereof to deliver her to any British oiBcer for adjudi- 

 cation before the court. 



The plaiu spirit and intent of the law wonld seem to require pro- 

 ceedings in admiralty for condemnation and forfeiture of every vessel 

 seized by the United States officers and delivered to the British author- 

 ities as aforesaid. In the cases iu question, liowever, it would apj)ear 

 that Admiral Stephenson, in discharging said vessels, took uj)on himself 

 to decide a question which, under the law, could i^roperly be decided 

 only by a British court of admiralty. 



The evidence in the case of the Vy^andercr clearly would seem to 

 justify the suspicion and belief that some, at least, of the 400 seal skins 

 found on board had been taken during the prohibited season by means 

 of shotguns, in violation of the award regulations and of the British 

 and American law. 



In the case of the Favorite 1,230 seal skins were found on board, 

 together with a shotgun whose barrel was partly cut oft", but leaving 

 about 12 inches. It was found that it would shoot accurately for a dis- 

 tance of 50 yards. 



The causes particularly assigned for these seizures, the carrying of 

 firearms unsealed, taken in connection with the fact that such weapons 

 were forbidden then and there to be used, and that there were also 

 found seal skins on board, would plainly justify the belief that said 

 firearms had been used in violation of article 6 of the award as con- 

 tained in the Bering Sea award act of 1891 (British) and the act ot 

 Congress, April G, 1891 (American). That the notices of seizure, as 

 prepared by the Taiited States seizing officers, do not, with particularity, 

 specify the illegal use of these weapons, but rely chiefly upon their 

 presence on board unsealed, clearly would not prevent such use being- 

 proved in subsequent ])roceedings in court of admiralty for condemna- 

 tion and forfeiture, said notices being merely to acquaint the authorities 

 to whom the ships are turned over of the seizure and of the particular 

 offenses relied upon for maintaining a libel in condemnation proceedings. 

 It would seem perfectly clear that additional breaches of the law could 

 be assigned and made the subject of condemnation proceedings at any 

 time before the trial took place. 



The instructions issued by the British Government to the commanders 

 of its cruising vessels for the season of 1891 would, it is submitted, 

 have imposed upon such officers under similar circumstances the duty 

 of vseiziug these vessels. Said instructions, in pare, were as follows: 



If yon are satisfied that a vessel lias huuted contrary to the act you ^vill seize 

 her. * * * Whether the vessel has been engaged iu hunting yon must jndge from 

 the presence of seal skins or bodies of seals on board and other circumstances and 

 indications. (See Senate Ex. Doc. 67, p. 116, Fifty-third Congress, third session.) 



In the case of the Wanderer, the master gave his guns and ammuni- 

 tion to the commander of the United States cruiser Yorltoicn, to be 

 secured under seal. Later in the same day he was boarded by the 

 cruiser Concord, and stated tliat the guns and ammunition sealed up by 

 the Yorlto/rn was all he had on board. After a search, however, a 

 breech-loading shotgun and a bag of loaded shell were found concealed 

 in the extreme forward part of the vessel under a pile of iron cans 

 between decks. While the officer was making an entry in the log book 

 as to this weapon the master of the vessel was heard to say to the 

 mate, "God damn it, I told you you ought to have had that put in with 

 the others,'' or words to that effect. This deception of the master, 

 together with the concealed weapons, the presence on board of seal skins, 

 and other suspicious evidence revealed on search, clearly should have 



