ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 619 



Section 3083: Wlienever any seiznre shall be made for the purpose of enforcing 

 any forfeiture, the collector, or other person cansing such seizure to be made, shall 

 immediately give information thereof to the solicitor of the Treasury. 



Section 3084: The several collectors of customs shall report within ten days to the 

 district attorney of the district in which any fine, penalty, or forfeiture may be 

 incurred for the violation of any law of the United States relating to the revenue, a 

 statement of all the facts and circumstances of the case within their knowledge, or 

 which may come to their knowledge from time to time, stating the names of the 

 witnesses and the provisions of the law believed to be violated, and on which a 

 reliance may be had for condemnation or conviction. If any collector shall in any 

 case fail to report to the proper district attorney, as prescribed in this section, such 

 collector's right to any compensation, benelit, or allowance in such case shall be 

 forfeited to the United States and the same maj% in the discretion of the Secretary 

 of the Treasury, be awarded to such persons as may make complaint and prosecute 

 the same to judgment or conviction. 



Section 3088 : Whenever a vessel, or the owner or master of a vessel, has become 

 subject to a penalty for a violation of the revenue laws of the United States, such 

 vessel shall be holden for the payment of such penalty, and may be seized and pro- 

 ceeded against summarily by libel to recover such penalty. 



The ODly other matter I ought to mention is with reference to an 

 enqniry made by Mr. Justice Harlan as to the third projet for the 

 Treaty mentioned at page 74 of the second volume of the Appendix 

 to the British Case; and I think I cannot do better (inasmuch as Mr. 

 Foster indicated the other day for the first time that he desired par- 

 ticularly to have the paper) than tell the Tribunal, so that it may be 

 put on record, exactly what happened. I will read from an Official 

 Document from the Foreign Office. You, Mr. President, will remember 

 that Mr. Justice Harlan asked me whether we could produce it. In 

 the letter of the 8th December 1824, four documents are referred to. 

 First: the projet which Sir Charles Bagot was authorized to sign and 

 conclude, 2nd, the "contre-projet" drawn up by the Russian Plenipoten- 

 tiaries, 3rd, a despatch from Count Nesselrode accompanying the trans- 

 mission of the "contre-projet" to Count Lieven. That I have not got. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — That is in the papers. 



Sir ErcHARD Webster. — No, that document is not in the papers. 



The President. — There is a second Eussian projet. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — The projet as it stands, according to the 

 observations of the despatch, is enclosed. That is referred to at the 

 bottom of page 74, and I will say in passing that tlie document cannot 

 be of any substantial importance because we liave got all the altera- 

 tions which were to be embodied in it, suggested in this very letter of 

 the 8th December 1824, and therefore we have got the substance. 



But this is how the matter stands. 



Although the original of Mr. G. Canning's despatch to Mr. S. Canning, n" 1 of 

 December 8th 1824, which appears on pp. 72-75 of Volume II of the Appendix to the 

 British Case, was found in the archives of the Foreign Office, no trace could be dis- 

 covered of the documents referred to as being enclosed therein, among Avhich was 

 the "Project" of the new Treaty with Russia. Two of these iuclosures namelv, the 

 "Project" of Treaty sent to Sir C. Bagot in 1824 — that is u'^ 1, p. 72 — and the 

 "Contre-projet" by the Russian Plenipotentiaries in the same year were forthcom- 

 ing as inclosures in other Despatches, and are given at pp. 62 and 68 respectively of 

 vol. II of the Appendix to the British Case. 



The President. — You read part of those I believe? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Yes. I read them all or nearly all. The 

 document, as I might remind the Tribunal, about which Mr. Justice 

 Harlan asked me, was the third draft embodying the suggestions of 

 this letter. 



But the two remaining iuclosures namely, the Despatch from Count Nesselrode 

 accompanying the transmission of the "Contre-projet" to Count Lieven, and the 

 "Projet" of the new Treaty could not be found. It was considered of great impor- 

 tance that these documents should, if possible, be obtained in order to make the 



