“I’M ALONE” CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 29, 4 February 1935, Page 12

“I’M ALONE” CASE

A NAUTICAL PROBLEM RUM RUNNERS SUNK Of particular international interest was the case of the vessel I’m Alone, in which, the cables announced on Tuesday, a settlement has been finally reached. On March 2, 1929, after a chase lasting two days and nights, the Canadian auxiliary schooner I’m Alone, notorious as a successful sum-runner on the American coast, was sunk in heavy weather 200 miles from the (coast of Louisiana by gunfire from the United States Coastguard vessel Dexter, which had come to the assistance of its slower chasing consort, AVolcott. In this encounter one member of the I’m Alone’s crew, a Frenchman, lost his life, although his body was recovered. The survivors, rescued by the United States Coastguard, were clapped in irons, landed at Now Orleans, and charged with conspiracy to violate the Volstead Act, but, after ’4B hours’ imprisonment, released on withdrawal of the charge. The British Consul intervened with the American authorities on their behalf.

The United States Department justified the sinking as the direct consequence of the refusal of the I’m Alone to heave to for boarding when summoned by the Wolcott to do so within

the treaty range applicable to the schooner in terms of the Liquor Laws Convention aforesaid. In addition, they claimed, although the treaty did not confer it, the right to pursue a suspect on to the high seas, and asserted the right to sink as incidental to the right to board. Under this convention the United States had been (conceded by Great Britain the right to board

“any private British vessel” beyond the three mile limit, but only when

within one hour’s sailing of the American coast, as determined by the speed of that vessel. The position of the I’m Alone was given by Captain Randall as 10.8 miles from the shore, and her speed on that day was and her best speed as 8| knots. According to the American case her position was 14J miles from the shore, and her best speed 12J knots, as previous successful escapes from capture showed. But on these disputed facts the Commissioners deemed it unnecessary to hear evidence, the case in their opinion falling to be decided by three questions uf law aftermentioned.

There were also political (complications in the case. The schooner, it is true, was on the British register, but the Eugene Creaser Shipping Company, Ltd., of Lunenberg, Nova Scotia, which figured as registered owner, turned out to be a holding company registered under Nova Scotia laws, and thinly disguising the beneficial interest held by a notorious American rum-running syndicate. The Foreign Office, already in March, 1929, in controversy with the Department of State over war debts, was averse to undertaking the protection of the interests of a disguised American rumrunner, and, seizing on the fact of Canadian registry, insisted on passing the troublesome buck to Canada, which received it with a lifeless hand, since no genuine Canadian interest appeared io be at stake. Nevertheless when the State Department took the high line of standing on the treaty .to justify challenge, pursuit, and sinking alike, the Canadian Department of External Affairs took heart again, and prepared most excellently for an argument on the treaty. After delay due to these hesitations, further delay was caused by the death of one of the appointed Commissioners, but eventually on January 28, 1932, the Commissioners (now Judge van Deventer of U.S.A, and Sir Lyman Poore Duff of the High Court of Canada) invited argument on the following questions of law, which were raised by the written pleadings:— (1) Whether the Commissioners may go behind the British flag and inquire into the beneficial ownership of the I’m Alone in the corporation that owned her? If she proves to be indirectly owned or controlled by United States citizens, is this (a) an answer to the claim? (b) a circumstance mitigating damage, or (c) merely a ground weighing with the claimant Government in not pressing the claim?

(2) The right of hot pursuit in its two aspects; (a) from within the variable treaty range; (b) from within the .12-mile range, establishment by the United Slates revenue laws. (3) The right to sink.

Reversing the order of these points, the Canadian Government denied absolutely the right to sink, admitted the right of hot pursuit, but only if begun within territorial waters (i.e., within three miles from the shore), and finally contended that, inasmuch as the convention spoke of “private vessels under the British flag,” it was beyond tthe Commissioners’ power to inquire into the beneficial ownership.

A brief summary of the recommendations which appeared in the cables appears to show that Canada has succeeded on points (2) and (3), but not on point (1), says Professor A. H. Charteris, in the Sydney Morning Herald. This, at any rate, is the only way of explaining the inconsistency of a recommendation which finds an apology due from the United States to the Canadian Government, as well as compensation due to Caaptain Randell and his meh, but disallows the claim for loss of ship and sargo, which apparently thee Comni’ssioners believe to have been beneficially owned by United States citizens.