for "three boats, two of them new, $230." The schedule in the Argument repeats the item enlarged, "Three boats, destroyed by worms, at $85 each, R., 1669, line $255." The Henrietta carried but three boats.

up.

The demands of this claimant are so grossly exorbitant, so absolutely without foundation in the Record, and so unusual that a detailed discussion of each item is considered unnecessary. The High Commissioners, upon inspecting the schedule, will find that the illustration of the double charge for the boats practically represents the method in which the entire schedule is made Two items for legal expenses, as follows, are contained in the schedule: "Legal expenses at Sitka, $112.50," "Belyea's bill, re proceedings at Sitka, $113." Those items are supported by the Record, and inasmuch as the money was expended in behalf of the owner in protecting his schooner against the charge of violating the revenue laws of the United States, from which she was subsequently released, the Government of the United States desires to repay the claimant the amount. The further item, however, "Belyea's charge, $600," is based upon the following testimony:

4.

Q. Had you any other agreement with Mr. Spring as to any R., 1738, line other charges?

A. Yes; in the fall of 1893. At the time it was not known whether the vessel would be back or what would be the result of the case. There was some talk of appealing from the decision of the court at Sitka, and a lump sum of $600 was agreed to as the cost with respect to the claim. This was to prepare the claim and get it in and look after it until it was settled.

Inasmuch as no decree was ever entered, and consequently no appeal ever taken from Sitka, and as there is no testimony that Mr. Belvea had any connection whatever with obtaining the vessel for the owner-but on the contrary the diplomatic correspondence already cited shows that the vessel was

52.

R., 1735, line

51.

released by order of the Department of State of the United States-the claim for this item, which was based upon services to be performed in connection with the appeal, when a claim for appeal even was never filed, is without foundation in fact.

The item "Expenses at Victoria, $600," has been mentioned.

The claims "Loss of time, waiting delivery of vessel at $100 a month, $700; hardships suffered by master, $500," and almost every item thereafter until the end of the schedule are demands absolutely without foundation in the testimony. They are, moreover, personal claims of the persons named, and are therefore not within the jurisdiction of this High Commission.

Concerning the item "Personal expenses and trouble of Charles Spring, $500," Spring testified:

Q. The time that you spent here that you refer to was spent in preparing a claim against the United States for the seizure and detention of the Henrietta?

A. It was more particularly to collect evidence, I think it

was.

Q. For a claim against the United States?

A. Yes.

Q. Had it anything to do with the defense of the suit at Sitka?

A. No.

Q. What time you spent here was in collecting evidence with Mr. Belyea to present the claim to your Government to be recovered against the United States for seizure?

A. Yes; I think that would be about right.

The item "105 skins sold at Sitka, $15 a skin," does not take into consideration the fact that the captain R., 1665, line testifies that he obtained $525.15 for these skins at Sitka; nor the fact that in the Argument, page 85, line 50, the statement is made "in 1892 skins were worth $14."

21.

The claim of $2,000 for depreciation in the value of the vessel rests upon no testimony whatever save that of the captain, where he says that it would have

17.

cost $200 to repair her. Spring, the owner of seven- R., 1736, line eighths of the vessel, testified:

Q. You saw the Henrietta afterwards, did you not?

A. No, I don't think I ever seen her here since she went

away.

40, 37.

Fell, the owner of one-eighth of the vessel, testified R., 1741, lines that when she arrived in Victoria he was absent, and that he did not see her until the 22d or 26th of March. He knew nothing of what care had been given the vessel in the meantime, and inasmuch as the owners were quarreling with the captain, as is shown by the testimony, some presumption might arise regarding this.

Q. Did you ever own any other vessel?
A. Yes.

Q. What others?

A. Only two small vessels-sloops.

Q. What do you mean by a small vessel?

A. A vessel of eight or nine tons.

Q. Below the register here, I suppose?

A. Yes, below the register.

Q. Did you ever own a registered vessel before, or own an interest in one?

A. No.

R., 1743, line 49.

53,

He testified that the vessel was not hauled up on the beach to have her examined, and he evidently R., 1742, line knew nothing about the condition of the vessel except R.. 1741, line that she was leaking a little and that her sails and 50. ropes were worn. He did not know whether the leakage was about the centerboard or not. If it was

it could have been repaired at a nominal expense.

50.

This witness testifies regarding a sale which is cited R., 1744, line in the Argument on behalf of Great Britain. A reading of his testimony will show what weight should be attached to that offer.

40.

The sheriff subsequently seized the Henrietta under R., 1745, line an execution directed against Mr. Spring for a debt not contracted in connection with the Henrietta, and Mr. Fell testified that they did not have time to

R., 1747, line 22.

endeavor to sell the vessel before the sheriff had her. There is no testimony that the vessel was free of liens when the sheriff sold her, and the sum realized at that sale, as said by the High Commissioner on the part of the United States, goes a very little way in establishing the value of the ship.

The Government of the United States is liable for the fair charter value of the Henrietta from the 6th of September, 1892, until the 23d of November, 1893, together with such losses as the owner actually sustained. The boats were undoubtedly damaged, legal expenses were incurred at Sitka, and the value of the skins depreciated.

THE OSCAR AND HATTIE.

CLAIM No. 23.

35.

The Oscar and Hattie was seized by a revenue cutter in the service of the United States in the harbor R 221, line of Attu Island on the 30th day of August, 1892, for a violation of the convention signed on the 18th day of April, 1892, between the United States and Great Britain for the renewal of the modus vivendi of 1891. Attu Island is the most westerly of the Aleutian Islands, and the harbor in which the Oscar and Hattie was seized is in Bering Sea. The seizure was made Exhibits, by the United States revenue cutter Mohican.

Article 3 of the modus vivendi of 1892 provided:

Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition. in the said waters of Bering Sea, outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States, may be seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the high contracting parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who shall alone have jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties for the same. The witnesses and proofs necessary to establish the offense shall also be sent with them.

This article is the same as Article 3 of the modus vivendi of 1891.

220, line 57.

Parliament enacted in 1891 the "Seal-fishery Act, Exhibit 90,

1891."

That act provided that Her Majesty, the Queen might, by order in council, prohibit the catching of seals by British ships in Bering Sea, or such part thereof as was defined by the said order during the period limited by the order; and "if a British ship is

G. B. Cl., 23; Exhibits 263.