ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 63 



Now I want to know why this is so. Does any one member of this 

 Tribnnal believe that at that time, the Secretary of State being in com- 

 munication with the Attorney General, as his correspondence shows, 

 and in correspondence (who can doubt it) with the head of the Execu- 

 tive of the linited States — I mean the President — that if they had 

 intended to take this ground of legal justification for the seizures, they 

 would not at least have hinted that there existed some sucli ground 

 and given some indication of what that ground was? On page 85 will 

 be found the official intimation of that release, a telegram from the 

 Attorney General of the 2()th January 1887 to Judge Lafayette Daw- 

 son and Mr. D. Ball, District Attorney, Sitka, Alaska. 



I am directed by the President to instruct you to discontinue all further proceeding 

 in the matter of the seizure of the British Vessels "Caroliuej" "Onward" and "Thorn- 

 ton" and discharge all vessels now held under such seizure, and release all persona 

 that may be under arrest iu connection therewith. 



I have told you what was the fate of that telegram — how the order 

 was treated as a forged order: although sent to the Judge (as appears 

 from the order on 1 he same page) how it was not acted upon till the 

 release of the vessels was useless and the men had undergone their 

 imprisonment and sutiered the penalty imposed by the judgment. 



But that is, of course, a minor point. The question that the Tribunal 

 must ask itself is, is it conceivable that that order for release could 

 have been made upon any ground except one, namely, the advice of the 

 responsible legal adviser of the President, that he was of opinion that 

 it was at least doubtful whether the seizures could in any way be 

 justified. 



Senator Morgan. — Do you mean Mr. Bayard? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I said the legal adviser, Sir? 



Senator Morgan. — Who is that? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — The Attorney General, Mr. Garland; and 

 iu answer to Senator Morgan's question, which he has been good enough 

 to put to me, I can sliow by the very next page that that was the view 

 of the Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard himself. It is an extract from a 

 paper i)ublished in Victoria. 



General Foster. — All of these are extracts. 

 795 Sir Charles Eussell. — Certainly. 



Senator Morgan. — I thought you were reading from the dip- 

 lomatic correspondence. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — So I was. Sir, but General Foster is refer- 

 ring to an extract on the page in question. Of course, what I have 

 been reading is diplomatic correspondence. 



Senator Morgan. — Yes, I thought so. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Here is a matter which, if not true, would 

 have been denied : This is the statement in the middle of page 87. 



bayard's opinion. 



The following telegram is another unofficial announcement, and seems to he rather 

 out of harmony with the official acts of the commanders of the Revenue cutters. 



Washington, Jahj SO. 

 Secretary Bayard, when he was shown to-day a despatch from Ottawa, stating 

 that the Dominion Government is protesting against the discourtesy shown by the 

 United States authorities in ignoring its demand for reparation for the seizure and 

 detention of the British Colnml)ia Sealers seized in Beiiring Sea last year, said : " In 

 the first place no demand was ever made to our Government by any body either foj 

 the release of the vessels in question or lor damages for their detention." 



