The herald., 1896-12-01
Argued by Attorneys Before
the COmission
MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL
Cause Surprise to Counsel for the
Claimants
It Is Urged by the United States That
the Claims Are All Specula-
tive and Excessive.
Associated Press Special Wire

Associated Press Special Wire
VICTORIA, B. c., Nov. 30.-When the
Bering sea claims commission me- this
morning General Dickinson stated that
he had already filed an answer in the
first case, and that the others would
be put in as soon they were got ready
for the printers. He then filed a motion
to dismiss case No. 26 for $62.S27.12 for
costs of the Sayward case. The ground
of the motion was that these cases were
insured by the Canadian government
and not by individuals, and therefore
the claim did not come before the COM
missioners within the terms of the con-
vention. In case his friends on the op-
posite side intended to press the claim
he would ask for an adjournment pend
ing 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 govern
ment, which, as far as the tribunal was
concerned, ws the British government.
Mr.. Dickinson stated that such
claim as this had no more right to be
put in than would claim for the costs
of his government before the Paris tri
bunal. Costs incurred by individuals
might be put in. but not costs incurred
by either government. They were ex-
cluded 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 Faugin mo-
tions until he had heard from Sir Julian
Pauncefote, to whom he had wired, and
who would interview Secretary Olney.
Justice King announced that nothing
further would be done in the Sayward
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 gener-
ally that the seizures were made in good
faith by officers of the United States in
the line of their duty an authority and
the mandates of the municipal laws of
the United States for violation of the
statutes of the United States, and such
seizures were ratified and adopted in
good faith by the government of the
United States as for violation of their
statutes. Section of the reply reads:
1.-The United States aver that before.
at the time of, and after the seizure of
said vessels, their apparel, outfit and
cargo We're wholly or in part the actual
property of citizen or citizens of the
United States, and further that at the
times aforesaid the beneficial interest
in the whole or part of said vessels,
their apparel, outfit and cargo were
possessed and owned by citizen or
citizens of the United States, and that
said voyage was entered upon and pros
ecuted in whole or in part for the ben
eft of 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 of the vessels. The United States
aver the only damages to be considered
in the case of any liability on the part
of the United States for such arrests and
contentious are those for actual pecuni-
ary loss and are not in their nature pun
tive of aggregated damages.