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



That is quite true. 



"And iu the second place, if any such demand had been made, it could not have 

 come by any possibility from the Dominion' Government, with which we have no 

 diplomatic relations whatsoever." 



That is also true. 



The vessels in question were released upon representations of the British Govern- 

 ment that they were British vessels. They were released because our right to hold 

 them was deenrcd too doubtful to be enforced. Our Government did what it believed 

 to be right in the matter, without constraint from any quarter. 



Senator Morgan. — Is that a newspaper correspondence quoting Mr. 

 Bayard's statement. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — It is exactly what I read, namely, a tele- 

 gram whicli purports to record Mr. Bayard's opinion. 



Mr. Phelps. — In a Canadian newspaper. 



Sir Charles Bussell. — I assure you these interruptions are 

 uncalled for. I do not often complain, but I took pains to state what 

 it was. 1 read the announcement of it in the paper itself. I said that 

 it appeared in a paper which I named, published in a place I named, 

 and I read the parts of the telegram. 



The following document is another unofficial announcement, and seems to be rather 

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



Senator Morgan. — I beg your pardon. Sir Charles, for the interfer- 

 ence on my part. 

 796 Sir Charles Eussell. — Ko, Sir, not at all. 



Senator Morgan. — But I wanted to find out whether you 

 impute those statements to Mr. Bayard as under his pen, or under his 

 tongue, or as the results of a newspaper correspondence of what he 

 might have said on some occasion. 



The President.— You give credit to them for trying to represent, 

 with correctness, the views of Mr. Bayard. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That, of course, is the point. It attributes 

 to Mr. Secretary Bayard a certain opinion and a certain explanation 

 of a particular course of executive conduct, namely the release of these 

 vessels. That is published in the Press; it is published in our Case, 

 it is part of our original case, and up to this moment it has never been 

 denied; and I say at once, if Mr. Bayard (whom as I have already said 

 I have the honor to know), should say that that was not true, I should 

 accept without hesitation or qualification his statement to that effect. 

 It is a comparatively unimportant point, because, as I said, unless that 

 is true it is inconceivable that if the United States and their advisers 

 had the view of their legal rights which are put forward in a later 

 stage of this diplomatic correspondence — which are put forward in 

 later phases of this, shall I call it "litigation" — it is inconceivable that 

 at the time he gave this order for release Secretary Bayard's real views 

 can have been expressed by such words as these. 



" We think we are within our rights in making these seizures; we 

 think that our rights justify us in making these seizures; we base 

 these rights on this ground or on that ground, but as an act of good 

 will to a friendly (xovernment with whom previously we have had no 

 diplomatic expoi^^tulations, and to which we had x>reviously given 

 no diplomatic warning — as an act of friendliness and good will to that 

 Government, with whom we are at peace, we will, under the circum- 

 stances, release tliose vessels". 



Senator IMorgan. — I am sure, Sir Charles, you will not object to my 

 calling your attention, in vindication of Mr. Bayard, to the fact that ill 



