APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 367 
In January 1887, it appears the authorities in Washington directed the release of 
the “Onward,” ‘‘Carolena,” and ‘*Thornton,” the 1886 seizures referred to in the 
cable message under copsideration, 
Upon this subject an extract from a letter, dated the 17th August, 1889, from Mr. 
A. L. Belyea, Attorney for the owners of the vessels above referred to, and addressed 
to them, is appended to this Report.* 
332 In the year 1888, the Canadian Government having inquired whether the ves- 
sels seized could be bonded without imposing on the owners the obligation to 
appeal, correspondence took place between the British and the United States authori- 
ties, and upon the 21st day of June a Confidential despatch was received by Lord 
Stanley from Lord Knutsford, inclosing a Memorandum, dated the 28th May, 1888, 
which Sir L. S. West had received. This Memorandum is as follows : 
“6 Memorandum. 
“Tn the cases of the condemned Behring’s Sea vessels and their cargoes, it appears 
that the Proctor for some (and possibly all) of the British sealers failed to take an 
appeal from the Decrees of Condemnation entered by the District Court at Sitka. 
Consequently, they have lost the benefit of the Attorney-General’s Order permitting 
release of the property on bond pending decision of the appeals, and, as the Decrees 
have become final, have no other than a diplomatic remedy.” 
It would, therefore, appear that Her Majesty’s Government were advised in 1888 
that no appeal could be taken in the matter of the seizures of 1886. 
One vessel only of all those seized in the different years was released upon a bond 
of security for costs of an appeal being given, viz., the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” the cir- 
cumstances attending which transaction are explained in Appendix (B). 
The United States Marshal at Sitka was directed to take the remaining schooners 
(at that time in possession of the United States authorities, viz., the ‘‘ Grace,” 
“Dolphin,” “Anna Beck,” and ‘‘ Ada”) to Puget Sound for immediate sale. 
The owners of the ‘‘ Anna Beck,” ‘‘ Grace,” and ‘‘ Dolphin,” seized in 1887, having 
been refused leave to appeal, permission was asked for bonding their vessels at 
appfaised value, and to have the sale then about to take place postponed pending 
the settlement of the question. 
After representation had been accordingly made, Mr. Bayard informed Sir L. S. 
West that the Acting Attorney-General had directed the postponement of the sale, 
and had instructed the United States Marshal to receive bonds in lieu of the vessel, 
Mr. Bayard subsequently inclosed, under cover to Sir L. S. West, letters from the 
United States Marshal for the District of Alaska, in which he reported that the 
original appraisement of these vessels was excessive, and that the value had still 
further deteriorated in consequence of the climate of Alaska. For these reasons the 
owners of all these vessels, with the exception of the owners of the ‘‘Anna Beck,” 
refused to bond them at the old appraisement. The owner of the ‘‘Anna Beck” alone 
was willing to give a bond at the original appraisement, subject to a final settlement 
of the matter without necessitating an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United 
States. d 
Accordingly, the Government of Canada requested the British Government to 
move the United States authorities to authorize the reappraisement in the cases of 
the ‘‘ Grace” and ‘ Dolphin,” and to sanction the bonding of the ‘““Anna Beck” in 
the manner proposed. 
After much delay, it was intimated that the sale of these vessels would be pro- 
ceeded with, and areappraisement and bonding as above would not be sanctioned 
by the United States authorities. 
From the correspondence herein reviewed, it will thus be seen that the only appeal 
in the Canadian case from the Judgment of the Court of First Instance which has 
been preferred is in the case of the ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” seized in 1887. 
This case has been duly inscribed in the Supreme Court of the United States for 
nearly a year, and, on inquiry, the Undersigned learns that it will not be reached in 
its turn for argument for another year from this date. It further appears that the 
suits regarding the United States vessels seized under similar circumstances have 
been discontinued; that no test case was ever agreed upon; and that the United 
States Government would not sanction the release and bonding of the seized vessels 
pending a settlement of the question. 
The owners of the ““W. P. Sayward” having to await the almost endless delays 
attending the arguments and decision of a case in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, the question whether an appeal lies in such a case being also involved, and 
the administration of that country evincing no desire to reach an early decision in 
their Appellate Court upon the question at issue, the Undersigned hopes that Her 
Majesty’s Government will not consider that the just demands of the Canadian 
eeu should not be pressed until the case of the ‘*W. P. Sayward” is dis- 
posed of. 
* Appendix (A). 
