of cattle contains a clause providing that the steamer shall supply bedding to the drovers and give free passage over and back to a number not exceeding one man to every 25 or 35 head of cattle, as the case may be. The shippers of the cattle engage the men, and this because, I am told, they have a large number of such men in their employ, and they have means of judging whether they are competent or not. The owners or agents of the vessels have not the same facilities, and were they to undertake the responsibility of providing cattlemen in all probability they would be held liable for any accidents that might happen to the cattle. The regulations require that one-half of the cattle attendants shall be experienced men who have made previous trips with cattle. These are for the most part men in the regular employment of the shippers and come on board with the cattle from Jersey City or a day or two previous, so as to see to the arrangements for the reception of the cattle. Should there not be a sufficient number of experienced men, the foreman secures the services of others, so as to make up the complement of 50 per cent of the whole number of cattle attendants. The other 50 per cent of the cattle attendants (men who are not required to be experienced) are supplied for account of the shippers by various employment agencies. They may be said to consist almost entirely of men who wish to leave the country and they are sent on board just before the vessel leaves. All the men are mustered to see that there is the requisite number, and the foreman supplies the agents or owners with a list of all the attendants and of those for whom return passages are required. It appears that the shippers of the cattle do not ask for return passages for any except the experienced men, and I am also informed that some of the men sell their tickets instead of using them for the return passage. I am informed that all the men are entered on the ship's agreement and account of the crew, but of this I have no personal knowledge; such a proceeding is countenanced in the case of seamen shipped at the last moment in the place of deserters when there is no time to bring them to the consular office before the vessel starts. The inspector of animals for export of the United States Department of Agriculture is the authority who decides whether the cattlemen fulfill the requirements of the regulations, and by the nineteenth article of the regulations he has to see that all their requirements have been complied with. The vessel can not obtain her clearance from the custom-house until he has been satisfied that all is in order. There is also an act, approved March 2, 1891, which provides that a vessel may be prohibited from carrying cattle for any length of time not exceeding one year if her owner or master willfully violate any of the regulations. So far as this consulate is concerned the men will be placed on the articles (as has been done formerly), if they are brought to the office for that purpose, but they are really employed and paid by the shippers of the cattle and not by the owners, masters, or agents of the vessels. The consulate-general has, however, no means of compelling a master to bring cattlemen to the office for the purpose of signing the agreement with the crew, nor can the men be compelled to sign when they have been brought. In the absence of any registration bureau of cattlemen, it is not clear how competent men are to be obtained if they are really to be in the employ of the ship. Complaints are made that cattlemen are not provided with return passages to the United States, but the mere fact of their signing the agreement as part of the crew of a British vessel will not entitle them to a return passage to the United States, and there is no provision for a return passage in the regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture. If it were really desired that all cattlemen should be provided with return passages, the course would seem to be to instruct the inspector of animals for export to refuse to certify the vessels for clearance till he was satisfied that this had been done. The tickets might perhaps be sent to some United States official in England instead of being given to the men themselves. PERCY SANDERSON. I have, etc., No. 379.] Mr. Olney to Sir Julian Pauncefote. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 27th instant, referring to previous correspondence relative to the United States regulations for the transportation of cattle to Europe and inclosing copies of dispatches on the subject received by you from Her Majesty's consul-general at New York. The Department hopes to receive from you at an early day the promised report of the British Board of Trade on the subject in order that the matter may be finally disposed of. I have, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. Mr. Olney to Sir Julian Pauncefote. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MY DEAR SIR JULIAN: With reference to your note of the 27th of April last, concerning the question of the shipment of cattlemen on British steamships at New York and Boston, I beg respectfully to inquire whether Her Majesty's consul-general at New York has yet received instructions from the British Board of Trade concerning the placing of cattlemen on the shipping articles of British vessels at that port. This information is urgently desired by the Secretary of the Treasury. I am, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. Lord Gough to Mr. Adee. BRITISH EMBASSY, Newport R. I., August 8, 1896. MY DEAR MR. ADEE: On the 17th ultimo the Secretary of State wrote unofficially to Sir Julian Pauncefote to inquire whether Her Majesty's consul-general had received any instructions from the board of trade respecting the shipment of cattlemen at New York. His excellency at once wrote to the consul general to ask whether he had yet heard from the board of trade on the subject, and I now learn that he has not yet received their reply. I shall not fail to communicate with you again as soon as I hear of the receipt of the instructions in question. Believe me, etc., GOUGH. Lord Gough to Mr. Adee. BRITISH EMBASSY, Newport, R. I., August 17, 1896. MY DEAR MR. ADEE: With reference to my unofficial letter to you of the 8th instant, relative to the treatment of men shipped at New York on British vessels to tend cattle, I beg leave to inform you that I have been requested to furnish Her Majesty's Government with further information on the matter previous to the issue of instructions to Her Majesty's consul-general in reply to his application. I should be glad, therefore, to know whether it would be agreeable to you that I should discuss the matter personally and unofficially with the Acting Secretary of the Treasury or such other authority as you may think proper. If you see no objection to this course, I will come to Washington for the purpose in the course of next week. Believe me, etc., GOUGH. Mr. Olney to Lord Gough. No. 503.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MY LORD: With reference to my note to your embassy, of the 11th of February, 1896, relative to the difficulties experienced by cattle attendants on British vessels in returning to the United States, I have the honor to inform you that the Department has received a letter of the 16th ultimo, from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, stating that in a personal conference between yourself and him, held on the previous day, a satisfactory conclusion was reached in regard to the matter, and that therefore no further information would be required from this Department concerning the subject. Adding that this settlement of the matter is very gratifying to the Department, I have, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. INDEMNITY TO JAMES BAIN.1 Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Olney. BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, March 23, 1896. SIR: With reference to previous correspondence on the subject of Mr. Bain's claim for compensation for injuries received at New Orleans, I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a letter which has been addressed by him to Her Majesty's secretary of state, and to invite your attention to the statements which it contains. I have been instructed by the Marquis of Salisbury to report on the present position of Mr. Bain's case, and I should be much obliged if you would inform me how soon I may be favored with a reply to my urgent representations on the subject. I have, etc., JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. See Foreign Relations, 1895, Part I, pp. 686-696. [Inclosure.] Mr. Bain to the Marquis of Salisbury. LIVERPOOL, February 29, 1896. MY LORD: Referring to your communication of the 18th of January, I respectfully desire to inform your lordship of my arrival here from New Orleans, at which port I arrived on the 23d of January and left on the 1st instant. On the 23d of January I was advised by the British consul to place myself at the disposal of the local authorities should they require me for examination, and immediately communicated with the mayor of the city. He replied to the British consul that he had not been officially advised from Washington and could not act. On the 31st of January I received notice to appear before the attorneygeneral (Cunningham) to arrange for a date for my appearance as witness against the several men indicted for shooting with intent to kill. I was examined by the attorney-general, District Attorney Butler, and Assistant Attorney Finney with regard to my injuries, losses, and expenses, and if I was able to identify the person who shot me. I stated that the first shot, striking me in the right orbit, blinded me and felled me to the ground, and upon my recovering myself and attempting to shelter from further attacks was shot down again and lay insensible until the shooting was over, and rescued by the officers of the steamship Engineer, thus proving it quite impossible for me to recog nize any of the rioters. The attorney-general seemed surprised to learn that I had been shot down again a second time, yet he thought I had been shot by accident. He failed to see how I could have enemies among the men working constantly at the Harrison Line steamers. pointed out the fact of several white men passing along the wharf repeatedly (after the colored screwmen and longshoremen had been driven from their work through fear of an attack on the 11th of March, the day previous to the riot) and casting unfriendly looks at me and the six men I had working with me receiving the cotton for the steamship Engineer. I There is no doubt that they looked upon me as an enemy to their cause by my helping to continue the work on the wharf which they were endeavoring to stop. I reminded them of the fact of the police staff not making their appearance until after the shooting had been done and leaving the ship and wharf insufficiently protected. They admitted that had the police been there they would not have been able to cope with the body of men reported to have joined the rioters, yet he (the attorney-general) says that Governor Foster did everything to avoid a riot. After my statement to the attorneys, and my inability to identify the man who shot me, they considered it unnecessary for my appearance as a witness. The six men, police officers, who guarded the wharf and others identified the man indicted, but witnesses came forth and made oath that the accused were from the scene at the time of the occurrence; thus ended the examination. I respectfully ask if any decision in my case has yet been communicated to your lordship by Sir J. Pauncefote? I have, etc., JAMES BAIN. No. 356.] Mr. Olney to Sir Julian Pauncefote. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 27, 1896. EXCELLENCY: Referring to previous correspondence concerning the claim of James Bain against the United States, I have the honor to inform you that the case was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on the 27th ultimo, with a favorable recommendation from this Department, and the additional facts contained in your note of the 23d instant have to-day been communicated to the committee. As soon as the determination of the committee is known it will be communicated to you. I have, etc., No. 421.] RICHARD OLNEY. Mr. Olney to Sir Julian Pauncefote. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to state, having regard to previous correspondence upon the subject, that the act of Congress, approved June 8, 1896, entitled "An act making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, and for prior years, and for other purposes," contains the following provision for the payment out of humane consideration, and without reference to the question of liability therefor: To the Government of Great Britain, as full indemnity to certain British subjects, as follows: To James Bain, who was assaulted and injured in the State of Louisiana by residents of that State, one thousand dollars; To Frederick B. Dawson, wife, and daughter, for loss of property and bodily injuries inflicted in the State of Nebraska by residents of that State, one thousand eight hundred dollars; in all, two thousand eight hundred dollars. I inclose a check of the chief of the Bureau of Accounts and disbursing clerk of the Department of State for the sum of $2,800; also receipts in duplicate, which I shall be glad to have you sign and return to this Department. I have, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Olney. BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, June 17, 1896. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 421, of the 12th instant, informing me that an act of Congress approved on June 8, 1896, contains a provision for the payment to my Government, out of humane consideration and without reference to the question of liability, as full indemnity to certain British subjects, of the following sums, viz: To James Bain, $1,000, and to Frederick B. Dawson, wife, and daughter, $1,800; in all, $2,800. I have also the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a check for the above-mentioned amount and to return a receipt in duplicate signed by myself. |