Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 3, 1888, Part II

No. 32.
Mr. Garland to Mr. Bayard.

Department of Justice,
Washington, March 9, 1888. (Received March 9.)

Sir: In examining the question submitted to me informally by you on yesterday, as by the memorandum herewith returned, I beg leave to say that the bond indicated, I am of opinion, can be given in pursuance of rule 10 of the practice in admiralty, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the collection of its rules published 1887, page 65. The doubt that I had in my mind when the question was first suggested arose not upon the mere matter of the general rules of practice in admiralty cases, but whether the bond could be give in cases for direct forfeiture, as these are. On examining the case of the United States v. Ames (99 U. S., p. 35, et seq.), Judge Clifford, in delivering the opinion of the court, on pages 39 and 40, states that the better opinion is that even in seizures for forfeiture the bond may be executed in the same manner, etc., and I think myself that that is the proper view of the question.

The bond to be given must be after appraisement under order of the court where the property is held, and for the amount of that appraisement, conditioned for the return of the property after the final determination of the cases by the courts, and no other kind of bond would be sufficient.

Very truly yours,

A. H. Garland,
Attorney-General.

[Inclosure.]

memorandum.

Department of State,
Washington, March 7, 1888.

Canadian sealers seem required to carry appeal to United States court, or by failure to do that will forfeit bonds. Can they be allowed to bond vessels and skins, without obligation to appeal and pending definite settlement between United States and Great Britain?