ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 337 



« 



during the closed season within the limits of the area of the award of 

 the tribunal of Paris, and without the special license ])roYided for in 

 article 4 of said Paris award and section 3 of the act of Congress dated 

 April 6, 1894, and requesting that instructions be given to the district 

 attorney to proceed promptly in said case and to report the result, I 

 have the honor to inform you that I have received a letter, dated the 

 8th instant from the United States attorney with reference to said case 

 and recommending that no action be commenced against either the 

 master or the vessel, and that the skins be released to the proper owner. 

 The basis of the United States attorney's recommendation is that the 

 skins in question are those of seals secured within the prohibited waters 

 by members of the crew of the vessel, who during the voyage were 

 unruly and defiant, and that the action of said members of the crew was 

 without the knowledge or consent of the master of the vessel or any of 

 its ofticers. It is stated, also, that the master of the vessel was not 

 aware that the taking of the seals within the waters referred to was 

 prohibited, having sailed from San Francisco in January last, and with- 

 out having been advised of the instructions of this Department in the 

 premises. 



1 would respectfully request that instructions be given by you to the 

 United States attorney at said port to proceed promptly in said case 

 and commence proceedings for condemnation of the vessel and for the 

 statutory fine to be imposed upon the master under section 8 of the act 

 of Congress of April G, 1894. 



Although the district attorney states certain facts which might prop- 

 erly be considered on a petition for remission of the penalty or forfeit- 

 ure of the vessel by the Secretary of the Treasury, yet this Department 

 believes that the necessary steps preliminary to imposing a fine and 

 condemnation of the vessel should be at once taken. Article 4 of the 

 regulations of the Paris award provides that every vessel killing seals 

 within the award area must be provided with a special license. Section 

 3 of the act of Congress of April 6, 1894, prohibits all seal killing with- 

 out said special license, and section 8 provides for a fine or imprison- 

 ment of the master, and also for forfeiture of the vessel oflending. This 

 statute is peremptory and would seem to admit of no discretion what- 

 soever. Under the provisions of subsection 2, clause 4, of the British 

 legislation known as the Bering Sea award act of 1894, it is provided 

 that if a master uses due diligence to enforce the act, and that the 

 offense in question was committed by some other person without his 

 connivance, he shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture. There is 

 no such provision, however, in said act of Congress of April 6, 1894. 



I would further say that the State Departjient has filed a formal 

 protest with the secretary of state of foreign aitairs of Great Britain 

 because of the action of the British Government in dischargingwithout 

 condemnation proceedings the two British vessels Wanderer und Favorite 

 seized by United States officers during last season. It therefore becomes 

 of the utmost importance that we proceed vigorously against offenders 

 of our own nationality. Should the court impose a fine upon the master 

 or declare the vessel forfeited, a petition may then be filed with the 

 Secretary of the Treasury to remit the fine or forfeiture. The matter 

 can then be brought to the attention of the State Department and 

 proper action may be taken. 



I would further request that the district attorney be directed to give 



to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the Secretary of State due notice 



of the trial, in order that the British Government may be notified and 



be given an opportunity to appoint counsel to take part in the condem- 



H. Doc. 92, pt. 2 22 



