102 ORAL ARGUMENT OP Sift CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



In view of tlio fact that tbe seizure of these vessels and tlieir forfeiture has raised 



au international ((nestion of grave iniportanee, I have thonjjht it proper to include 



■\vitli this Report a copy of the brief submitted by the Queen's Counsel in 



842 the case of the IJritish schooners, together with the argument of the United 

 States attorney and the opinion of the Court. 



Honourable A. K. JUelaney, Collector of Customs having been designated as special 

 Counsel on account of the illness and subsequent death of Colonel M. D. Ball, 

 United States District Attorney, represented the Government and made what I think 

 will be generally conceded a most able and forcible, if not wholly unanswerable 

 argument. 



So that tliis gentleman making his Official Eeport as Governor of 

 Alaska forwards also a copy of this docnment, and any difficulty or 

 difl'eience that arises between my friend and myself upon the complete 

 authenticity and reliability of the "brief" we have cited, would of course 

 at once be removed bj' the i)roductiou of the document which the Gov- 

 ernor of Alaska enclosed. If my friend can produce it, I think it will be 

 found that the two documents are, verbatim et literatim, in agreement. 



Senator MoRG-AN. — Sir Charles, lam not sufficiently familiar with 

 the proceedings of the British or Canadian Tribunals, to ascertain with- 

 out enquiry from you, what is meant there by the brief of "the Queen's 

 Counsel". 



Sir Charles Russell. — It clearly means that he was the Counsel 

 representing the case of tlie British owners of schooners. 



Senator Morgan. — That means Counsel appearing for the Govern- 

 ment. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — IS'o; it means a Counsel who is a "Queen's 

 Counsel", just as my friend is a "Queen's Counsel", and as I am. 



Senator Morgan. — It is the description of his position in the pro- 

 fession? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — It is the description of the position in the 

 profession of the Counsel in the case of the British schooners. 



Now I am going to refer to that brief. The brief in answer to the 

 case on the part of the United States is to be found in the same book — 

 that large volume — page 100; and as 1 understand the procedure in 

 the Court upon this point — 1 am speaking without certain knowledge 

 upon it, and I should therefore be glad to be corrected, but 1 gather 

 from what appears, and from other information, that the course is that 

 stated by my learned friend Sir Eichard Webster, namely, that the pro- 

 ceedings originate in a libel or summons, and that, after that, the counsel 

 for the Libellant tiles his Brief, or what we should call in Great Britain 

 "Statement of Claim"; that being filed, the other side tiles, in his turn, 

 his "Brief", which is the answer which the Defendant puts forward to 

 the Statement of Claim; and, accordingly, the Brief on behalf of the 

 owners of the schooners, and filed in the Court, is set out at page 100 

 of that large volume. I am not going to trouble the Court to read it, 

 but I wish to show that the person who prepared this brief had before 

 him the Brief on the part of the Libellant, because he follows the various 

 grounds, which he takes one by one— very much shorter — (as an answer 

 generally speaking is shorter than the original allegation which is 

 traversed) — very much shorter, but taking up all the points. 



843 Senator Morgan. — I think what you call a " Brief", we call a 

 " Libel" or " Information ". 



Sir Charles Eussell. — It is variously phrased, " Case", "Factum", 

 " Statementof claim", " Declaration ". There are varying phrases for it. 



Senator Morgan. — The proceedings on the part of the Claimant we 

 should term here an " Intervention", if there is an Intervention. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — In this Brief (which I do not propose to 

 trouble the Court by reading) he proceeds to state, in the first paragraph, 



