The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-02
BERING CLAIMS CONVENTION.
Motion Made to Dismiss the Say
ward Case,


VICTORIA, B. c., Dec. 1-When the
Bering sea claims convention met yes
terday, Gen. Dickinson stated that he
had already filed an answer in the
first case, and that the others would
be put in as soon as they were gotten
ready for the printers. He then filed
a motion to dismiss case No. 2 for
$6z, 627. II for costs of the Sayward case.
The ground of the motion was that
these were incurred by the Canadian
government, and not by individuals,
and therefore the claim did not come
before the commissioners within the
terms of the convention. In case his
friends on the opposite side intended
to press the claim, he would ask for
an adjournment, pending an answer
from his government.
Mr.. Peters expressed surprise at the
motion, and said he certainly intended
to press the claim. The sum, named
was actually paid by the Canadian
government, which, as far as the tri-
buna1 was concerned, was the British
government.
Mr.. Dickinson stated that such a
claim as this had no more right to
be put in than would a claim for the
costs of his government before the
Paris tribunal. Costs incurred by in
dividuals might be put in, but not
costs incurred by either government;
they were excluded by the terms of
the convention.
Mr.. Peters was satisfied to let the
matter stand over, and he further pro-
posed that judgment be delayed in
the Black Diamond and James Gaudin
motions, until he had heard from Sir
Julian Pauncefote, to whom he had
wired, and who would interview Secre-
tary OineY.
Justice King announced that nothing
hnT 1a 9asan in Il
costs until counsel again mentioned it.
1t was then arranged to take up the
Carolina case. Wednesday. The replies
filed by the United States, state general
ly that the seizures were made in good
faith by officers of the United States.
within the line of their duty and au-
thority and the mandates of the mu-
nicipal laws of the United States fol-
violation Of the statutes of the United
States and such seizures were ratified
and adopted in good faith by the gov
eminent of the United States as for
violation of their statutes. Section 2, OF
the replyi reads:
THE United States AYERS that before,
at the time of, and after seizure of said
vessels, their apparel, outfit and Cargo,
were wholly er in part the actual prop
erty of a citizen Or citizens of the
United States, and further that at the
time aforesaid, beneficial interest in the
whole or in part Of said vessels, their
apparel, outfit and cargo, were pos
sessed and owned by a citizen or citi.
Zens OF the> United States, and that
said voyage was entered upon and
prosecuted in whole Or in part for the
benefit of the citizens Of the United
States"
The reply further alleges that the
damage claims are speculative and ex>
cessiVe as to damages claimed for the
arrest and imprisonment of the mas
ters and mates of the vessels the
United States AYERS that the only dam
ages to be considered in the case OF any
liability on the part Of the United
States for such arrests and detentipns
are those for actual pecuniary loss,
and are not in their nature punitive or
aggregated in the DANA es.