ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 91 



In the United States District Court, for the District of Alaska. 



The United States, Lihellani, v. The Schooner " Thornton", her Taclde, etc. — On Lihel of 

 Information for being en/jar/ed in the Business of killing Fur-seal in Alaska. 



transcript of record. 



On the 28th day of August, 188G, was filed the following Libel of Information: 



In the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska. 

 August Special Term, 1886. 



To the Honourable Lafayette Dawson, Judge of said District Court: 



The libel of iuformatiou of M. D. Ball, Attorney for the United States for the Dis- 

 trict of Alaska, who prosecutes on behalf of said United States, and being present 

 here in Court in hie proper person, in the name and on belialf of the said United 

 States, against the schooner "Thornton", her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo 

 829 and furniture, and against all persons intervening ibr their interests therein, 

 in a cause of forfeiture, alleges and informs as follows: 



That Charles A. Abbey, an officer in the R(;venue Mariue Service of the United 

 States, and on special duty in the waters of the district of Alaska, heretofore, to 

 wit, on the 1st daj-^ of August, 1886, within the limits of Alaska territory, and in the 

 waters thereof, and within the civil and judicial district of Alaska, to wit, within 

 the waters of that portion of Beliring Sea belonging to the said district, on waters 

 navigable from the sea by vessels of 10 or more tons l)urdeD, seized the ship or ves- 

 sel, connnonly called a schooner, the "Thornton", her tackle, appar<;l, boats, cargo, 

 and furniture, being the property of some person or persons to the said Attorney 

 unknown, as i'orlVited to the United States, ff)r the following causes: 



That the said vessel or schooner was found engaged in killing fur-seal within the 

 limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof, in violation of section 11)56 of 

 the Revised Statutes of the United States. 



And the said Attorney saith that all and singular the premises are and were true, 

 and within the Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court, and that by rea- 

 son thereof, and by force of the Statutes of the United States in such cases made 

 and provided, the afore-mentioned and described scliooner or vessel, being a vessel 

 of over 20 tons burden, her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, became and 

 are forfeited to the use of the said United States, and that said schooner is now 

 within the district aforesaid. 



U'hcrelbre the said Attorney prays that the usual process and monition of this 

 honourable Court issue in this behalf, and that all persons interested in the before- 

 mentioned and described schooner or vessel may be cited in general and special to 

 answer the premises, and all due proceedings being had, that the said schooner or 

 vessel, her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furuiture may, for the cause aforesaid, 

 and others appearing, be condemned by the detiuite sentence and decree of tliis hon- 

 ourable Court, as lorfeited to the use of the said United States, according to the 

 form of the Statute of the said United States in siich cases made and provided. 



M. D. Ball, 



United States District Attorney for the District of Alaska. 



That libel was amended and appears in its amended form on page 71, 

 at the bottom of the pnge. It is not amended in any matter material 

 for tliis puri)ose, except so as to bring the men as persons under the 

 cognizance of the conrt. They were afterwards subjected, as you know, 

 to tine and imprisonment; whicli has also an important bearing as to 

 whether it was under mnnicii)al law or not that these proceedings were 

 founded. 



Then there is a demurrer, at the bottom of page 72: 



1. The said claimant by protestation, not confessing all or any of the matters in 

 said amended information contained to be true, demurs thereto and says that the 

 said matters in manner and ibrm, as the same are in the information stated and set 

 forth, are not sufficient in law for the United States to have and maintain their said 

 action for the fcnfeiture of tlie property aforesaid. 



2. The said claimant by protestation denies that this Court has jurisdiction to 

 determine or try the question hereby put in issue. 



3. And that the said claimant is not bound in law to answer the same. 



