326 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
This unimportant observation doubtless arises from confounding the voluntary 
passage of the vessel through the Pass to escape a storm, with a supposititious driving 
of the vessel through the Pass by the wind. 
4, Says United States Attorney that, although the owners of the vessel were rep- 
resented by Counsel, they did not produce at the judicial hearing the important 
testimony now offered ex parte. 
This argument is met by the circumstance that the owners of the vessel had no 
opportunity to select Counsel for themselves, nor to influence the production of evi- 
dence and arguments in their behalf in that distant locality, and hence it would be 
hard to hold them responsible for a failure to produce evidence at the trial, which 
they admit the Counsel retained for them by the captain ought to have produced, 
and for the non-production of which said Connsel have been dropped from the case. 
The captain who employed the Counsel at Sitka thought his own testimony ought 
to have been taken, but he did not feel qualified to question the judgment of ‘his 
attorneys. 
5. The District Attorney believes the merits of the case can be better determined 
on the pending Appeal from the judgment than by an executive proceeding. 
This argument is refuted by circumstances that, so far as the Statute Book shows, 
there is no Court in which the Appeal, taken at large to the Circuit having appela- 
tive jurisdiction, can be located or determined. 
6. That the power to remit is an extraordinary one, and should be used restrictingly. 
This argument of the District Attorney has been long since answered by the 
Supreme Court, which has said that the laws imposing penalties are not to be con- 
strued strictly against persons or property for the benefit of the revenue, and that 
the laws conferring powers of remission are remedial in their nature, and should be 
liberally used for the benefit of those who have innocently incurred the sanction of 
the penal law. (10 Wheaton, 841, United States v. Morris, 106.) 
In conclusion, we remind your Excellency that no seals were in fact taken in or 
near the place where the Revenue officer supposed the ‘San Diego” had been seal- 
ing; that, in point of law, no unlawful sealing was done by our vessel; that the 
British vessels seized at the same time, in the same locality, for the same cause, and 
judicially condemned to forfeiture in the same court, by the same Judge, and under 
the same circumstances as our own, have been released upon the ground of inno- 
cency; that without any actual fault of our own, we have, in fact, been deprived of 
a fair trial in the Court below, and, to all appearances, are left without further 
judicial remedy; that the remissory powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, by a 
probable oversight in the Statutes, do not reach our case; that personally we have 
been free from all evil intent, fault, or negligence throughout; and that while our 
agent, the master, did not take the seals within the American boundary of Behring’s 
Sea, he might justly have done so in view of the ruling of Mr. Secretary Bout- 
294 well, the diplomatic action of our own Government from the first to the pres- 
ent moment, and the general belief of merchants, lawyers, and all persons 
interested in the seal fisheries that such fishing is lawful in any part of Behring’s 
Sea, except near the islands of St. Paul, St. George, or within 3 miles of the shore. 
Having filed with the Secretary of the Treasury the papers upon which we rely to 
sustain the position taken therein, and convincing evidence of our good standing as 
citizens and merchants, we pray your Excellency “to take this Petition into prompt 
and favourable consideration, and release us henceforth from the serious and continu- 
ing loss that we have undeservedly suffered, and are suffering, by the seizure and 
retention of our vessel and cargo, in which no third parties are interested as inform- 
ers or captors. 
Respectfully submitted, 
(Signed) L. N. HANDY AND Co., 
Commission Merchants, 
No. 208, 
Foreign Office to Colonial Office. 
FOREIGN OFFICE, August 17, 1889. 
Srr: Tam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to request that you 
will state to Secretary Lord Knutsford that, in his Lordship’s opinion, 
it is very desirable, pending the receipt of full details in regard to the 
recent seizure in Beliring’s Sea by the United States Revenue-cutter 
“Ttush” of the British vessels “Black Diamond” and “Triumph,” that 
—————s 
— 
a ee ey ee 
“ses 
1 ss 
