ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 555 



Sir Richard Webster. — The sliip comes in: is seized by a cnstom- 

 house officer: is libelled — which is the expression formerly used in the 

 old courts — is libelled and condemned. That court does not act as a 

 prize court in doing- that. I will go further; — there is no foundation 

 for the suggestion that in exercising that jurisdiction the court would 

 be a prize court. It may very likely be that you have said to that 

 court " If a prize case arises you shall have prize jurisdiction." We 

 were told by Mr. Phelps, and I will take it from him — I do not think 

 the statute has been produced by which these Alaskan courts have 

 prize jurisdiction, so far as the municipal laws can give it. I have not 

 seen the statute, and, I cannot therefore express my own oi)inion ujwn 

 it, but that would not make them prize courts when they condemn a 

 ship for smuggling; and no lawyer would say for a moment that when 

 the schooner " iSan Diego" belonging to San Francisco was condemned 

 in the Port of Alaska for a breacli of the revenue laws it was con- 

 demned in a prize court. Under this same statute, section 1954 actually 

 applies the laws with regard to customs, commerce and navigation, and 

 gives this court jurisdiction in respect of breaches of those laws. 



Sir, but I will ask my learned friends if they are going to say that 

 the Alaskan court, condemning an American schooner for a breach of 

 the revenue laws — the very case you put — for running brandy on the 

 coast of Alaska, was sitting as a prize court, I will ask them for their 

 authority. 



Senator Morgan.^-You will find it in the statutes, Sir Eichard. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — I should like to see the section of the 

 statute that gives them that jurisdiction as a prize court, it is an olfence 

 against municii^al law. The municipal law provides a penalty and the 

 forfeiture of the ship. 



An American ship having smuggled goods into the port of Alaska, 

 she is libelled ; she is sold ; the captain is fined. There is not a vestige 

 of an authority for the suggestion that that is the act of a prize court. 



Senator MorctAn. — Except that authority which is given by the 

 statutes of the United States, which authorize the courts to proceed as 

 in cases of prize for the condemnation of smugglers. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — I have not yet seen such a statute. It is 

 not in the stature set out in the United States appendix. 



Lord Hannen. — Mr. Phelps, for convenience, could you refer us to 

 that statute conferring what we will call prize jurisdiction upon the 

 local courts of Alaska"^ 



Mr. Phelps. — I will have it looked up. Sir, and present it to the 

 Court. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — I am much obliged to Lord Hannen for 

 putting that question. I had ventured to say that the statute set out 

 in the Appendix did not contain such authority. 



Senator Morgan. — If you will allow me, I will state my proposition 

 in regard to that. 



Sir Eichard Webster.— All I desire to say is that the United 

 States printed for our information in volume one of the Appendix to 

 the Case, pages 91i, 99, the statutes applicable to this case, apidicable 

 to the seizure of these vessels, giving the Alaskan Court jurisdiction, 

 and permitting the proceedings to be taken. 



Senator Morgan. — I do not know that I am responsible for the atti- 

 tude in which this question may have been presented to the slightest 

 degree. The counsel certainly would not like it that I should be held 

 resi)onsible. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — I do not know that, sir. They might do 

 worse. 



