DAMAGES CLAIMED BY GREAT BRITAIN. 219 



owner of the said vessels; 1 and the relations between Boscowitz and 

 Warren are shown in the testimony of Boscowitz and Warren, and the 

 pleadings and decrees in the ease of Warren vs. Boscowitz and the 

 cross ease of Boscowitz vs. Warren, in the courts of British Columbia. 2 



The proof also shows that the schooners Carolina and Pathfinder, 

 with their supplies and outfits, wore, in fact, owned at the time they 

 were seized by one A. J. Beohtel, a citizen of the United States (see 

 deposition of W. TI. Williams, 5 and a report of Levi AY. Myers, United 

 ►States consul at Victoria, B. C. 4 ), although said vessels were registered 

 in the names of British subjects. 5 



And that the schooners Alfred Adams, Black Diamond, and LUy,v?ere 

 in fact owned, at the time they were respectively seized by one A. 

 Frank,a citizen of the United States (see deposition of T. T. Williams), 6 

 although registered in the names of British subjects. 7 



It will be seen by looking over the list of vessels alleged to have 

 been seized, or interfered with, that the list contains twenty vessels, 

 but that two of the vessels named in that list, the Triumph and the 

 Pathfinder, were seized or interfere*! with twice; 8 so that, in fact, the 

 schedule contains the names of only eighteen separate vessels in regard 

 to which claims are made, and of these eighteen, ten of them were 

 owned by citizens of the United States. 



It is assumed on the part of the United States that if the proof sub- 

 mitted shows that these ten vessels were really the property of citi- 

 zens of the United States, although they had a nominal registry in the 

 names of British subjects, such demonstration will be sufficient to 

 justify a finding by the Tribunal that no citizen of Great Britain has 

 sustained damage by the seizure of the Sayward, Anna Beclc, Thornton, 

 Grace, Dolphin, Carolina, Pathfinder, Alfred Adams, Blade Diamond, 

 and Lily. 



We therefore confidently ask and expect the decision and findiug 

 of the Tribunal that these claims do not belongto British subjects, and 



' Ibid., pp. 320-325. 

 *IMd., pp. 301-320. 



3 Counter Case of United States, Appendix, p. 351. 

 * I bid., 261. 



B Case of Her Majesty's Government, Schedule of Claims, pp. 1, 40 ; Counter Case of 

 United States, Appendix, p. 256. 



6 Counter Case of United States, Appendix, p. 352. 



7 Case of Her Majesty's Government, Schedule of Claims, pp. 32, 48, 50. 

 e IUd., p. 1. 



