416 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



[Inclosure No. 1.] 



Consul Moitow to Lieut. Governor Campbell. 



Consulate of the United States of America. 



Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 15, 1839. 



Sir: In the interview with which your excellency honored me a few 

 days ago, I took the liberty of expressing my opinion with respect to 

 the recent seizure of several American vessels, in the ports of this 

 Province, by Mr. Darby and Mr. Forrester. 



I now beg leave to solicit the attention of your excellency to a state- 

 ment of facts, so far as they have come to my knowledge, and to bring 

 them plainly before your excellency. I have abstracted from affi- 

 davits now in my possession, and which, if necessary, may be sub- 

 mitted to your excellency, all that I think may enable your excellency 

 to form a correct judgment on the cases respectively ; which papers are 

 hereunto annexed, and numbered 1 to 6. 



I would state to your excellency that Mr. Matthew Forrester de- 

 clared to me, on the morning of Saturday last, in the presence of 

 several respectable persons, that he gave money to the boy referred to 

 in statement No. 1, (the case of Shetland,) to induce the master to sell 

 the articles named in that statement; and, in mentioning this circum- 

 stance, I am unwilling to imagine that your excellency will sanction a 

 practice by which individuals, and especially strangers and foreigners, 

 may be entrapped at the instance of officers appointed to carry the 

 laws of the country into effect, and who are interested in the condem- 

 nation of property so placed in jeopardy. 



I would earnestly request your excellency to consider the cases which 

 I now place before your excellency, and which, I think, do not, under 

 all the circumstances, subject the vessels to forfeiture under the pro- 

 visions of the convention between Great Britain and the United 

 States. 



With respect to the operation of the provincial act, William IV., 

 cap. 8, 1 would only respectfully refer your excellency to the act itself. 

 I do not presume to express an opinion regarding it; but would only 

 notice the utter impossibility of any defence being offered by a master 

 of these small fishing vessels, even if conscious of his innocence. 



In the tenth section of the act it is said, " that no person shall be 

 admitted to enter a claim to anything seized in pursuance of this act, 

 &c. until sufficient security shall be given, &c, in a penalty not ex- 

 ceeding sixty pounds," &c. 



Your excellency will please to observe that, under this rule, a 

 claimant must be in a situation to procure funds to employ lawyers, 

 and to pay heavy court expenses under the vice-admiralty table of 

 fees; which cannot be done in any of these cases, as I am informed by 

 professional men, under an advance of at least thirty or forty pounds 

 currency; adding to this the security of sixty pounds, it is evident 

 that the owner of each vessel, so seized must either send on funds or 

 letters of credit to the extent of one hundred pounds, before he can 

 oppose the seizure, or, otherwise the vessel will or may be condemned 

 by default. 



This sum is, perhaps, as much as any of these small vessels are 

 worth, and the claimant, if able to pay it, must actually place at hazard 

 the one hundred pounds mentioned, in addition to his property seized ; 



