ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 35 



Those are the principal features of what I have thought fit to call 

 the first stage in this controversy. 



Now let me pass to the second. 



Senator Morgan. Mr. Carter, do you understand that a British 

 subject residing in Canada has the right, in a diplomatic sense, an 

 international sense, to the protection of two Governments? 



Mr. Carter. Canadian and British? 



Senator Morgan. Canadian and Biitish. 



Mr. Carter. I never thought of that; and any oi)inion I might give 

 upon it would be of little value now. In the course of such reflections 

 as I have given to these questions, it has not yet occurred to me that 

 that was material. 



Senator Morgan. The diflflculty, I would suggest, that occurs to my 

 mind is this: I can very well understand how a British subject is enti- 

 tled to the protection of the British Crown and Government in respect 

 to his national relations; but I do not understand how the Canadian 

 Government, as a Government, can interpose to protect British sub- 

 jects within Canada, against an avowed policy of the British Govern- 

 ment. 



Mr. Carter. I had not supposed that the Canadian Government was 

 such a Government as could, in any sovereign capacity, or diplomatic- 

 ally, communicate with other Governments, or assert any rights in 

 respect to other Governments. I had supposed that tlie colonies of the 

 British Empire occupied substantially some such position as the States 

 of the American Union occupy towards the United States Government, 

 and that the citizens of Canada in reference to any defence which they 

 might desire to make against the acts of other Governments, would be 

 obliged to appeal to the imperial authority; that their own colonial 

 Government was not able to give them any protection. They might 

 appeal to their own Government in the first instance, but that Govern- 

 ment, I suppose, would have, in turn, to appeal to the imperial authority. 

 That is what I should suppose the state of the case was; but I may be 

 in error about that. 



Sir John Thompson. Like most British subjects Canadians have a 

 right to express their opinion on matters affecting their own interests; 

 and the Canadian Government has the means of expressing that opinion 

 to the British Government. 



Mr. Carter. — I should suppose so; yes. A citizen of Canada has 

 the right of every subject of Great Britain to express his opinion upon 

 all subjects of British policy, I suppose, if any such policy should hap- 

 pen to bear heavily upon him; and his own Government furnishes, 

 doubtless, an instrumentality through which he can communicate that 

 expression. 



Sir John Thompson. By which he can claim the protection of the 

 British Government. 



Mr. Carter. By which he can claim the protection. I should sup- 

 pose that. 



There were some incidental matters connected with this first stage 

 of the controversy, and which occurred during the discussions in rela- 

 tion to it, which make a figure, but an unimi)ortant figure, in it. For 

 instance, there were claims for damages made by the British Govern- 

 ment growing out of the seizures, and those claims were persisted in, 

 and from time to time made the subject of demand and of diplomatic 

 communication. In the next place there were further seizures made in 

 the year 1888 ; but the vessels which were seized in 1888 were all released 

 from seizure with the exception of one, which was the W. P. Wayward, 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. You mean 1887, not 1888, 



