The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-08-31

Present Claims for Damages?-Argu-
ment Before the Commission Yester-
day.
Halifax, N. S., August 30.-Mr. Beique
the Behring Sea Commissioners. He re-
ferred to the wise choice made in regard
to the Commission and asked for the con-
sideration of only legitimate claims. He
opened by speaking to the question of the
scope of the convention and referred to
the seizure of British vessels, the i'm
prisonment of their crews and the hard
ship inflicted on these men by the United
States.
The case when brought before the Paris
Tribunal, he said, was decided against
the United States on several points. Mr..
Beique took issue in certain respects with
the statement of the United States brief
that the scope of the convention was
limited by it's own statements. The
speaker contended that the United States
was liable by the decision of the Paris
Tribunal for all damages caused by the
claim of that country to control over fur
seals.
Mr.. Beique continued his address
today after recess taking up
his argument in regard to the
scope of the Behring Sea commission. He
went on to show that every claim of
Great Britain could be uphled. He quoted
the decision of the United States Supreme
court which decided that the United
States would be responsible for damages
to it's own citizens. He claimed that the
seizures should be taken By the conven-
tion as if they had occurred on any high
sea. The, vessels seized were British
vessels iI, every sense. At the time of
the Paris Tribunal there had been no
reference made to particular claims by
the British government, but this the
speaker claimed did not prevent the
making of amendments at the present
time by the insertion of further and fuller
claims. Mr.. Beique took up the question
of several individual cases disputed by
the counsel of the United States as being
outside of the Jurisdiction of the COM
mission and urged on the convention the
right of the individuals for remuneration.
In the case of Cooper interested In several
seized vessels it was shown that the real
owner was one Warren. Cooper had
simply lent his name for registration. He
thought that II 1t was competent for the
United States to go behind the register to
prove ownership it was equally competent
for Great Britain to do so. This being so
,ur,t.D I<,-
his loss. In the cases of the Black
Diamond and Lily 1t was shown by the
evidence of Alexander Frank that the
vessel was owned by Morris Moss who
purchased the vessels from Frank and
Gutlnan on November 10th, 1888. The
claims In this case were made on behalf
of Mr.. Moss after 1888. Touching on the
the United States claimed chat the vessel
was half owned by Andrew j. Bechtel.
The evidence showed that this gentleman
was at the time of seizure and even before
that date domiciled resident of Victoria.
1t was shown that the only interest held
by Bechtel in the ships was that of mort
cages before the seizure these mortgages
were registered and made, hIsublic before
the seizure 743a n IL
The United States brief claimed that a
British subject domiciled within the
United States had no right to damage
Mr.. Beique claimed that if this were ad-
mitted them the British counsel had
right to urge that Frank or any other
person domiciled in British territory
would be considered British subjects.
Mr.. Beique stated that no such argument
would be claimed, but that the right to
own British ship was sufficient warrant
to enable him to collect damages. He
claimed that Great Britain was bound to
protect its residents. The United States
affirm that the citizens of that country
were not able to own vessels in British
territory. Such law if carried out on a
vessel flying the British flag whether in
Victoria or on the high seas would, Mr..
Beique contended be hardly recognized
by the laws of nations.