EXHIBIT I.
Washington, D. C, December 8, 1896.
Sir: I received Acting Secretary W. W. Rockhill’s letter of August 20, 1896, inclosing a copy of correspondence from the legation at St. Petersburg, No. 340, July 3, 1896, also a copy of a memorandum from the Imperial ministry of marine, relative to the seizure of the American schooner James Hamilton Lewis by the Russian man-of-war Aleut August 2, 1891.
The delay in replying was due to my absence from the city and difficulty of obtaining additional evidence, owing to the absence from the port of San Francisco of Captain MacLean and his crew, I have, however, received the original log book [Page 190] with captain’s affidavit attached, also affidavits of Albert L. Donaldson and A. C. Simons, two of the hunters on the Lewis at the time she was illegally seized, they being the only two in the port at the present time, which affidavits I herewith inclose.
They are directly to the point that the seal pups assumed by the Russian authorities to have been taken on land were not so taken, but were from the bodies of cows captured at sea, which, according to their experience, extending over a period of about ten years, is an everyday occurrence.
They, together with the master, contradict the assertion of the Russian authorities that something was cast overboard from the Lewis after sighting the Aleut, as well as testify to the authenticity of the log book herewith submitted.
Inasmuch as the Russian Government discredit the authenticity of the log book, I thought it well to send the original, containing the signatures of the crew, made at Vladiovostock. Since—the voyage being broken up—the crew necessarily separated after leaving Valdiovostock, their signatures to the log is strong corroborative evidence of the fact, testified to by Donaldson, Simons, and the master, that the log was in its present complete condition before they left that place. This ought to set at rest any doubt as to its authenticity in any fair and dispassionate mind.
It is, however, urged by the Russian Government that the master failed to deliver this book to the seizing officer when this log was demanded, and that the “official log” actually delivered has no entry of the vessel’s positions.
As to the entries in the “official log,” a superficial inspection would have disclosed on page 3 a copy of sections 4290–4292 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provide what matter shall be entered in such log. Matters relating to the navigation of the vessel are not among those enumerated, and are never so entered.
With respect to the failure of the master to surrender the log herewith inclosed, it appears to me to have been eminently wise on his part, in view of the fact that his vessel has been confiscated without being given the opportunity of a defense in a court of justice. That book was a record necessary to prove the master’s innocence, and was kept for that purpose in case of a trial, when it would no doubt have been produced. No trial being granted, it is but reasonable to suppose that had this record been delivered to the seizing officer, it would have been lost sight of with as little ceremony as was observed in the confiscation.
The attitude of the Russian Government toward the depositions offered in evidence is somewhat unfortunate, they being characterized as “mere assertions unsupported by evidence, and deserve no credence.” What is to be considered as evidence and what not, and why this particular evidence “deserve no credence,” are matters left unexplained. What better evidence would be obtained than the direct testimony of the parties themselves?
Equally unfortunate is the assertion that Captain McLean, at the time of his arrest, “explained his presence in that place where the arrest took place by the intention of fishing and hunting birds, passing in silence over hunting of seals.”
To a person of ordinary experience in affairs it would scarcely require the denial of the master, contained in his affidavit, herewith inclosed, to discredit this assertion, for it would be a person of exceedingly weak understanding who would offer such an explanation of his presence in those grounds, with seal skins and all the paraphernalia for sealing on board. Whatever may be otherwise affirmed of Captain McLean, he certainly is not such a person.
The assertion “that some objects were thrown overboard into the sea” is also directly denied by the three affidavits herewith inclosed. The Russian Government does not even vouchsafe a suggestion as to what those objects may have been, leaving the whole matter to inference.
Of course, the treatment which the Russians are alleged to have accorded the American flag is not a matter of private concern, and can have no direct bearing upon the merits of this case; but we would, under ordinary circumstances, expect our Government to give the utmost attention to such matters, since respect for the flag lies at the foundation of that protection which American citizens, when abroad, have the right to expect at the hands of their own Government. A rigorous insistence upon such respect would largely tend to avert wrongs which, when once committed, diplomacy can never adequately repair. In this connection, I call to the special attention of the Department the fact that the flag was torn to pieces and trodden under foot.
I think the position of the Department of State is correct with reference to the weakness of the Russian evidence. I see no other course to pursue. In doing so, however, I think this Government should insist upon the credibility of the evidence offered in behalf of the claimants. The evidence is conclusive that the James Hamilton Lewis, when seized, was not in waters subject to Russian jurisdiction.
[Page 191]I trust the log book and affidavits inclosed will place you in possession of new facts which will put the case on a different footing. So far as is now possible, I have followed the suggestions of the Department in the matter of procuring additional evidence.
I respectfully urge upon you the importance of having the present minister conclude this business, as he is familiar with the case.
Very truly,
Attorney for Claimants.
To the Honorable Richard Olney,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.