\ >■»• IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 |5o "^ MB ■u lU |22 IU& 6" ^ 7] ^ "#1''-^? ■> **°^ ** y Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST ir%W ritkl WnSTIR.N.Y. U5W (716) •72-4S03 ^> CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques .b Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notet techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D □ D Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents rri Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela ttait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; Tl to L'Institut B microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il Ili a tti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D D D D D Pages de couleur Pegctf damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolordes. tacheties ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality inigaie de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible imege/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont ixi fiimies A nouveau de faqon & obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tl P' o^ fi bi tl si o< fi si 01 T si T IV dl ei bi ri rf rr This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X >/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire fiim6 fut reproduit grflce A la gAnirositi de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Las images suivantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition at de la netteti de I'exemplaire filmA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exempSaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprlmte sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^-(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboln -^ signif ie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signlfie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimis d des taux de rMuction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA. il est filmA A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 LVr, Prl {o^,^ UNITED STATES. No. 1 (1895). ^ CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTINO CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF BRITISH VESSELS SEIZED IN BEHRING SEA ;^.<> /W ;i: LONDON: PRINTED FOR HKH MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE BY HARRISON AND SONS, ST. MARTIN'S LANE, raiHTIB* IN OKDINABT TO HtB MAJBITT. / [C.-7836.] And to be purchucd, cither din-ctljr or Ihroagh wijr BookicUer, fron EYRE AMD 8POTTI8WOODE, Eait Hardino Stbsbt, FLtrr Strut, E.G., ins 32, Abinodox Striit, WBaTMiNaTiB, S.W. j or JOHN HENZIES & Co., 12, IIamotbr Strbbt, EDiNiuRen, Axo to, WlIT NiLB STBBrr, GLAISOWi OB HODQBa, FIGGIS, and Co., LmiTit. 104, Gbarok Sfbibt, Pvbliv. Price 5d. / TABLE OF CONTENTS. No. Name. Date. SUDJBCT Page 1 Colonial Office ■ ' May 8, IS94 Tranitmitt despatch from Canada as to proof to be required. Keniarks &• to costs. Sir J. I auiictfiite should press United Plates' (>o- vernment to liegin negotiations, and telegrupli for a Canadian Ucieuutc as soon at dale is filed I 2 T't Sir J. Paiinccfote , . Telegraphic 10, To urge United Stales' (inverninpnt to lirgin ne;.'otialions, and telegraph for Cnna.iiaii Delegate wlieii ready . . 3 3 Sir J. Pauiicefoto relegrapliic 10. Answers aliore Mr. Oreshnm ready to tnke up question uf cliiini«. S.ig;zcsts appoiutini; Conmiissioner on ench side to verify claims at Viclnria, anil conmlting Canada and settlinif basis of Convention before trnding for DeleBatc . . 3 4 To Colonial Office . . . • 10. Answers No, 1. Informs of No. 3. Suggest* conmiiMiicatioii to Sir J. Pauncefote of No. 1 Transmits No. 3, asking for Lorii Ripnn's 5 >t »■ • • , , u. 3 views 3 6 Colonial Office 16. Answers Nos. 4 and 5 Transmits telegram to Canada. Ilefeia to Ni. 3. They i.|ioiilil communicate Iiiclosure in No. 1 to .Sir J. Panncefute it iiiinlit be well for Canadian Delegate to proceed at once to Washinuton 4 J Sir J. Paunccfote TclegMjihic ai. Ciinada and Uniled Stales' {lovernmciil ap- provH supgi'Blioii n'ade in No. 3. Jlay be now send in claims and propose Conven- tion ? . . . . 4 8 To Colonial Office . . , , June I, Transmits above, proposing to concur 5 9 Colonial Office •^ Anr>H'ers above, and concurs 5 10 'I'o Sir J. Paunoefote.. Telcgrapliic Answers No. ". To semi in claims and pro- pose Convention 5 II Sit .F. Pauncefote Telcgrnpliic 12, Answers No. iO. Claims sent in and Con- ventiou proposed. Is preparing scheme of latter. Expects reply of United Siati-s' Goirrnment in ten days 6 13 It II • • •• 8, Refers to No. 10. Iransmils copy of note to .Mr. Grrshani preseniiiin claims 6 13 U II • • I'elegrnpliic July 13, Socretaiy of Siiiie suggests settling claims by imyment of lump sum. If this is agreed lu, Canadian (ioveriiment should send expert to VVashinglon to discuss amount.. 14 14 To Sir J. Pauncefote.. Telegraphic 18, Answers above. To inlorm Canada by tele- graph. Her .Miijesly's Uoverunient will ask their views 14 16 Sir J. Pauncefote .. Telegraphic 19, Answers above. Canada accepts lump sum proposed, and their Dele)>ate is redd<; to start 14 16 » .i • • lelegraphic Aug. 3, Lump sum proposal. United Stales' Gnvern- ment ••ould puv 400,0(10 dollars. Would Canada accept and Her Majesty's Govern. ment approve acceptance of 4oO,OUU dol- lars? 4 15 17 Colonial Office ■ " 6, Lump sum proposal. Transmits telegram lo Canada asking if they would accept 4.''.0,000 dollars 15^ 18 To Sir -T. Pauncefote . . Telegraphir >>, Informs of above . . , is" !9 Colonial Office •• 9i Lump hum proposal. Transmits telegram from Canada accepting 4.50,000 dollsrs 15 20 To Sir J. Pauncefote., Telegraphic 10, Lump sum. A Jthorizes acceptance of 450,000 dollars .. .. .. 16 21 Sir J. Pauncefote Telegraphic 10, Lump sum. President will only offer 4C0C0II dollars, and ho|)es if ii is not accepted Cun- veutiuo will ua ligiied lit once i 16 [288] TABtB OF CONTENTS. UI I'llRC 3 3 4 5 5 I No. 22 23 24 25 26 Nnnip. ■27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3C 37 38 39 40 To Sir J, Paunccfote . Sir J. Cauncefote .. Colonial Office Sir J. Paiincefote .. Telegraphic Telegraphic Date. To Mr. Uosciion , , Sir J. Pauiiceroto Auif. 16, 16, 18, 25, 21, SupjtCT. To Sir J. Pauiiccfole. , Colonial Office To Sir J. I'auncefote. . Telegraphic Telegraphic Telegrapliic Sir J. Pjuncefote To Sir J. Paunccfote Sir ,1. Puuncefote Colonial Office To Sir J. Paiincpfoto. Sir J. I'auiiciflule Pelegrapliic 41 42 43 lelegrapliic Sept. 8, Dec. 21, Jan. 21, 1 Feb. 26, 27, 28, Mar. 1, 2, 6. Feb. 2G, .Mar. 8, 'J, Feb. 2S, Mar. 4, 5, 15, 19, 893 1894 Canadian Govornment a«kf 1 lo send a .Minister (It onw to \Va*hi"mon lo assist in arranging for Co.ivcntion or jiiini) Sinn Lnmp >nni. .Mr. (Jipsliain offers 425,000 dolirrs (lo cover " WmiiiCrcil " claim). Jf Ciiniida Bgrccf, may he m.ilte seltleinenl ? Hi'f.Ti to No. C. Tcli'o^rain from Canada. Minister of Marine to (jo to Washington I.uiiip Slim. Canada agiK^.H to accept 425,000 dollars . , Luiii|) Slim. Discussion with Sir C. TnppcV and Mr. Gresham. Approprinfioii could be I voted in Decmiber. Ilcr Majesly's Go- I vcriinient to liaie riplit of resuiniiijr nego- I tiatioiis f.ir Conventinii at anv time before I npiiroprialion is actually made. Transmits I iioli'^ I'Xihiiiigcd recording' arran<,'enient Answers abow. Satisfaction of Hit iMajesty's j (J ivirnnitnt nt K-lticnicnt wd with Sir J. I'liiiiiiefole's conduct of iiejiotintions Jjiiinp Sinn. Tiaiisniils |{e of Heproseiilatives ., .. ' ,_! I.iimii Sinn. Answers niiove. Is rejection ! •li'liniliip? . _ j Kcji'ction of lump sum. Refers to No. So"! Discn.sion of Convfiition should be lesumrd | without dt'luy, and sonieoiie sent from Canada I to assist in ni'jrolialinn .. .. ..j Rejection of Inniii sum. Answers No. 30. '• I'o iisk for iniNicdiate reHimption of lu'co- tiatioi;s for Cnnvt-ntion. Colonial Office siigjesi Canadian (lovernmcnl should send ' Di'lejate. To iiijie speedy settlement ..i Aiiswcig above. .Seireiary of Stale ready to iVMune ni'ijotiatioiis. i'on.-ntion cannot ' be siilnniltid till December, iiniess special • Sessinn lie called. Re^riet of I'lcsident and '■ .Mr. (ireshain at their (ailnrc lo obtain aiiproprialion . .. . , _ I Hejeetiini ol lump sum. Iiilrrview with Mr. ' liiyiiri'. riilorliiiiate effects ,. ..j Itijeciion of lijiiiii simi. 'IraiL-niits extract ' Jroiii •' Conitiessioiial Recoril " and pr6cis '< of debate .. .. .. I Lump Mini. Sir .1. I'aiinrefole should send 1 coi.y ot \o. ;i4 to Canidi, and consult es to | liiite for sending' Canadian Uepresentativc to \\'a>iiiugton . . _ | Inrorins ot idiove Rejeiiion of liniip sum. Comments on causes ' winch led to it . . . ; Seniiior .MorLMii's llesolution prop.ising appoint- i nieiit (if Coininiitee to examine into liai>ility I of Unite.l Stales to pay claims, and into I liability of (ireai liritain and Canada. Alln- ' siou to proposal ii'ade in House of Commons thai cl.iims should be paid in advance. rrin«iiiii« report from "Congressional Re- cord " Senaior Morgan's Resolution. Transmits re- port of uebate Senator Morgan's Resolution. Transmits suHiiiiary of .Memorandum by Senator Mor- gan on tne lialiiliiy of tbe United States, (.'niicii-es hi' arituinentK, and commeots on rejeclmn of lump sum Senator M .rjian'i. statement respecting liability of Uiiiied states Further romarka Page I I IS 16 ir 17 17 19 1 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 26 27 27 28 29 30 36 iT TABLE OF CONTENTS. No. •44 45 46 Name. Sir J. Pauncefole . . Il'elegrapliic To Sir J. i'auneefote. . Date. Subject. I'age Aur 17. 1(!93 Convention negotiation*. Canada decides t •^ ■ postpone until after prorogalion . . • • Convention negotiations. Correnpondence with Canadian Governmenl. Their decision to 16. Aug. 31, postpone . • • • ...■■„ / ■ Transmits Memorandum criticising Senator Morgan's statement, and settinc ml pumlf in support of claims. Approves and concurs in arguments brought forward in >o». 40 to 43 37 37 38 i I -;»; 18 Correspondence respecting Claims for Conipensaliun on account of British vessels seized in Beliring Sea by iJnited Statos' Cruisers. ' No. 1. Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Iteceiied May 9.) Sir, Pounintf Street, May H, 1891. I A^r (lircc od hy the Marquis of Ripon to transmit to you, to lie laid l)eforc tho Karl of Kinii)erlcy, copy of a dcsi)atcli and iriclosun* from tlic Govoruor-Gcii'^ral of Cauada, rcsjicctiu^ tlio claims of Britisii subjects in respect of tlie ilUgal seizure of their sealimij-vessels in I'chring Sea hy tiie autliorities of tho United States. Now that tho loi^islation for tlio onforeeniont ol the Kei^ulations prescril)ed hy the Arhitrators has hoen completed, Lord liipon hopes that the arraui^ements for settling; these lon<.'-ontstandin!j claims will bo pressed forward as quickly as ppssible. Tho (luestion raised by the Dominion Government as to tho proof which will be required is one which Lord liipon is dis])osed to think must be settled by the Commission which it is proposed shall adjudicate on tiie claims, and his Lordship would sufi:«jest that in nesotiatinsr the Convention for the ai)pointmcnt of such a Commission, the Jkitish Ambassador should obtain a rceosrnition of the principle that comp(>nsation when awarded should cover the expense of cstablishini^ tlu; right to compensation, though it might be left to the Commission to say whether, in any particular case, tho claimant should be allowed tho costs incurred in provini; his claim. In the meantime, I am to suggest that Sir J. I'auneet'ote should be instructed by telegraph to ])ress the United States' Government to begin the negotiation of the Convention for the appointment of a Commission to adjudicate or. the claims, and that he should be desired, as soon as a date has been fixed for commencing the discussion, to telegraph for a Canadian Delegate to assist him in case Dr. Dawson is not empowered to discuss the question. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. fnclosurc 1 in Xo. 1. The Earl nf Aberdeen to the Marquess of Ripon. My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, March 1.'), 1891. WITH reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the presentation to the United States' Government of tlu! claims for damages preferred by tlH> owners of scaling-vcssels seized in IJebiing Sea, I liave tlie honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved ]\linute of the Privy Council, embodying a lleport by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which, referring to the action of the United States' Govorn- racnt in disputing the ownership of these vessels before the Uehring Sea Tribunal, he discusses the question of the measures to bo taken to establish sucli ownershij) to the satisfaction of that Government. Your Lordship will observe that my ^Ministers would be glad to learn the opinion of Her Majesty's Government with regard to tiie methods to be adopted with this end ; and, further, to know whether they would inr-ist on the submission of such evidence of ownership and national character as would be necessary to meet the [238] ^ B roquiromonts of the Moivlmnt Sliipiiiiii; Act and the mercantile law of Great Britain in these* pai'ticuhvrs. I have, &c. (Si«,'no(l) ABERDEEN. Indosiire 2 in No. 1. Report of a Committee of the IJonoiirdhle tlie Prlri/ Council, approved Inj his Excellenrij the (lorenior-Griiertil In Council un tlie \lth March, 1^94. OX ii licport. dated tin; (Jth ^rarcli, ISKI, iVmn tiic .Minister of .Marine and Fislieiies, statini; wit'.i rcrt-nMiee to tlie approved Minnte of Conneil of tlie 20tli Feliniary. 1S<,)|., toiieliih;^ tlie ownersliip ol' some of tin* vessels wliieli snlVereil losses liy reason of sei/wres and otiier molestation, by the United States' (lovcrnmeiit in Reliriiii; Sea. that lie lias had under further consideration tiu- position taken liy tiie I'niteil Stales' (ioveriimi'iit as deliiied in the Comiter-Case of the I'liited States hel'ore the 'rrihniial of Arl>ifiation. in (lispiifi::ur the ownership of the vessels in (piestion. Tlie .Minister snhiiiiis that this ipiestioii eamiot he satisfai'toriiy dealt with at the present st;me of tluise claims. 'riio piipers relating to it which liave einne to tlie ])ossession of your I'xeelleney's (^lovernireiit have been siihinittcMl for the inforinalioii of Her Majesty's (iovermiieiit. Uespeetiin;- the method to establish the ownership, it a|)pe,irs that tin; aiitho ritie.s of the United States formally refused to reeoijni/.e the proof of ownership as furnished, hut they have i,'iven no farther intimation of what evidence is recinired. If, however, further jiroof is to be a matter of ni'^rotiation between the two tiovernments. instead of eonsiderinu,' what further ])roof can Ik; adduced, it appears that it should he ascertained from the United States' (Jovernment what further proof it desires. The .Minister snjjijests tliat it should be ascertained whether tiie United States desires an oral examination of witnesscN, or nn in(|uiry into the state of the liens on these vessels, or whether \vritten depositions on these points would be satisfactory. The. Minister also siii^nests that tne vi(>ws of Her .Majesty's (iovernnient should he son;;ht as to an inquiry of that kiid heim;- made. Also, whether it Avill he insisted by ller Majesty's (iov« rnmi'iit that the ownership and natioii.al eharaeter of these vessels sli:ill be decided acedrdiii'.; to the facts which irive that character under the .Mereliant SliippiiiLT .Vet and n;ereantile law of (ireat Britain, in so far as it hears on proof of ownership and national character. 'I'liese suii'TCstions it is expected may lead to the aseertainiuent of the views of the United States' (Iovernnient on the fnrtlier point whether some Tribunal or Coni- inission is to he established lor hcariiiir these claims, and whether the; jirocedure i:efi)re the Tribunal is to be rci^nlated by the Convention which is to establish it. If the T'ribenal is to lie established liy Convention without any order of procedure being settled, it will douoiless be for the Tribunal itself to deliiie the nature of the evidence to lie admitttnl, and further proof required; also, as to whet her such as Inui ulrcjady be(>i' achluecd is considered satisfactory evidence of nationality and ownership. T'he Committee, on the reeomniendation of the .Minister of .Marine and Fisheries, advise that. your Excellency he moved to forward a certified copy of tliis Minute, if ap|)roved, to the Ri!,'ht Honourable the Trineipal Secretary of Suite for the Colonies, f(jr the consideration of Jler Maji^sty's tioveriiinent. All of which is respectfully submitt«'d for vmir Exccdle^ev's approval. (Signed) .TOilN J. McGEE, Clerk of tite Privy Council. No. 2. The Earl of Klmberley to Sir J. Pauncefote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, May 10, 1894. YOU should urge the United States' Government to commence negotiations on the subject of the claims of British scalers seized by the United States* cruizers in Behring Sea, as soon as you have carried out the instructions contained in my telegram ritaiii ex. of the 8Ui instant, aiithorizinj' you to cxeliange notes with .Mr. Urosliam rcspc'cting the Scalint? Rcy:ulations. Wlien you are midy for a Canailian DcUv^ratc, you can t('l»'i,'ra|)h to tlic Canadian (Jovernment to send one. [1/ l/ic .'111(1 -'(nil looses lit ill lll.> •rurc No. 3. .Sir J. I'dunrejotc to Ike Earl oj Kimherleij, — {RvrcivrJ Mai/ 10.) (T.-h'-ri-aphie.) WnshiiKjInn, Minj 10, ]S1)1.. JtKIIRlNd SKA. Witli irlVrcncn to youv Lordsliip's tl-lei^ram Of to-day, I anaiiLjed yesterday witli Mr. (ircsliaiu Un' Ww, . xeliani,'t' ol' notes, ami diseu.sscd with him at tlie same timt> the (lucstion ol" the setth'inent of tiie Hriti.sh elaims, wliieii he i.s (juite ready to take up. I venture t^) suijijest that tiie most inexpensiv<' and expeditious ])rocess niii,'lit he to appoint a Commissioner on eaeh side to verify tiie elaims at Victoria, British Columhia, and make a joint licport. so far as tliey could aiijree, .assessini; the damai^es oil eaeh claim, and, where they lailed to aL;n'e, staliiii; tlie L'rouiids of tlieir disau'i'ce- nieiit. 'The two ( Joverninents could then either refer the jioints in ditVerenee to an I'liipire, or determine lliem themselves. If tlu! ahiive sinrLfestion meets with your Lordship's ajiproval, would it not ho well hefore scndini,' for the Canadian Delei^ate to consult the Canadian Government and settle the hivsis of the Convenlion? No. 4. Foreign Office to Colonial Office. Sip, Foreign Office, May 10, 1894. TilK Karl of Kimheileyhas had under his consideration your letter of the Sth in-taut, inclosinir a despatch from the (Jovcrnor-Geueral of Canada res|)eL'tini;f the elaims of Mritish suhjects in respect of the illei^al seizure of their sealinLj-vessels in Hclirin!,' Sea hy tin; !iiitliorities of the United States. I am directed hy his Lordship to stat(>, in reply, for the information of fho ManiiK'ss of Kijxm, that a telegram has this day heeii sent to iler Majesty's Amha-ssador at \Vasliini;ton. instructins; him to press the United States' (lovernment to hej,'in neL:;otiations respeetins? these elaims as sosires me to inclose, for the information of the Ivirl of Kiriiherley. a copy of ii feleL,'ram v.liich he has addressed to the (iovernor-(ieiieral of Canada on the sul)jt!et of Sir Julian I'auneefote's teleu;ram of the 10th instant;* and he de>ires me to say that lu' tliinks it will he as well to have the views of the Govern- ment of Cana la before settliny; the basis of the pn)j)osed ("onvention, and that, as that m;iy ;;ive rise to (iiseussioM, he thinks it miu:ht expedite mutters if a Canadian l)eh'i;ate, tally instructed as to the views of the Dominion (ioverninent, were to proceed to Wasliiie^ton at once, but ludbre t-xpressi)i<» a tinai o|)inion Lonl Ripon proposes to await the reply from the (Juvcrnor-deneral to the telegram inclosed. I nin, Kc. (Signed) JOHN RRAMSTON. Inclosurc in No. (i. The Marquess of Ripon to the Earl of Aberdeen, (Telegraphic.) Dounimj Street, May 11, 189 1. ItEFKlUtlNd to your despatch of loth March, compensatiou claims, sec Sir .1. i'anncefote's telegram of the lOth May. Conimunieate to him substance of your despatcli, and telegraph views of your Ministers as to proposals contained in telegram from him. No. 7. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Earl of Kimheriey. — (Received June 1.) iTelegraphic.) " Washington, May 31, 18!)l<. 1 HAVE the honour to report that the Canadian Government have approved the arrangement suggested in my telegram of the lOtli instant, and that the United States' Government iiave entertained it favourably. 1 should be glad to know whether I may now send in oflicially to the United States' (Government the Ik-hring Sea claims, including the additions made to them, and propose a Convention on the basis of the arrangement above referred to, for their verilication and adjustment. • No. 3. hn claims doaliiiir ►m Lord ISON. B No. 8. Foreifjn Offirp to Colonial 0/fice. Sir. Forri(jn Offico, June 1, 1894. ■\VlTir n'forciicn to my lottor of tlio lltli iillinid rciutivi; to tlic Uritisli Uohriiii,' Sea claims, I nm directed hy the Kurl of Kiml)crley to transmit to you, to belaid l)el'ore the Manpiess of Itipoii, the necoiiipanyiiij; teh'L,'riiin rrom Her Majesty's Aml)assa(h)r at Wasliin^ton,* statini; that the arrani;;eiiieiit proposed in his Kxcellency's teletjram of the lOth ultimo is approved hy the Canadian (Jovcrnmcnt, and I'avonrahly entertained hy that ol' the Inited States. Under these circumstances, Sir Julian Piiiineelote impiires whether wc may ofTicially present the whole ol' these claims t) tiie Unite 1 Slates' (iovernment, and propose a Conventinii I'or their verilication and settlement on the basis of the arrange- ment already ])i'op()sed by his l-lxc'cllency. liord Kimherley proposes to authorize Sir J. I'aunecfote to adopt this course should fionl l!ipi>n concur therein. I am, kv. (^si,■;nod) I'MfAXClS IU<:ilTIE. No. '.). Coloiiiiil Ojj'ue to Vitri-iijn f)//irr, — (Uecched June 5.) Sir, l>oiri ij Slnrt,June 5,1S'.)1. I A'Sl directed by the ^Manpiess of l!ii)()n toaelhring Sea, 1 have the honour to report that 1 have forwarded to yom- Lordship, in my despatch of the 8tb instant, a co))y of my note to Mr. Grcsham transmitting the Jiehring Sea claims, and pro])osing a mode ; : settlement. 1 hav»! also sent a copy of this note to Lord Aberdc(>n. As the President is indisposed, and jVEr. Cresliam i>i ; liout to leave Washington for a short jicriod, I do not expect to receive an oificial reply for ten days or more. But the Secretary of State tells me that the I'rcsident aj)proves the ])roposal, and, in accordance with bis request, I am preparing a scheme of Convention for conside- ration before requesting the assistance of a Canadian Delegate. No. 7. I i 6 No. 12. ialill^'-V'•ssels in Hehrini; Sea. 1 liave now tlie lionour to transmit hcM-ewitli. hy direetion of lln- .Majesty's Prineijial Secretary of .State for Forei;;n AtVairs, acomph'te list and summary of those ehiims, loi^ether with ^Memoranda of the additions and amendments made since tlieir orii^iiia! j)resentation. I am at the .same time to make the following: sui^i:festion, with a view to adjustment of those claims, Avith the least possihle expense and delay. The whole of tli(> elaims, ('xeeptiii'^ that of the "Henrietta" and that of the "Black Dianumd " (ISSd), were laid liefore the Trihunal nf Arbitratiim at Paris, togetlier with tiie evidence in su])p<)rt cd' tiiein. The facts on which they rest Avere found hy the Arbitrators as provided hy Article VIII of the Treaty of Arbitration, and formed i)art of the Award. In view nf the decision of the Tribunal on the questions of law sulmiitted to them, it only no\v' remains to assess the danuiires. I "vm accnriliiiijly authorizeil by the Earl of Ivimlterley to propose tliat, for tiic jiurpose of sueli assessment, each Government should appoint a duly (lualilled ','oiiiniissioner, who should be a lawyer, and, if possible, possess some kiiowied'^e in verilicatioii of th'' ei.aiins can be obtained on the sjiot. That they should maki; a joint report on all the claims in wliich they have ajjjreed as to the amount of damages, and separate re])orts of the cases in which tliiiv have failed to ai^ree, fully stating the groiiiuls of such disagreement. Tlirt the assessment of damages by the two Commissioners, where they have been able to agree, shall be final. That in cases where they have lieeu unable to as;ree, the diirerences shall be settled by the two (ioveniments within a lixed jieriod, failim;,' which, such dilTerences shall be referred for linal adjustment to an I'lnpire to be apjiointed by the tw > Governments jointly, or, in case of disagreement, to be nominated by a foreign Government. You informed nu; some tim(> aiio that, in the view of your (iovernnKmt, a Convention would lie lucessary lor the adjustment of the ilaims, .•ind the Earl of Kimborley, to whom I did not fail to eommuir'ate that opinion, has instiiicted mn to proceed at once with the negotiation of such a Convention, on the basis of the arrangement above projiosed. should it be favourably i-ntertained by your ;)ot. ave a^'reed they have have been \s shall he dilTerences ly the iw < a foreign -'rnmcmt, a he Earl of cted me to isis of the ir ^jioverii- HEOTE. Inclosure 2 in No. 12. List and Summcmj of Behring Sea Claims. "Caroi.ena." (Sei/.c-l by riiifr.1 State' -l.il) " Covwi,..' August 1. 1880.) For— Amount of Cl:iiiu I lis |)\it, t(ir«iU'uinab1o) Insuiaticc . . • • . • • Wu-is of Pitnv »]) to (lato of siM/.uic ,. • : I'lisiii-'e of cri-«- fmni San Francisco to Victoria ,r mate, Silka t'. Victoria, after release Irv.^ ,ni Tcrsonal cx|iinse^ of owner Lc!;al ex:ionse<. . Ksliniatid seal catch for 1886 Uoiluct value consumed .luring a full voyuK'-' Claim bv owner, with interest at 7 per <.-i,t. to (111 ;;.(ii)j H'.t a.vj .")() 1,8;! J -^-l 71 --2 1(11) 111) o.'jl) 00 l.'J.M) 110 l(!,i)ti7 0(1 27. .)■-'('> :!:5 3.'J13 ;!'J 21,31."? (11 "Thornton." (Seized by United State,' ship "Corwin.- Ausjust 1, 1S8G.) Value of vessel, 78 Ions . . outlit (inconsumable) Insuranci' . . ; ■ • ' \Va"es i.aid to date of seizure to ciew. iVc. . . lWi:e-'i"'>»^V ol- erew from San Francisco u. \ ictoni. - . '"^"'"' • _^ .,,,,1 expense of eaotain and ma'e alter release, Sitka to Victmia personal expenses of owners \,'^'':\\ cxpensfs. , . . • ■ • Fstiniated catch of seals for 18SG . . Deduct value consumed on a full voynfte Claim by owm is. with interest at 7 per cent to date ol payment G.onn 0(i -','.)-i 1 (>.! 5i)l 4i) l,:i7() 01 ■ 177 10 lU'e after 1 200 (10 1,000 00 1,'J.^O 00 . .. lO.OiiT 00 30,11)7 'Jil •• 3,:37'.) ,J8 'lit ti date • • 26,817 Ci.") " Onwabd." (Soiled by United States' ship " Corwin," August 2, 1886.) Vnltio of vessel, 91 tons . . outfit (incoiiMimable) . . • ■ • • • • »" .. .. •• •• Insurance . . • • \Va);cs paid fo.- vovajie . . Passage, ISiC., of master and mate . . Personal "r.penses of owner Lepul ex lenses .. .. •• " I'i'stimated catch •• •• Deduct value consumed during full voyage Claimed by owner, with interest nt 7 per cent, to date of payment . . . • • • 4,000 0(1 1,778 60 260 00 1,820 00 200 00 250 00 1,250 00 16,667 00 26,225 60 2,955 98 23,269 71 8 "Favocbite." (Warned out of Hclirinj; Sen by United States' ship "Corwin," August 2, 1886.) For — Amount of ( laim as ])ut f'l'tvard liy Ovvmr. Kstimati'd loss of cntch of 1,000 seals Claim by owner, with intiTcst nt 7 per eeiit. to d.ite of payiiii'iit . . , , , . . . D.>1. c. 7,000 00 7,000 00 "W. p. Savwaud." (Seized bv United States' ship " Kichard Uash," July 0, 1887.) Piissiipe of crew, &c. . , . . . . . . , (iflic'ers . , . . , , . , . . I.o>;al expeuTS of owiior-t . . . . . . . . Probable seal catch. I HH7, .'i.SOO '^eals, nt 5 did. 50 e. . . Loss by detention, Oct.iber 1, 1HS7. to Pebrnaiy 1, 1888 „ of profit in sea-iou 1888 (l-Vbniary 1 to October 1) Personal expenses of owners Claim by owner, with interest at 7 per cent, t) date of payment . Cost of suit before Si.prenie C'imrt, I'liited States, in re seizure of " \V. P. Sayward " . . Total 255 00 250 00 850 00 19,250 00 1,200 00 0,000 00 ;J50 00 28.055 00 02.817 12 nO.'J02 12 " (itlACF." ;Seizod by United States' sliip " IJiehard Rush," July 17, 1887.) " Anna Bfxk." (Seixcd by United States' ship " Hicbard Kush," Juno 28, 1887.) " Dot rill. v." (Seized by United States' ship •' Kichnrd Rush," July 12, 1887.) Value of vessel, 1 7 1 tons . . . , „ iiniieonsiinKible oullit I'assape of master nml crew Personal expeusts S3 J 890 12 Eecapitulation. Vessel. • • Ciirolena 'Ihornton . , Onward .. , Favourite • • • • Personal cluims -hv. P. Sajward (iraee Anna Heek ." Hoiphin .. Ada Alfred Adams* Triumph .. _■' Personal elaims Junnita Pathfinder .. Triumph Uliuk Diamond l.iiv Ariel •Minnie Kate Amount claimed. Pathfinder Total claims without interest Dol. c. 24,313 01 20,817 65 23,2119 71 7,000 00 18,000 00 28,055 00 38,H2 57 27,863 OS 40,201 50 20,518 01) 20,133 no 10,260 00 13.035 00 14,695 00 2P,7d5 00 19,674 00 17,185 00 17.176 00 9,498 00 16,l(i0 00 11,210 00 Total. Dol. I 99,400 37 205,098 11 132,663 00 2,000 00 439,I6l"48~ C2,847 12 1886— Vessels 1887!!!' """'"' "^'"""^^ W'ssels I'l Tsoiial claims Io89— Vessels 1890— Vessels W. P. Snyward " costs Total. Total Extra for "Juanita" |Mi!ack JJiamond"('l880) " nenrietta ' Total Amended total Dol. c. 81.400 37 18,000 00 • 191,463 II 13,6a5 00 • 132,663 00 2.000 00 439,161 48 fi2,847 12 502,008 60 3,002 66 7,50 J 00 3,000 00 515,511 26 26,658 00 542,169 26 13 Total. Dol. e." I f Inclosurc 3 in No. 12. Memoranda of Additions and Amendments made since the original Presentation of Behring Sea Claims.* "Ada." Claim of the Master, Captain Gaudin, for Personal Loss and Damage, 3,000 dollars. THIS claim was, by a mistake on the part of the agent of the owner of the " Ada," not included when the other claims in connection with this vessel were entered. Captain Gaudin tliouijht that it had been so included, and it was only on seeini^ the printed list of the British claims that he discovered that such was not the case. lie at once re(|ueste(l that tlie omission might be rectified, and his claim added to the list, and Jler Majesty's tJovernment, alter causinij an inquiry to be made iiito the circumstances of the case, ihicidod that his application should be granted. Captain Gaudin's claim lias accordingly been added to the schedule of the claims entered with respect to tlie schooner " A(la." " IIexuietta." Seized by the United States' War-ship " Yorktown" on September 4, 1892. Value of vessel .. „ outfit and ecjuipmcnl . . . , . , . . . . „ 420 seal-skiiis, ill 18 ilollnrs .. .. .. .. .. ., balanci' of estimated full catcli for season in Behrinsj Sea for three boats and tliree canoes, viz., 561 skins at 18 dolhus . . Lfgal and personal expenses in (Ufendin^ miction ajjainst vessel and cargo at Sitka and in i)reparing and forwarding tliis claim . . Claim of owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to dat<' of payment . . Dollars. 4,000 .3,000 7,560 10,098 2,000 2G,GJ8 In his note, dated the 13th March last, ^Ir. Greshum stated, that from the date on wliich tlie " Henrietta" was handed over to her captain the United States' Govern- ment ceased to bear any responsibility or to exercise any control with regard to tliat vessel, and that tlnn'otbre they Avere unable to comply with the request of Her Majesty's (Joveriimoiit, that she should bo sent to a British port for trial ; but, ho added, that the claim of her owner for compensation would receive due consideration when presented. The claim in question has therefore been added to the general list of British claims. "Blaci: Diamond." Additional claim submitted by the master, Mr. Henry Paxton, for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the above schooner having been ordered out of Behring Sea, in 188G by the United States' authorities. Estimated catch for August 188G 1,000 skins, at 7 dols. 50 c. each (the price of skins at Victoria during the fall of 1886), 7,500 dollars. This claim was sent in too late for insertion in the general list of British claims. In view of the length of time that had elapsed since the occurrence of the action complained of, Her JSIajesty's Government deemed it advisable to cause an inquiry to be made as to fcJie reason for the delay in presenting the claim. Tlie reason given was that at the lime of the seizure of the vessel the co-owners, who were three in number, were doubtful as to how far an appeal to the United States' Government for redress would be entertained. In the following year one of the owners was lost at sea and another left the country, and it was only after the publication of the Award • To these will be added the claim on account of the " VVinnifred," when the amount has been ns-ertsined. 1 M. that the survivini? owner consulted his solicitor, and was informed that ho had a good and equitable elaim for compensation. The chvim was then drawn up and presented at once. Iler Majesty's Government also ascertained from tho solicitors in question that the fact of trie " Black Diamond " bein^ boarded by the revenue oflicers of tlic United States, and ordered out of Behring Sea in 1880, is entered in the records of the Custom- house; of IJnalaska, and that due protest was made by the master of the vessel on the arrival of the schooner at Victoria. Under the circumstances, Uer ^lajosty's Government considered that the reasons allcfjod for the deli^.y were reasonable, and ^''^vo instructions that the claim should be presented to the United States' Government, together with the other similar claims. "JUAJIITA." It will be noticed that the original claim of the owner of the "Juanita," wbicb was stated at 14,095 dollars, has been amended so as to amount to 17,097 dols. 00 c. The ground upon which this claim was amended was that the owner made bis original statement on the basis of 8 dollars per skin, whereas it was ascertained after- wards that tlic skins had been sold at San Francisco at an average of 9 dols. 67 c. per skin. No. 13. Sir J. Pauncefoie to the Earl of Kimberley. — {Received July 14.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, July 13, 1894, WITU reference to my telegram to your Lordship of the I'ith instant respecting the Behring Sea claims, I have the honour to report that, M'bile discussing with the Secretary of State the to ins of the proposed Convention, I was requested by him to ascertain whether Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to settle those claims lor a lump sura. If so, he was of opinion that there would be no difficulty in obtaining from Congress an appropriation for whatever amount should be agreed upon. Should no agreement be arrived at, the Convention would proceed. If the above course be acceptable, an expert should be sent at once to Washington by the Canadian Government to discuss the amount. i No. 14. The Earl of Kimberley to i>ir J. Pauncrfote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 18, 1894. IN your telegram of the 115th instant ytni r(>ported that Mr. Gresham had proposed the payment by the United States' (lovernment of a lump sum in settle- ment of the British claims arising out of the seizure of British sealing-vessels in Behring Sea. You should communicate this proposal to the Canadian Government, to whom we are telegraphing for an expression of their views. No. 15. 8ir J. Pauncefote to the Earl of Kimberley. — (Received July 19.) (Telegraphic.) IVashington, July 19, 1894. BEIIIlIiVG SEA Claims Convention : your Lordship's telegram of yesterday. I have supiilied the Canadian Government with full information. They have accepted proposal, and their Delegate is ready to start for this city when required. *''™-^~fvmimmmmmmm |'»o had a good i»d presented J question that l;>f the United i the Custom- 1 vessel on the M the reasons m should ho par claims. i 16 No. 16. Sir J. Pauncefote to (he Earl of Kimherley. — (Received August 4.) (Teleffrnphie.) Washington, August 3, 1894. BEIT RING SEA claims : my despatch of the 8th Juno last. With interest, 1 reckon the total amount of tlic claims sent in at ahout 700,000 dollars. In order to ^ct rid of the Convention, with its delay and expense, I have reason to heliev*^ that this Government would he willing to pay a lump sum of 100,000 dollars down. In case I am ahle to obtain a further sum of 50,000 dollars, would that settlement be accepted by Canada and approved by your Lordship ? "Juanita," amount to Jer made bis amed altor- ^ tlols. 67 c 3, 1894. rt'specting ? with the fd hy him 'ttio those fl'fficulty ^e ngvciid ishington No. 17. Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received August 6.) Sir, Downing Street, August 0, 1894. WITH reference to your letter of the 4th instant,* I am directed by tlie Marquess of Ripon to transmit to you, for the information of the Earl of Kimherley, a copy of a telegram which has becm sent to tlie Governor-General of Canada, inquiring whether his Ministers would be disposed to accept the sum of 450,000 dollars in settlement of the Jjehring Sea claims. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BllAMSTON. Inclosure in No. 17- The Marquess of Ripon to the Earl of Aberdeen. (Telegraphic.) Donning Street, August 4, 1894, 2'10 P.M. TOiAlj Rehring Sea claims, with interest, estimated 700.000 dollars. Ambas- sador at Wasliiiigton has reason to believe that United States' Government would offer 400,000 dollars to avoid delay and expense of Convention. Would Ministers accept 450,000 dollars if it can be obtained ? 1894. m Jiad sottle- isels in om wo No. 18. The Earl of Kiniberley to Sir J. Pauncefote. (Telegrapl>i<',.> Foreign Office, August 6, 1894. i HAVE received your telegram of tlie ,3rd instant on the subject of the Behring Sea claims. Tlie Dominion Government have been consulted by telegraph as to accepting 450,000 dollars in settlement thereof. You shall be informed of their reply as soon as it is received. H. J. fiavo No. 19. Colonial Office to Foreign Office. — (Received August 9.) Sir, Downing Street, August 9, 1894. WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 6th instant, I am directed by tlio Marquess of Ripon to transmit to you, for the information of tlie Earl of Kimherley, a copy of a telegram from the Governor-General ot Canada, stating that his • F. Forwarding copy of No. 1 6. 16 ^linistcrs would l)o prepared to accept tlie sum of 130,000 dollars in scttlemnnt of the Helirins; Sea claims, I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosure in No. 19. The Earl of Aberdeen to the Marquess of Ripon. (Te!e£frapliic.) I* YOUIl telegram of the Ith Aucrust. , ^I have received following tclei^rain from my Prime Minister: — "Your Excellency's telegram re liunp sum. •*■ " I would advise aceeptanco of loO.dOO dollars." August 4, 1804. I No. 20. The Earl ';i)oii(l(Mic(' ri'spccliii'^' tlu; IV'lii'iiii; Sea claims, 1 am diivt'tcd hy the .Mar(|ii(, 1894. Ii instant, lore than adjourn- hould bo 1891. cnt, by 't once, f for a ship I I I i 1 91. '? ump )osed aim. nco. ■: InclosuH! iu No. 21. The Earl of Aberdeen to llir .V'"'/'"'*'*" of llipon. (Telei?rai)liic.) {Received Amjusl 17, 1H91., :>''!<) P.M.) IN reply to your Lordsliip's telei^ra.a of the loth instant, I have to-day telegraphed to .Aniljassodor at A\'aslungton as follows : — !My Prime ^linister, in reply to sui;uestiou of Her .Majesty's Government that a Minister should proceed to M'ashiugton, telegraphed ias< night as follows: " I have asked Sir C. il. Tapper to go at ouee." No. 2.-). Colonial O^ice to Forciijn Office. — {Received August 27.) Sir, DownliHj Street, August 25, 1891. WITH reference to the Hehring Sea compensation claims, I am directed by the "Nfarquess of Ripon to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Kimberley, a teh'grani reeeived from the Governor-General of Canada, reporting that Sir C. Tuppcr bad left AVashiugton, and had agreed to accept the sum of 125,0UU dollars if paid this year. I am, &c. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON. llnclosurc in No. 25. The Earl of Aberdeen to the Marquess of Rlpon. (Telegraphic.) {Received August 22, 1891.) JMY Prime jMinister has telegraphed to me to the elVect that Sir C. Tapper lias left "Washington, and has agreed to accept the sum of 125,000 dollars if the amount is paid this year. No. 26. Sir J. Pauncefotc to the Earl of Kimberley. — {EecelveJ August 29.) (Extract.) Washington, August 21, 1891. I HAVE the honour to report that Sir C. Tupper, the Canadian Minister of !N[aririe, arrived on Saturday last to discuss with me the position of the pending negotiations respecting the Behring Sea claims. We called the same day on the Secretary of State, and yesterday morning Sir Charles Tup])cr, at my request, accompanied me to the State Department, where we had an interview with Mr. Gresham. [238 1 D AVo then discussod the. .(ucslion ol tlic himi) sum, and Mr. (Jrosliam stated tliat a wiH'k ajj;o till! MpiiroiJiMatioM of llic iiioiiry l)v Cnii^'rcss could easily have been obtained, but it was too late now owins; to tlie departure of the Members and of the impractioa- bilily nl' ol)taiiiiiiL;' a \n(in;j: iinoriini. lie added, however, that there would be no dillienlty in gcttinu; the apiiropriation voted on llu ineetini,'of Conttn'ss in December next. lie thi'relore sni;u:ested that the lump sum miu'lit he accepted subject to the rii,'ht of Her Majesty's (ioV(M'nment tn resume the neujotiations tor the Convention at any time bef(n'e the a|)|nMpnalinn sliould hi) actually made. 'I'his proposal, appearing;' sati'^laetory to Sir diaries 'I'lipper, was a(!cepted by me, and I have now the honour to inclose copies of the notes exchaniied between Mr. (Iresham and myself rceordini,' the arranL,'emont. Sir Charles Tuppcr left for Ottawa this mornini,'. Sil Inelosur(> 1 in No, 20. Mr, (I'rpslium In Sir ,/. I'diinrefotr. Excellency, Dcparlmnit of Statt; Washington, August 21, 1S91. IiEFETJUINCf to our verbal coinmunications of a recent date, I have now the honour formally to acknowledtre the receipt of your note of the 7tli June last, in Avhieh you propose, in belialf of Her Majesty's (Jovernment, the establishment of a iVIixe:! Connnissiou for tiie jmrpose of verifyint; and adjustini,' the Hritish claims for ccmipensation (or the seizure of Mritish sen lini,'- vessels in nehrint? S(>a. While no serious diiricnlty is anticipated in settlini,' and determining the claim": by means of a ^lixed Commission, it is a matter of interest to both liovernments tli; they should, if possible, \w disposed of in a simpler and less expensive way. Pro ceediiit,'s by a ^lixed Conunission, while always mm-o or less formal and cumbersome, are, like all other processes of litii^ation, necessarily attended with expense, not infre- quently considerable in amount, as well as with delay. In the pr(\s(Mit ease, the Award and lin(lini,'s of the Tribunal of Arbitration in I'aris have, to a great extent, determined the facts and tli(> jmnciples on which the claims should he adjusted; and in the course of the negotiations tor a Mixed Commission, they have been subjected by both (lovcrnments to a thorough examination both upon the principles and facts which they involve. Under these circumstances the President, after full consideration of the whole subject, has reached the conclusion that it maybe practicable, as well as advantageous, to effect a direct settlement of the claims by the payment of a lump sum in full satisfaction of all demands for damages against the United States growing out of the controversy between the two Governments as to the fur-seals in Ik'hring Sea, and to this end I am instructed by the President to ijroposc the sum of 425,000 dollars. This proposition, if it should provt; to be acceptable to llcr Majesty's Government, is to be understood as having been mad(> subject to the action of Congress on the question of ap])ro])riating the money. TMie President can only undertake to submit the matter to Congress at the beginning of its S(>ssion in December next, with a recommendation that tlu- money be api)ropriated and made immediately available for the purpose above expressed ; and if at any time before the approimation is made your Government shall desire, it is understood that the negotiations on which wo have for some time been engaged for the establishment of a Mixed Commission will be renewed. I have, &c. (Signed) W. Q. GRESHAM. Inclosure 2 in No. 20. Sir J. Pauncpfote to Mr. Gresham. Sir, Washington, August 21, 1891. _ I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of this date on tho subject of our recent negotiations for "the .adjustment, by means of a Mixed Com- nu'ssion, of the claims of Great i3ritain against the United States in respect of the 10 h> '>l)(ain('(l, riTopii-ition [fed hy nu\ hi ?j('tu('oii 1, 1S91. •0 now the "f* last, in fn'*nt of a '•'aiiiis for t'"' claim 't'nts f,Ii, •\v. Vu, iiltcrsomo, not iiifrc- m in Paris ''p claims amission, ot'i upon 'lo wliolo 'taifcous, ' in full t of the . and to •s. •Jimont, on the submit with a bio for made bavo ^ilJ bo M. i. the om- the seizure of Uritisli scaiiii^^-vossfls by United Stiili'>' cruisers in MeiniiiL,' S'm, You state tlint llie i'resiiltiil, .tt'ter full cotisidcratioii. is ol' opinion tliat il would be in the interest of bofii (ioviTnincnts to elVeet (lie direct settlement (d' claims by the paymetitr oi' a lump sum, in order lo avoid the delay and expense! ol" a .Mixed (.'oniini^sion, and that you have been instnteted to propose the sum ol' I'Jo.OOO dollars. You also stat<' that the propos'il is made snhjeet to the neci ssary appi'opriation by Conf,'ress, to wideh il would lu' .subinitleil at tlie iie^;innin'4 ol" its Session in Heeembor next, with a recommendation that (ho money bo immediately iivailabh) tor the purpose above mentioned. You add that if at any time bcfon; (bo appropriation is made ilor ^Majesty's (lovernment shall desiri' it, tiie nei^oliations I'or the establishnieni of a .Alixed Com- mission shall be resumed. 1 have the honour lo state, in reply, (hat Uer ^lajesty's (lovernment concur in the views of (he iVesident as to (he expediency of clfeetinij; a settlement by the method ])voposed, and that they are, inderd, so fully sensible of the ^ivit advantai^'cs presented to lioth (iovernmenis by that course thai they are willing,' to acce])t the sum olVered, coupled with the assuraiwe of piompt payment, althoni;'h the amount is nuieh below their estimate of the compensation whicli mi^ht fairly be awarded by a .Mixed Com- mission. It should be understood, therefore, that if tli(> nci;otiations fur a .Mixed Commission sboidd be resumed, (he acceptance of your proposal shall in no way prejudice tliu claimants in the fiu'ther prosecution of their demands. It oidy remains lor me to express my i,'ratilieation at this amicable solution of tlio last subject of discussion in the loui,' Jiebrinjj; Stni eoutrcvi.'rsy. 1 have, &e. (SiLjned) JULIAN PAUJTCEFOTE. No. 27. Till' Earl of Klinhviivij to Mr, Gnsclirn. Sir, Fnri-iyii Offu-o, Scptcmbn- S, 18i)t. I II.VVE received Sir Julian I'aunciM'ote's despatch of the 21st ultimo, for- warding the notes exchanged between his Excellency and 3[r. Gresham with regard to the settlement by till- payment of 42r),0()l) dollars of the claims against tlii> l,'nit(!d States in res])ect of the seizure of Jh'itisb sealing- ves'-els by United States' cruisers in Behring Sea. Her .Afajcsty's (Jovernment have learnt with iiuich pleasure that this arrangement has been concluded, and desire to express llieir appi-oval of Sir J. i'auneefoto's lannMiagc and action throughout the negotiations which have led to this satisfactory result. I am, &c. fSigncd) KIMBEllLEY. No. 28. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Earl of Kimhcrleij. — {Received December 31.) ISfy Lord, Washiiujton, December 21, 1891. I HAVE the honour to forward herewith an extract" from the "Congressional Record "of the l.')tb instant, containing a llesolutiou brought forward in the Ilouso of Kepreecntatives by the llonourabh> .Mr. ilitt, re([uesting the ])nblication of all (h)euments touching the payment by th(> United States of t^o.OOO dollars to Great Britain ftn- (himages growing out of the eontroveisy as to fur-seals in Behring S(\a. This Hesolution, together with a motion to reconsider the vole by which (he llesolutiou was adopted, was laid on the Table. I understand from ]\Ir. Gri.:?bam that full particulars concerning the arranirements arrived at have bccu given to the Committee on Eoreign Relations, and that, (here is [2;]8i V ii'i] j 20 no rofison to doubt that the money will bo appropvintecl, notwithstanding the attempt made to obstruct tlu» sottlomont. I have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. P.S. — It is stated in the " Concfressional llecnrd" of to-day tliat the Secretary of State has transmitted " Corrcspondenec toucliinL? (he Mehrir.Ef Sea controversy " to the House of Representatives, Mhich has l)een ordered to be printed. F inclose an extract to that elfect from the " New York World." J. P. Inclosure 1 in No. 28. Extract froi.i the '' Congressional Reroxl " of December 15, 1891. The Behring Ska Coxtkoveiisy. Mr. Ililt.—'Slv. Speaker, I desire to call uj) a privileged Hesolution reported to-day from the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Tlie Speaker. — The Clerk Mill read the Resolution. The Clerk read as follows : — "7^f,so/(Y'f/,— That the Secretary of State be requested to communicate to the House of Representatives, if not inccmsistent with the interests of the public service, all correspondence, Reports, and otiier documents not heretofore made public, touching the i)ayment by the United States of I'J.l.OOO dollars to Great Britain for damages growing out of tlie controversy as to fnr-seals in J{eliring Sea, or the seizure of British vessels engaged in taking seals in tiios(> waters." Mr. riiU. — Tliat is an unanimous Report, ^Ir. Speaker. Mr. McCnari/, of Kentucky. — It is all right. The Resolution was adopted. On the motion of .M i'. ilitt, a motion to reconsider the vote by Avhich the Resolution was adopted was laid on tlH> Tabh;. Inclosure 2 in No. 28. E.itraclfroni the " Neir York World" of December 21, 1891. ^■;^^v Eeuring Sea Uajiages. U'ashirjloii, December 20, iSOl. SECRETARY GRIISIIAM sent to the House the correspondence whicli resulted in the otfer of \\w United States to pay l^'jOOO dollars as dainriges for seizures or warnings of Jh'itish sealers declared by tlu' Paris 'I'ribuiial to have l)e(>u illegal. AVitli it was a statemiMit of tlH> British claims. In his i{eport tlie Secretary says : — "If the ])lan of s(>ttlement recited by th(> Pn>sident in Jiis Aiuiual Mcvssage is not acceptable to Congress, the controverted (|uestions must be determined, either by the organization of a Joint Connnission, or by negotiations between tli(> two Governments. Exj)erieiice has .shown that International Commissions are slow and expensive. Should such a course be rescjrted to, the; evidence would be found mostly on the Pacific Coast, widely scattered, and counsel would b(> ".ceded to examine and cross-examine Avitnesses. "The question of iiulirect or consequential damages liaving been witiulrawn from till- Tribunal of Arbitration, the jiending claims are for Hritisli vessels actually seized ill Jieliring Sea or warned out of it by cruisers of the United States. It will appear from tlie submitted correspondence that tlie agreement to pay a lump sum of 425,00() dollars in full settlement of all demands, autluu'ized to be made under tiio Treaty and Award, was proposinl by this Government. The amount is considerably below the damages claimed by Great Britain, exclusive of interest for a number of years. I ing the attempt [UNCEPOTE. Itlio Socrctai-v of ('•ovprs.v " fo'fho riosc an extract J. P. lot. utioii rc])ortc(I 21 " If this arranpjompnt docs not receive the approval of Congress, and the disputed questions arc Ruhmittcd to an International Commission, it is Lelicvcd tliat tlio amounts allowed and the ex])cnse ol" the 'I'libunal, includini;' witnesses and llie taking of tiieir testimony, will l;u'iicly exceed 42"' 000 dollars. In view of the facts and what may he reasonably expected as liic result of a Commission, the Undersigned sulnnits that a pronipl and fin.-' settlement of the vexations controversy by an ap))ropriation of the lump sMui agreed upon is advisable." No. 2!). Sir J. Puunccfote to the Earl of Kimberlei/. — {Received FebriKin/ I.) My Lord, Washington, Junuarij 21, 1S05. WITH reference to my despatch of the 21st December, I now have the honour to forward herewith to your Lordship printed correspondence touching' the J3ehring Sea controversy, Avhieh has been laid before the House of Ileprescntatives pursuant to the House Eesolution, dated the loth December, 1891. 1 have, &e. (Signed) JULIAX PAUNCEl-OTE. k to tlic Ilou llie so .sorvice, all •'>Ii(', touchin, fi ^'or dama",: cs pure of BvWkh t'le Resolution 20, mi. "ch resulted SL'izures or 'o'al. "With «"i,''.' is not iior by the ^'ernnl(>,^ts. <-'vj)ensive, tlio I'aeitlc s-cxamino a^ii from |"y seized JI appear sum of ndor tile siderably miber of I Inclosure in Xo. 20. .'>3n/ Congress, 3rd Session. — Ex. Doc. No. 132. House of Reprksentatives. BEHiiiN(i Sea Controveksv. Letter from the Secretari/ of State, transmitting, pursuant to House Resolution, dated December 1.5, the Correspondence touching the Behring Sea Controversy. December 21, 1801, — RefoiTcd to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be ])rinted. The Speaker of the House of Representatives: THE Undersigned is directed by the President to respond to the llesolutinn adopted l)y your honourable IJody on the loth instant, requesting the Secretary of Stat(>"to communieiite ti'' the House of Representatives, if not inconsistent willi the interests of tiie public service, all eorrespondeuce, Reports, and other documents not heretofore made public touching the payment by the United Slates of .1.2.'),000 dollars to Grent Britain tV)r dainau;es growing out of the controversy as to fur-seals in Rehriiig Sea, or tin; sei/\ire of l?ritish vessels (Miga'jjed in taking seals in those waters." The I'udersigned accordingly has the honour to communicate to the House of Representatives eopies of the correspondenee exchanged on th(^ sul)jeet covered by the Resolution, in which will be found a statement of the claims filed by lireat Rritnin for daman'cs sustained by Rritish subjects by reason of the seizure of their sealiiig- vessels in Rehring Sea, or of being warned to cease operations therein. The Paris Tribunal of Arbitration held that the United States had no rigid of protection or property in the fur-seals in Rehring Sea outside the ordinary y-inile limit. Artich^ Vlir of the Convention of the 20th February, 1892, whereby the ques- tions whiidi had arisen b(>tween the two Go'ernments concerning the jurisdictional rights of tlio United States in the waters of Reliring Sea were submitted to arbitration, recited that the High Contracting Parties had been unai)l(! to agree U[)on a reference which would include the question of the liability of each lor tlie injuries allegcfl to have been sustainal by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims proseuted and ur^od hv ,f n i ., nt-o ,a(.on." "'"^"t U],o,i fl,,. y;,,^, IbiUKfto bo ? ,' ', ?"''*^°" ^^ tl^o UiHl.r (liisArficIo tho Vrl.fn. f ' '■'''''^' "^ ^"^'^'er .s(>ahi.g.v.,s.s(>ls were seized in i"' ""^'^"'"'"ously found ih.i Uiued Sfafes on tl.e te ,/S';r" ^^'' '' ^™--I Srofr m l""'"'^^': ^^ British " iu ure d(.ton„inatio,rt] ! i;!i:''l'^''»^'^'^"ithespeeia 1^^^^^^ Vl'^^^^^ '>f tlie '.01 Dynogotiations between ., l^/^P'-rionee ].as -.bcnvn tb.f T f ^"'""' "^^ ''^"'^Sotiations between cousiderablv bcJou- ll.o fi " "''■' P^'oposcd l,v tb « i- ''' ^""^'^^'^zed to bo inn,]. =^-^~*SSSSSS?3afi= till. rr,„i„..£ ."'"' ""'"11 "My lie „«.„.,„,.,.. l^epurtwciit of Stutp IT, i . JJc'cvmber iiO 18'H ^s^^'-^i) ^y. Q. GiiEsirAM. (T '•-■iograpln'o.) No. 30. ^>r J. Panncefote to tko Karl of Kir,,,^,,,, ^.,, . ^ ^ Tlu- Jlo,.^- 0? jtni l^-""'- ^^''•^^''"iZ/o., Februarv 26 ISA'S I'ro..osed .M>pro, ;;,- ^^^^llf ^"•^«. '^v an advo.sc vote of 1 . • ,, ,XConnniitee o/'^^ -^^^SS^^^ti'-sSSZl^^ "^ No. 31. . }^ JO'ir tcloo'rani of voRtord..v'. i , ^''oirimi o//,v,, r- , »a( Ilmato question f " «f tlio main f 'iny question luostion of the *«^ «f furtiier hr «f JiritisI, [■"isers „f tJio ^^«'J« or tJieir Ji"<'ntiono(Ii,i |'"t the actiuu .^''st Annual lions must Lo pons betu-ocn expensive '^'f-' Pacific" '^■'^■^-examino '^rjnd a Deleoatc to assist at AVashington. You should strongly urge the necessity of settling the question at once, either by the payment of the lump sum or by a Convention for a Chiinis Commission. 395. 'd the tc of JSo nt er No. 34. Sir J, Pauncefote to the Earl of Kiniherh'ij, — (Received March 3.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, March 2, IS!)."). liEHRING SEA chiims: your Lordship's telegram of tlie 1st. The Secretary of State informed me that he is quite prepared imniedi.itel}' to resume negotiations for a Convention. Present Session of Congress, however, closes on the 4th instant, and the Convention, when signed, must be submitted for confiniiation by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. It cannot, therefore, bo submitted to the Senate, unless a special Session be called before next December. I liavc urged in the strongest language the necessity of a prompt settlement of the claims one way or another, and every effort to effect it has been vainly exhausted by the President and Mr. Gresham. Tliey have even failed in an attempt to obtain from Congress an appropriation for the payment of the claims subject to their examination by a Commission to be appointed for that purpose, or for the simple expenses of such a Commission. I received from Mr. Gresham to-day an expression of the deep regret felt by the President and liimself at the unexpected situation in wliich they found themselves placed, and at their inability to prevent the delay which now, most unfortunately, must occur in adjusting these claims and discharging the national obligations of tlie United States. • Forwarding copy of Nd 30, '4 m No. 35. '^^^ ^"'-^ of Ki,,i,,,., J i^ii J. Puitucefotc Al Jin iiU(M'vi(>H i 1 ' '■•■■"••'.I II,, r """■ '' "'■ '"'*">■■< «in „ : • ■*l»"'t'-'e.s? fc-". M co„..„i,.:;, ~- --- -^. «... on consequential 20 '■'•''' '>. ISO.-,. "■•/■ "'I' ffi-oat '"i". '^t'jmratod ''"^•'•^'on for ,1 "'^''' tifssaf/.s. ^''^' J>rinci],]e ^'cntJ^- /.eon ;'<'o for the "■• '-"•esJiam '"^ to make i'urpoi-t of ' 1895. o inclose "f" fhc '8' out of t? "iiole L'nt ivas T£. ruj 8 (lania^os, which, in the case of the '■ Alahania," wore not aihiiittcd. I'.iit there was a dear iliilorenco hetwcon tlio oases. In tlie case of the •• Alahania " (he wronu' was tlie indirect act of tlie Goverunient, and in the )ireseiit casi' it was liie direct act. And, fnrtiier, in the i)resent ca.se, a rule was agreed on wiiich aih)we(l conscquenlial daina^'cs, .Ind^ineiit iiad l)een ;;iveu a^ainsf the United States, and (he only question iefl was the assessment of dania;;es. Leaviiii;' out the conse(iuen(ial damages, there would remain a claim, practically undisputed, for 227,O00 dollars, on wjiicli inten'st would have to he paid for seven years, it the matter was referred to a Commission, and. in addition, there wouUl he the expense of haviuij,- Arhitrators. The Iiar^^ain was not a had one, and, on hroader j::r()unds, it did not hecome the I'niled Stales to ijo down to the tavern and denounce the .hidii-e, as litigants sometimes do who have lost their case. The right course was to settle tlie nuitter at once, and remove it as a cause of disagreement between the two peoples. Mr. Cannon (Republican) was not opposed to the payment uidess it reversed a principle already settled. The Ariiitrators only decided tlie question of fact as to seizure and warning out ; the question of the amount of damage and tiie ownership of the vessels was left oiien for future negotiation. A to prospective ilamagcs, it had been decided in the case of the "Alabama" that they could not properly be made subject of compensation. As to the question of ownership, it was clear from the evidence (Mr. Foster's statement iiublished in the last Senate Document, p. Kit) that the great majority of the vessels .seized were owned by Americans. The most that could fairly be conceded was 103,000 dollars. Mr. Hooker (l)emoL'rat) denied that the aiialogy with the " Alaliama " case held good. The vessels were equijjped in ('anadian waters for the purpose of prosecuting what was now conceded by both parties to have been a lawful act, and the United States was responsible for whatever damages ensued from their seizure. It was not improbable that if the matter were referred to a tJonimission, the United States would have to pay a million dollars instead of less than half that sum. }-lr. Henderson (Kepublican) quoted from Mr. luister's statemenl, and askcil how in the face of it the Secretary of State could have made such an agreement. This large sum should not be paid when there was high authority for the statement that most of the claims were unwarranted and unjust. He advocated the Commission jirovided for in the Treaty, in order that if there were any Americaiiti mas(pieradiiig under British auspices they might be smoked out. Mr. McCreary (Democrat) said that ot the two alternatives he thought the payment of a lump sum would be the most econcmiical, and that promptncBS in paying the claims was in tlie line of economy, justice, and honour. Mr. Ilitt (IJepublicau) .said that in the case of ten out of the twenty ships seized the real owners were Americans. These men wen; not engaged in a " iawl'ul occupation," but one forbidden by the laws of their own country. They were entitled to fine and imprisonment, not to compeii,00i) dollars for the seizure of ships v.hicli really Dchinged to lioscowitz. Cooper had testified that he did not even know the number or names of tlie ships, and that lie had nothing to do with them. Of the total amount of 512,000 dollars claimed, .'5(JO,000 dollars re])rc8entcd the interests ot Americans. As to the char:icter of the claims, the great mass was for an estimated catch— '577,000 doll.'irs out of 542,000 dollars. It had been decided at Geneva that compensation was not to be paid for prospective earnings. As to the argument that the two Governments had agreed to pay compensation for such losses, it referred only to the claim for damages under tlie niodiix rivendi. That portion of the claim had been formerly aban- doned hy the tuo Governments. As to the fear e.xpressed that more claims would be presented in case of the appointment of a Commibsion, it was clear from the words of the IJritish Ambassador that the claims presented in June ISOf included all the claims. A Commission, as proposed by Sir .luliau Uauncefote, would probably cost ahout l'),000 dollars, and would result, perhaps, in the payment by the United States of 50,000 dollars which is about what was due. Mr. l)in(/lei/ (Republican) would not say with certainty that the cla'-n for prospective damages would he disallowed by the Commission. He quoted the c je of the Halifax Award. It was a c;isc of a choice of two evils, and it was impossible to foresee what would be the decision of a foreign Umpire. Mr. Breckenrkhje, in reply, said that he agreed with tlie h?.t speaker. The claims [238] E 20 would make the payment jireseriheJ \>y il Icjially-i'onstitutoci Triljunal, it would lie a delinquciit at llic international bar of i»nl)lic ^t\ il inleirrity. It was not true that Sir Julian Pauneefote had di iarr( u)uai le e; man rom none.- liimst'lt Irom presenlln^• ad the etfeets of imprisonment. Mr. Ilitt denied that that claim could go het'ore the Commission. Mr. Ihvckcur'uUjv nuiinlainid that it could. He pointed out that these ships had sailed from a British port under (he Ihiti-h lla:;-, and the burden was on the United States to overthrow the presumption arisinji' from that fact, lie predicted that this could never he nccomplislied. TIk- United Slates had j^one into the Arhitration on the ground that the JJehrinn' Sea was L'nited States' property, and had lost. They ouj^ht now to lake the conseciuences like men. As to the damages chiimed, he thought that the prospective calcli ought to be paid for. The real capital of these men was their sweat, their risk, their danger, their time. When they were seized, and put in Alaskan prisons, without right and without justice, what better criterion of damage was there than what they might have caugiit, and what every one but themselves did catch during that year r These were not remote damages. There was a vast difference hetween remote damages and consequential damages. There are innumerable cases where consecpiential damages are given where they are the immediate and not the remote consequences of the act. He ([noted the statement of Sir \\. Grey in Parliament as to the proljahle payment of the damages, aiul iioped that the United State /ould not be posted before the world like a delinquent at a club. He did not advocate this measure because i.. had been proposed by a Democratic President, but because on the iloor of the House of Representatives he represented the entire Imperial Itepu])lic of America, and lie did not wish the Unitetl States to stand before the nations as a nation which did not keep faitii. H* apjicnded to his speech, as printed, a calculation showing midcr several hypotheses the saving lo tlie United States ell'ccted by the payment of a lump sum. On a division, there were, for the amendment !jl, against 8G. The Connnittee rose, and the House then voted on the Appropriation Bill as passed by the Committee. A separate vote was taken on the Behring Sea clause, when it appeared that there were — Yeas 1 I.S, Mays 142. The nuijority comprised Eepublicans, Populists, and 48 Democrats. (T. No. 37. Colonial Office to Foreiijn Office. — {Received March 9.) Sir, Downinij Slrcel, March S, 1895. I i\M directed by tlie Marciuess of Ripon to acknowledge tiie receipt of your letters inclosing telegraphic correspondence willi Her Majesty's Ambassador at \\'ashint;toa regarding the setllement ol' the Ijchring Sea claims, and I am to suggest, for the con- sideration cf the Earl of Kimherky, tliat Sir Julian Pauncefote should be at once instructed to communicate a copy of his telegram of the 'Jnd instant to the Governor-General of Canada, and consult with him as to the date on which it will be convenient to send a Canadian Ueprescntalivo to assist in the iurtiier negotiations for a Convention. I am, &c. (For Under-Secretary of State), (Signed) R. P. EBDEN. • 27 llt-Miiont was ['■ of i)iil,lie \d (jvlnm-cd tliod from •"^I'ips had '>e United tliat this 'Oil on tiio |o»?iit that ■} ^vas their Jin Alaskan "as llioro , "yea and nay" vote was a surprise, as well as ,i grave disapiiointment. Strong party feeling woidd seem alone to account for the rejection of so just and desirable an arrangement, and, as your Fjordshij) will have noticed from the inclosures in my despatch, statements have been made in C-;s of prolils of the fishery seas(m by sealing vessels warned out of llebring Sea. Such damages were allowed when claimed iiy the Tnited States in the I'^ortune Bay case on behalf of United States' lishermcn, wiiose rights of iishcry bad been forcibly interfered willi by a mob on the coast of Xewfoundland in 1S7S. Again, it is ])retended (hat a great majority of the sealing-vessels on behalf of which the claims are made were the property of United States' citizens, whereas there is no evidence whatever of any eliange of ownership in those vessels, wb.icli all carried the British flag and a l?ritish register. One speaker represented the total amount oi' the elaims to be only 512,000 dollars, whereas it was owr 700,0' '0 dollars. -Vnother concluded from the fact that the (jd'er of the lump sum and its acceptance apjieared in notes of the same date, that the oll'er was made without jirevious investigation, and was in-;tantly " siiajipcd at " hy Her Majesty's Government, whc'cas the comjiromise recorded in those notes was the result of laborious negotiati')n-.. which were carried on during the whole summer. There can be no (bmbt Ibiit the abow^ inacculiU'ie^; were calculated to prejudice the minds of many ^Members of Congress, and also to turn publie opinion again.st i\ selllement of the question which was both eipiitable and advantageous to both parties. The action of Congress is in strange contrast with the assurance given me by Mr. Blaine at the commencement of the negotiations which led to the Behring Sea Arhhration, and is recorded in my despatch of tli(> 1st November, 1S80, '-that his Government would not wish that private individuals who had acted bond fide in the belief that they were exercising their lawful rights should be the victims of a grave dispute between two great countries, which had happily been adjusted." 1 have, kc (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. [238] E No. 40. Sir J. Pnunrcfntc to the Earl of Kimhrrley. — {Received Miirrit 1-1.) ^Ty Lord, Washington, March i, 1895, I IIAA'R tlic honour to Iransniit lo your Lordship licrcwith extract from the " Coiiiyrcssional h'ccord," oontttiniiif^ a report of ;i Hesohition iutroduced by Senator ■Mors'aii for the apijointmcnt of a Comniittoc to oxaniiiie into tlio qticstion of the liabiiifv of tlie I'nilod Slates lo ]my claims arisin;;- out ot the I'ehring Sea controversy, and also of the liabililv of Oreat lirilain and Canaihi. Ynur L(H'( in the lIou-:e ot L'oninions to ])ay havinj;- "a moral claim on the Fnited States for this 125,000 dollars, not one shilling of which is due." Objection «as interposed to the immediate consideration of the Resolution, and it accordingly went over. I have. &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. Lordship will oljserve tliat Senator Morgan alludes to a recent proposal made i-:e of Commons to ])ay the claims in advance, as being made with a view to Inclosure in No. 40. ErI met from tlir " C'ongressionat Record " of March 1, 1895. British Behring Sea Claims. Mr. Morgan. — 1 offer a Resolution, for which 1 ask present consideration. The Vice-President. — The Resolution will be read. Tiie Secretary read as follows : — " Uescilri'd, — 'i'liat the Message of tiie President received by the Senate on the i;Uh February, lS',).j, relating to t'-.e payment by the United States of the claims ot Great Jiritain arising oni of the Hehring Sea controversy, is referred to the Committee on Foreign li-lalions, with instruction that such Committee examine into the question of such lial)ility to (ireat Uritain and the amount thereof, if any, and of an)' liability on the part of Great Uritain or Canada arising out of said controversy, and that said Committee shall have authority to rejjort by ISill or otherwise; and, in making such examination, may sit in the vacation of the Senate." The Viri'- Pr('.' ttSe" i,;'S,/„ '■'' "•••'■^ not ''••"' (aiccn "* ''<■'^^■l.so(| ^•ivoiir ;,y '11.1(/(> hy l"'^ "f fJlc h>id t\n> 'JP t^iiifed amount,^ « •'^'cri;i(o 'iiipoiviry I'"'"'", iio '•''■ri'I.'irv -■(.Try of rarfi. Vlii'p I in tiio is;i. ss, vk nf o )/• aiiiy Imm tin- niomciif, that the I'iiris Trihuiiai, hy its Award, liail ri-JL-ctcil thu- lt":al prctL-iiJ-iDiis of the United States to a special property in iho fur .s.-al3 re-iortinj,' to the I'rihvloll Islands. That decision at once pnulaiiniHl tlni illi'u'alilv ( '' the S!'i7,iue.-, and til? liahihty of the I'nitc;! Shitos to iMiliMy tiic claims 'I'lial was tlii- h,..-iT, of the dipioniatic! iii.^'iitiatiim lor tliv adjustincnt ul' tlie cliinis, unil 1 am at a loss to conceive; what rjtlier view could iie taken without disputini,' the Paris Award. Nor can 1 coaiprehend, wltliout further explanation, the nicanin,!:,' of Senator Morgan's ohjeelion to that ncirotiation as not havin;; taken phuc '* throu;;h the constKnliMnal autiiorities ol'tiie rnited States." JIavin;,' denie:! the liainlity of tiie United States to pav eonipensatlon, and also the competency of the United States' Secretary oC State and of tlic llriiish Anihassador to negotiate on the suhjcet, lh()u,i,'h fully empowered hy their res|)cctivi> Covernments to do so, Senatcjr Mor-aii pioeeeds to criticize the arrani^'cinent arrived at tor the pavment of a •' lump sum ■' ot •l'J.j,()00 dollars. With re-urd to the detail.-; of the claims, lie slates that the total amount claimed hy (Jreat Hritain, with interest, is r)42,lfi!) dollars. Me uriies that the items for iois of prolits .should not he allowed, and he tpioLcs in support of iiis contention the decision of the (ieneva Arhitrators on the suhject of ])ros|)e(tive earnings. Ife estimates the excess proposed to he allowed hy tlie'ScTelary of State as fully 18l»,0()0 dollars. He states, further, that ten ut' the ships for which damau;es are claimed were, in fact, owned hy citizens of the United States, and that the amount claimed hy Uritish suiijects, less specu- lative dainnycs, is only 7(),9:.'4 dollars. Hut even this amount is, he .^fates, excessive, lie maintains that the "personal claims " should he deducted, lcavin<; 3tj,L'ef) dollars. Of this sum, 10,500 dollars, he says, is claimed for the " lleiu-ielta," which claim is not allowable, as she was seized under the modus viceiiili. Senator Morgan's estimate, there lore, with the last-iiicntioiied deduction.^, would reduce the indemnity to about 2U,()U0 dollars ; hut that is an improvement on the previous estimate he p;ave iu a recent sjicech in opposition (o the payment of the claims, in wliich he declared that "not one sliillin;*; " was due (see my desnatcli of t!ie Ltli instant). I will now proceed to show in what resjicets the distinguished Senator appears to have been misled in his computation of the iude-anitv. In the first place, he is mistaken in supposing that the total amount of the cl.iims, with interes', was only 542, Uii) dollars. It amounted to ui)wards of 7^li law no alien can hold any share in a registered British vessel, under penalty of lorleinre ot the vessel t') the Crown. The owner of llie vessel may niorti;age her to an alien, but he docs not thereby part with bis ])i'oi)orty in the vessel. He only makes her a seeurity for the loan. Section 70 of the Merelianl ^ hipping Aet provides as follows : — " A mortgagci- shall not by reason of his mortgage be deemed to he the owner of a ship or an.v shaie therein, nor shall the mortgagor be deemicl to have cea.^ed to be the owner ot such moilijaued ship or shiui', except in so I'ar as may be necessary for making sucii shi[) or share availaiile as a security for the mortgage debt." It is not improbable that in some ca.-.cs the owners of British sealing-vessels may have borrowed money from United States' citizens for the purpose of the season's e(|uipment and venture, and that they may have mortgaged their vessels to .Aj.iorican citizens as collateral security for the loan. But they reniaiu liable to the lender for the amount of the loan, tuough their vessel has been illegally seized and their venture has resulted in a los!-', juing to such illegal seizure. On what eonceivablc ground of justice or reason are they lo be deprived of com- pensation because part ot the amount awarded may be applied by them in satisfaction of a loan due by them to an American citizen r Why should that American citizen he called "a rascal"? What law has he violated by advancing money for the proseeution of a lawful Canadian industry carried on by Canadians in Canadian vessels? In '.vhat respect has the United States' Government been " robbed," considering that it has no property in the fur-seal, as was solemnly adjudged and declared by the Tribunal of Arbitration at I'aris ? These are (luestions which, I submit, can only be reasonably answered in a sense absolutely fatal to Senator Morgan's contentions. Moreover, the principal alleged transgressor referred to, whose name is Boscowitz, has denied that he is an American citizen. The British Hag and the law of nations have been violated on the high seas, and it appears to me that in assessing the indemnity to the private individuals who were the victims of the great wrong so committed, any inquiry into the sources of the capital invested in the lawful industry pursued by the vessel at the time of seizure is out of place and inadmissible. As regards the \essels themselves, even if some of them, as contended by Senator Morgan, were owned or partly owned by citizens of the United States (which I have shown could not be the case under the law of the flag), such vessels became liable to |U(1 !v lliu fvn in) he forfeited to the Uritisli Crown, and tliu United Stutcs' Goveiiitmiit, by svhom ti'cy were wrooglully seized, would be bound to restore them or their value to Her .Miijesty's Government lor the purposes of such forftiture. It will be seen from the nhovc exphmations thjtt Sv'.nator Mi>n;iin's ohjoctioiis to the j);iymeiit of tlio " lump sum " nyreed upon are banvNl in » jfi-eat measure; on misii|iprelieii- si(iU8 of ('net, iind, I would add with all respect, or \u orroiiemis view ot the rights of (ircat Hiitaiii and of the ohli^iations of the United States resultiii}{ from the Hehring Sen Treaty of Ailjitration and the Paris Award. As your [,ordship is aware, Senator Morgan is the Chairman of the Senato Com- mittee on Fort'if^u Relations, and was one of the two members representing the United States' (lovernmeiit on the Behrins? Sea Trii)unul of Arbitration. It is not surpvisinf; that persistent denunciations from sueh a (juarter ajiainst the diplomatic arnui^cinent concluded between the two CJovernineots should have pi'ejudiccd Congress and the public a£;ainst it. Moreover, the great pressure of business and the strong party feeling which marked the close of the Session rendered it impossible to obtain a fair and dispassionate consideration of the ijucstion. Much as the delay in the fmal settlement is to be deplored, I have too much confidence in the great qualities of the Airicrican people to doubt that it will be ultimately adjusted oa a sound and honourable basis. In a i)revious despatch I reminded your Lordship of the assurance given to me by Mr. lilnine at the eomnuMucment of the negotiations which led to the Paris Arbitration, "that his (lovernment would not wish that private individuals who had acted bond fide in the belief that they were exercising their lawful rights should be the victims of a grave dispute between two great countries which had h;\|)pily been adjusted." The J'resiilent and the Soc-'^iary of State adopted the sanie view and were animated throughout the negotiations for the settlement ot the claims by the iiighest sentiments of honour and justice. I am iu)t without hope that when the cloud which now obscures the true merits of the case has been dispelled, Congress may yet confirm the arrangement made between the two (jovtriuncnts as an eeiuitablc and happy solution of a todio'is and irritating controvensy. I have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCLFOTE. Inelosure 1 in No. ii. Extract from the "New York Tribune " of March 9, 189.'). (By telegraph to the "Tribune.") CHAIRMAN Morgan, of the Senate Committee Washington, March 8, 1895. on Foreign Relations, was member of the Hehring Sea Tribunal of Arbitration, and there is no man living who possesses a more thorou-zh and accurate knowledge of the matters discussed or the conclusions and awards of liie Tribunal than he docs. It is by no means singular that he should denounce the claims of alleged British subjects on account of damages as " preposterous," in view of the facts which hn.ve already been disclosed in tiie debate in the House of Representatives, as well as in these despatches. But it is exceedingly significant, to sav the least, that Senator Morgan, a Democrat, should in effect declare that this Administration, and not the Paris Tribmial, is responsible for the slaughter of the seals by poachers during the last two years. Senator Morgan's statement, wliich is herewith rei)roduced, strongly suggests either that the Cleveland Administration was hoodwinked by the Representatives of Great Britain, whose construction of the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration was accepted by it, or that it was willing to sacrifice whatever advantage the United States might have gained undi;r that decision for the sake of casting discredit upon the Administration which agreed to submit the matters in controversy to such a Tribunal. The statement of Senator Morgan's views is as follows : — " A very mistaken view of this matter is entertained. Tiie Treaty of Arbitration was signed the 29th February, 1892, and the modus vivendi of 1892 was signed on the 18th April of that year. They were ratified by the Senate as parts of the same Treaty, and were proclaimed by the President on the same day, the 9th May, 1892. Article Vlil of the Treaty of February 1392 says that the High Contracting Parties, having found them- [238] i" 31 selves unable to agree upon a reference wliieh sliall include the question of llie liability of each lor the injuries alleged to Iiave been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with tlie claims presented or made by it, and being solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and delennination of the main cjuestion, do pcrree that either may submit to the Arbitrators any question of fact involved in such claim, and asK' for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of either Government u])on the facts found to be the subject of further negotiations. Aniclc V of the Treaty of April 1892 stipulatos that if the residt of the Arbitration be to affirm the riidit ef British scalers to talic seals in Behring Sea within the bounds claimed by the United States, then compensation shall be made for abstaining from the exercise of that right during the p^ ndency of the Arbitration upon the basis of such a regulated and limited catch as in the o[;inion of the Arbitrators might have been taiceu without an undue diminution of the seal herd. If the result of the Arbitration denied the British rights, then compensation was to be made by Great Britain to the United States. The amount awarded, if any, was to be promptly paid. " It was not questioned and could not be disputed tliat the two Treaties, though they were signed at different times, constituted one entire Agreement. Article VIII of the Treaty of February 1802 only bound the two Governments to a 'further negotiation' as to the mutters therein referred to, and left 'the (luestion of the liability of either Government on the facts found to be the subject of further nf^gotiation.' In execution of this Article, the Agents of the two Governments agreed upon a state of facts which the Tribunal found to be true and entered it of record. That statement of facts included only the names of twenty sealing-vcssels that were seized by the United States. The Tribunal hud no authority to j)ass upon any .question touching the liability of the United States for having made sucii seizures. That matter was left where A: tide VIII of the Treaty left it. The United States has not agreed to arbitrate any such claim or demand, and have never admitted any liability to Great Britain connected with any such claim or demand. They have onh agreed to negotiate respecting it, expressly reserving the questioii of such, liability as the subject of such negotiation. " I am only insisting that the negotiations shall take place through the constitutional authorities of the United States, and that it shall not he evaded by a scheme to create by Act of Congress a Commission tha! will stttie tiie (lucstion without any negotiation. Judge Blodgett, one of the Courisel of the United States, presented an argument before the Tribunal to show that upon the widest basis of demand Great Britain had claimed, no decree upon the facts could award Great Britain any damages for alleged wi-ongs com- niitred l)y the United States. That argument was not answered, nor was any effort made to answer. It stands to-day as a perfect answer to the claim set up by Great Britain, based upon the false assunqition that the United States w'erc bound by the Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, or by agreement, or by law, justice, or cfjuity to pay any part of the demand." Afr. Monjiui then gave in detail the names of the vessels and the claims made on their behalf, whicii was t!ie statuiuct \iz dciireJ to Include in the record, hut which was shut out by Mr. Turpie's objection. Tlie claims sho ved that the amount claimed by Great Britain with interest was .542,10!) dol. 'J(i c. ; 'he amount proposed to be allowed by Secretary Gresham was 425.000 dollars. Mr. .Mo^^gan said that the schcdtde of claims lor each vessel contained an item designated varioudy as " probable catch,'' " balance of catch," "estimated balance of catch," &c. Tlies" were clearly prospective profits or speculative damages, and were all based on future or contingent occurrences, forniing no basis of fact on which an equitable finding as to amount of damages cotdd be predicated. They should not be allowed. Similar claims were ])resented by the United States to the .Arbitrators of the "Alabama" Claims in 1872 at Geneva, and in their decision they say: " .And whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be iriade the subject of compepsation, inasnuich as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies, the Tribinial is nnaniaiously of the opinion that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head." 3Ir. Morgan estimated that the excess proj)osed to be allowed by Sccictarv Gresham was fully 182,000 dollars. He added :— " The above figures and comparisons are based entirely upon the supposition that every vessel included in the schedule of claims submitted by Sir .Julian Pauncefote was owned by a British subject. It appears, however, from the United States' Counter-Case submitted to the Behring Sea Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris, that ten vessels were in fact owned by citizc-ns of the United States." He figured up the general result as lollovvs : — Total amount claimed by Great Britain, 542,109 dol. 42 c. ; total amount of claims of 36 t le United States' citizens presented, 35n,8.')3 flol. 8!) e. ; balance rcsultin^s boin;; amount claimed by British owners, IS'^.-'Jlfj dol. .j.'i e. But of this amount claimed by British subjects, specuhitive damages are included to the amount of lil,3i)l dudars, tiius leaving the amount claimed by British subjects, less speculative dama.^es, 70,924 dol. 'kS c. The total amount of claims of British subject?, whicii, as Mr. Morgan contends, could possil)ly be recovered, amounts in all to 70,924 dollars, ikit even this sum, which is 471,244 dolliirs less than the British claim presented and or)4,07J dollars less than he amount the Secretary of State proposes to give in settlement, is undoubtedly excessive. Ot that amount, JM.bSU dollars is for " jiersonal claims," and in all prcbability some of these claimants are citizens of the United States or some other country, which liict could be establi died by investigation. Deducting the " personal claims " from 70,'J-4 dollars, there is left, as Mr. Morgan says, 3G,"2bO dollars. 01 this sum, l(i,ofJO dollars ai,'|)ears as the claim of the "Henrietta" (less speculative damages). The "Henrietta" was seized in Behring Sea in September 18!)2, under the provisions of the modus vivrmli, anti there- fore ro claim is allowable. But even il allowable it shows its "padded" character, from the fact that there is a claim for an "estimated catch" in Behring Sea when sealing was not allowed there, and the season was over at the time of the seizure. Senator Morgan therefore concludes that Great Britain claims the sum of 542,16!) dollars, and that the amount due, with interest, is only 90,102 dollars, maiung an excess in the claims without interest over the amount due with intcre.-92, the slaughter is due to the inelKcient regulations to cany out the eon- curi'ent regulations established in the Award of the Arbitrators." i itielosuie 2 in No. i2. SvNorsis oi' Ci,;ViMs. 1886. C'laiuiB Aildiii claim of " Bhvk Uiiuuoiid " Interest at 7 per cent, to 1894 (8 years) Del. c. './D.ltHi ;i7 7,000 00 lOd.'JOO .■!7 .VJ,bf)4 20 1887. 8 of Clninis .. .. Additionnl claim of "Ad* " hitercet ot 7 per cent, to 1894 (7 yearn) L2:w] •.^0.5,098 II 3,000 00 2nS,0!)S II 101,008 07 lilO.IH'iO IS 1889. Cliiiras . . . • Additional claim nl' " Juauita ' Interest al 7 per cent, to 1894 (1 years) 1890. Clniuis . . . • • • • • Interest at 7 pei cent, to 1894 (4 years) 1.32,Gfi3 ;!,002 00 66 47,482 06 98 183,148 64 Del. 2,000 560 c. 00 00 2,500 00 1892. Henrietta" Interest at 7 per cent, to 1894 (2 years) 26.658 00 3,732 12 30,390 12 IIksumk. 1886 1887 t88d 1890 xm " Wii\nifrcd "' Costs of suit in /v " W. V. Sayuard ' Totiil .. Dol. 0. 160.764 57 310,060 18 183,148 64 2,560 00 30,390 12 692,929 51 30,390 12 62,817 12 786,166 75 The claim of the " Wiiinifred," wliich occurred in 1891, is adtled, though the narticular.'. were not furnished. It was a-recd that it slundd he coveted hy the "lump sum " and ='-' • 'is similar to that of the " Henrietta; whose crmii amounted to a little ov' . u.'. JO I '^vs, it was put down roucjhiy it the same amount. No. 43. Sir J. Pininnfntr lo thr Earl of Kimberlpy.— {Received March 30.) My Lord Washington, March 19, 1896. IN my despatch of the loth instant I had the honour to lay hefore your Lordship niv views on the sui)jeet of the refusal hy Congress to vote the appropruuion of 4''"5 000 dollars in satisfaction of the Behrin"- Sea claims, and my ohservations on the obie'clions raised by Senator Morgan to the " luiri) sum " arrangement. I venture to supplement that despatch with the following additional remarks on the Senator s sl^ate- ment that the United States" Government had never admitted their liability to pay those ^ ""'T observed in that despatch that the Award of the Paris Arbitration proclaimed the ille-ality of the scizmes, and the liability of the United States to satisfy the olaimr ]5ut" if any admission of liability were necessary, it is to be found, at least in prmcipl;!, in Article 5 of the modus vivcmh of 1892, which was signed contemporaneously with t.ie Treaty of Arbilriition. , . , a Uuier the modus vivendi of 1891 the British sealers were compensated by thnr own Government for their loss of profits consequent on their abstention from pel.»gic sealing during that season. St Tinder the modus vivendl of 1892 (Article 5) it was provided that, if the result of the Arbitration should be to affirm the right of the Tkitisii scalers to take seals in Hehnng- Sea, similar comiionsalion as therein defined should be naid to them by the Lnited States' Government. If the British sealers were thus held entitled to compensation for alj.taining from the pursuit of their lawful industry under the above voliintarv and amicable avinu' -e- nient, Jiow much greater is their claim to such compensation for the iirovious deprivation ot their just rights by force and violence. The two Governments, at the arbitration, waived their respective claims to compensation under Article 5 of the modus virrndi of 1802, for reasons given in the report of the proceedings of the 31st May (pp. 1197-!)8). liut those reasons in no way militate against my present contention ; they rather confirm it. It is true that, as stated in Article VIII of the Treaty of Arbitration, the High Contracting Parties found themselves unable to agree upon a reference which should include die question of their respective liabilities to each other. But the reason was not that any dispute arose as to the liability of the United States' Government to pay comiiensation for the illegal seizures of Britisii vessels in the event of the decision of tiie Arbitrators being adverse to them on tiie question of the jurisdictional rights of the United States. The sole reason for wiiich the High Con- tracting Parties found tliemselves unable to agree on the ([uestion of lialjil-tv ^^as that the United Stntes' Government claimed, in the event of the Award being in tlieir favour, •t« render Great Britain liable for losses resulting from the wrongful action of persons :- ling outside British jurisdiction under the British (las, a doctrine which it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept. (See Lord Salisbury's tcleo-ram of the 12th August, 1891.*) I may add, in conclusion, that during the negotiations for the " lump sum " arrangement the Secretary of State entirely shared the views above expressed as to the significance of Article 5 of the modus vivcndi of 1892 in relation to the measure of damages <♦ I i:ave, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No. 44. .y/r .7. Pauncefote fa the Ear! of Kmhirleij .— {Ih reived April 17, 7 r.sr.) (Telegraphic,^ Wushinnton, Anrin',\S'do. B' Uk!.\(; sea Claims Convention. rna'i,. (,'ovcrnmcnt owing to meeting of Dominion Parliament to-morrow have dcc'i- 'A *■) j'l, t until aft'.' D'ru'Ofjation ;!.jne resumption of negotiations and visit of their Delegates to NVashington No. 4i5. 8ir J. Pauncefote to the Earl of Kiinhcrleij. — {Received April 2').) My Lord, Washington, April ]C), \8{i5. WITH reference to the resumption of negotiations for the Behring Sea Claims Convention, and to the proposed visit of Canadian Delegates to Wasiiiugton in connection th' . vitb, 1 have tiie honour to report tiiat, immediately on receipt of your Lordship's t 'ji'-iij'hic instructions of the 9th ultimo, I notninunicated with the Governor-General of Can;:i',; :;. to fl.f date ot the visit of the Delegates. v/i the 16th ultimo the Governor-General replied to the effect that the Canadian Government were most anxious for an early settlement of the Behring Sea claims, and tn.it the Miriistry were ready to send Representatives without delay. On the 'iOtli ultimo 1 informed the Governor-General ot tlic readiness of (be United States' Goveniinenl (u resume negotiations for a Treaty to be submitted to the Senate at the next meeting of Congress, but I added that the Secretary of State had not recovered from his recent illness-, and that he had been advised to leave Washington for a short time. Nevertheless, Mr. Grcsham would proceed at once, it desired, with the negotiations. • See " United Stales No, 3 (180'i)," No. 1'22. 38 1 received no furtlier coimiiunicdtion troin ilie Governoi-Gciierai until the 3th iustiint» wiu'ii his l']xcellency iiitbnnetl me, by telegmiii, that his Ministers suggested that the CoiifereDco should taUc place at once so as to enable the Delegates to return to Ottawa liLlbre tlic niieting ot tiie Dominion Parliament, wliich would take place on the IStli instant. Mr. (jrcshain was then absent from Washington, but I called on him immediately on I is return, and I ascertained from him that while the I'resident was quite willii'g tliat the negotiations should proceed at once, if such was the desire of tlie Canadian Govern- nitnt, still, in view of the short time now at the disposal of the Delegates before the meeting of Pariumieiit, anl of other considerations, he thought it would be of advantage to defer the negotiations to the later period. 1 so informed the (jovernor-Ceneral, by ttlegram, on the 10th instant, and yesterday, • lie lf)lh, 1 received a reply from his Excellency, to the effect that, owing to tl;e meeting of the Canadian Farliument on the ISlh instant, the Dominion Government prefer to have liie vi>it of their Delegates to Washington deferred until after the Session. 1 have so iiilornied Mr. tiresdam. 1 have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. No, 46. ' Tlia Murquens of Salisbury lo Sir J. Pauncefule. Sir, Foreign Office, August 3], 1895. YOUll Excellency's despatches of the 2SHi rebruary last and of the Mb, .5th, loth, and 19th 3Iarch relative to the claims for compensation from the United States on account of the seizure of British sealing-vcssels in Hehring Sea were duly receiveil, and have been read with careful attention. i need scarcely say that the arguments which you bring forward in support of the validity of those claims liave the entire a])[)roval and concurrence of llcr Majesty's Government. The attem])t made by Senator ^'.loi'gan to dispute them seems to bo lai'gely founded on misap])rehensio!i, and llm" ^L;ijesty's (jove/iuneut cannot doubt that wlien tlie full faiits are before tlu; pui)lie in the Unitinl States, the liability of that country to make eompensalion, wiiieh has never been denied by the Goverimient, will be generally recognized both in and outside of Congress. As your Excellency Avill shortly he returning to your post, I transmit to you herewith, for such use .ns you may find conveni<'nt, a ^lemoranduin, setting out at som(>what ixreater length some of the points in support of the claims to Avhich you iiavo alluded in your desnafi'lies above referred to. 1 am, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY. Inclosure in No. Ili. Memorandum. THE statejncnt communicated to the press by Senator Morgan entirely ignores the fact thai the five (|uestions submitted to the Arbitrators in accordance with Article Vr of the Treaty of the 2'.)lh February, 18i)2, embodied the whole of the grounds ur^'cd on behalf of the United Stites' Government in justification of the si.'izures out of Mhich the claims arise. Tiiis is abundantly clear, not imly from the corres])ondence which led to the framing of these questiona, but also from the ])roceedini,'s of the Tribunal. IMr. lUaine, in the course of Ids first conversation with Sir J. Pnuncefote on the subjeet of the seal fisheries, as reported in the despat(.'h to Lord Salisbury of the ! st 'Xovember, 1889, stated :— " As regardo compensation, if an agreement shouhl bo arrived at, he felt sure ihal hi.-; Cnernment would not wish that private individuals who hud acted bond fide ,,1 till! belief that they were exercising their lawful rights should be the victims of a ';iav' flispute between two u'n;at countries, which had hajtpily l)e(>n adjusted. lie was not uitliout liopc, llicrefore, that th(! wislu'S I liatl oxi)roissi'(l might ho iiKst, and that all might he arranged in a manner whieh should involve no liumiliation on eitlicr side." In a suhseqiienf co.ivorsation on Ihc snl)j|)ly to my protest, in order to ))]aee on roeord helon; tlic worlil the preeise grounds npon wliieh the United States' Govonmieiit justify tin; seizure of the Canadian vessels, so that any eompensation wliioh may he granted may not l)e interpreted as an admission of ■wrong." These grounds of justification were accordingly set. forth in "Mr. Blain(>'s iintc to Sir J. Pauncefote of tlie 22nd January, IS'JO, and amplifunl and reiterated in his later notes of the 30th .Turn; and the 17th Decemhcr in the sam(! year. In the last of tliese notes he sunnned thein up in the form of questions for arhitration, whieh were suhstantially the questions propounded to the Arbitrators, and decided ])y them against the United States. Though, on the face of them, these questions do not refer to the question of damages, it is ohvious that the Arhitratora, in deciding that the grounds upon which the United States based its claim to regulate the seal iisherles wer(! imfomided, at the same time decided that the justificatijn for the seizure of IJritisli vessels, whieh was based on these groumls, was unfounded. The seizures were, in fact, formal acts of tlu; United States' Government in the exercise of the rights and jurisdiction which they claimed, and the Tribunal, in declaring that they had no title to such rights and jurisdiction, necessarily declared that the loss and injury inilietcd on British subjects, in pursuance of thos(> rights and jurisdiction, were imwarranted, and as they also found that the seizures " were made by the authority of the United States' Government," their decision was a declaration that the United States' Government, having indicted an unwarranted wrong, were liable to pay compensation for such wrong. That this was the view of the Arbitrators and of thosi; engaged in conducting tlio case on behalf of the United States' Government is clear from tli(! proceedings of the Tribunal. The utii .Vvticle of the Finding of Tacts submitted to the Tribunal by the United States' Agent as an alternative to the finding proposed by the British Agent, as reported at p. i laS of the Proceedings, was "that the; said several searches, seizures, condemnations, confiscations, lines, iniprisomnents, and orders were not made, imposed, or given under any claim or assertion of right or jurisdiction except such as is submitted to the d<'cision of the Arbitrators in Article IV of the Trenty of Arbitration." The findings finally proposed by the Agent of Gr(>at Britain, and agreed to as proved by the Agent for the United States, and submitted to tlie Trihur.al for its consideration, and found l)y them unanimously (including Senator Morgan, thereJort;,) to be true, were as follows : — "Finding of Facts ])roposed by the Agent of Great Ib'itain, and agreed to as y)rovcd by the Agent for the United States, and submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration for its consideration. ores with the the rom Ibe th(! the sure dfide of a He, " 1. That the several searches and seizures, Mhetlier of ships or goods, and the several arrests of masters and crews, res))eetively mentioned in the Schedule to the British Case, pp. 1 to GO inclusive, were made l)y the authority of the United States' Government. The (|Ucstions as to the value of the said vess(ds or their contents, or either of them, and the question as to whether the vessels mentioned in tl'.(> Schedule to the British Case, or any of them, were Avholly or in part the actual property of citizens of the United States, have been withdrawn frojn and have not been consid(>red bv the Tribunal, it being understood tliat it is open to the Unitcnl States to raise these (juestions, or any of them, if they think (it, in any future negotiations as to the liability of the United States' Government to pay the amounts mentioned in the Schedule to the British Case. " 2. That the seizures aforesaid, witii the exception of the ' Pathfinder,' seized at Neah Bav, were made in liehring Sea at the distanctvs from shore mentioned in the Schedulo'annexed hei'cto, marked (C). " 3. That the said several s(>arches and seizures of vessels were made by public armed vessels of the United States, the Commanders of whieh had, at the several times when they were made, from the Executive Depaitmcut of the Govcrnuicut of 40 tin' Uiiitiul Stati's, iiistnictious, a copy of one of whicli is annexed hereto, niai-kcd (A), and that tlie otliers Mere, in all siihstanlial respects, the same. That in all the iiislanees in whieli procecdiiiLi:s were had in the District Courts of the United St'itcs resultin:,' in eondcMrination, such proecedinsjs Avere l)eij;un hy tin; filing of libels, a e(;])y of one of which is annexed hereto, luarketl (H), and tiial tlie libels in the other ]n'oeeedin!,'s wei-e in all sulistantial resi)ects the same ; tliat the alleged acts oi- oll'ences for wliieli said several searches and seizures were made were in each case done or cnniniltcd in fx-hring Sea at the distances from shore aforesaid; and that in each case in which sentence of condemnation was passed, (!xccpt in those cases Avhen the vessels Avere released after cond(^innation, the seizure was adopted by the gotiations as to the liability of the United States' Governracp.t to ])ay the amounts mentioned in the Schedule (C) to the British Case," not simply negotiations as to the liability of the United States' Government to pay compensation at all; and, further, that the only reservations made on' behalf of the Uniti'd States' Government were "the questions as to the value of the said vessels or til'-'"' ".ontents, or either of tliem, and the question as to whether the vessels mentioned iu t.-i j Sclieduk- to the British Case, or any of them, were wholly or in part the actual property of citizens of the I'nited States!" The eminent lawyers and statesmen charged with the conduct of the United States' Case certainly never contemplated that the decision of the Arbitrators would not be accepted as concluding the liability of the United States except in regard to the p(jints e\[)ressly reserved in the Findings of Facts. ;Mr. ^I> rgau is alleged to have stated that the argument submitted to the Tribunal hy .hulge Blodgett, one of the United States' Coujisel, "stands to-day as a ])eifeet auswor to the claim set u() by Great Britain, based U'you the false assiunptioii liiat tiie United States were bound by the Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, or by agreement, or by law, justice, or equity to i)ay any part of the demand." But on the very lirst ])age of that argument ]\[r. Blodgett says: "We, however, preface what Ave have lo sui)init on this feature of the ease by saying that, if it shall be held by this Tribunal tliat these seizures and interferences Avilh British vessels Avere Avrong and unjusti!hil)ie under the laAvs and ])rinciples applicable thereto, then it Avould not be becoming in our nation to contest those claims, so far as they are just and Avithin the fair amount of the damages actually sustained by Jh-itish subjects;" aiul the Avhole of his argument is in fact devoted to the two jioints reserved in the Findings of Fact, the amouni of the claims, and the nationality of the claimants. A\ hen the (juestioii w.is discus.scd during the oral m-gument before the Tribunal, the sauie view Avas clearly expressed by the United States' Counsel. TIk! following extract (p|). 778 to 780) from the report of the oral argument Avill siioAV this, and furnishes an interesting conunentary by the oflicial llcpresentatives of the United Slates' Goverument on the recent action of' Congress : — * ilii'sc ijioiinds wi'ro, " lli;it tlic said vessel or schooner was found enjjaged in killinf^ fur-aeal within the liiiiits of Aiaslii tirriiory, and in the watera tlier«ot, in violation of Section 1936 of the Uevised Stolutes of the United 8tute«." 41 to lOlV the we laud be I the |e of I the luul, will BS of in the k the ■'■ ' " Mr. Juslice Harlan. — Suppose this Tribunal should decide tinder the points in Article VI tlmt the I'nited Strites had or had not any rii,'ht of property in tlie seals, and liad or had not any ritrht to protect them on the h\^\\ shis, you would consider the United States bound l)y that rulini^ when the two nations, if tlie occasion arose, got toj^cthcr in neii;otiatior.s on tin' (|iicsti()n of damai^cs. " Mr. Phrlps. — E should, Sir, if you i)ut that question to nie at this time. " Mr. .htstira Harlan. — Tliat is what I understand Lord llannen's question to (►nibrace. " ^[r. Phelps. — If that is tli(> purport of the inquiry, yes. [ do not su])pose, for instance, that if this Tribunal should decide that tlie United States had no right of property and no right of ])rotection, and that tinder the circumstances vessels were seized belonging to Britij>h subjects, I do not understand that it would be open to the United States after that to insist that there was a right of seizure and a right of protection, in th(> face of the decision of the Tribunal. " Lord Huniicn.--} am bound to say that, assuming that that may be taken as authoritative, it would meet my ([ue.-tion. '• Tlf Pri'mlont. — And in that caso the lial)ility spoken of in Article VIII Avould merely refer to tli(> question of indemnity, and then there would be no disagree- ment. '■^ Mr. Phelps.- '['hnt (piestion, as it seems to me, Avhich was put by his Lordship, refers rather to tiie inHMence that the United States' Covernment would feel itself bound to draw, in r(\spect of the sei/,ur«i, from tlie decision of the points of law in respect to the other branciies f)f tliti Case. " Lord FIrinnni. — Yes. The object of my inquiry would be completely met if it can be taken as authoritative. We will assume for a moment that the finding would be no property. If that can be tacked on to the Finding of Facts as to the seizure', then that would meet that which Sir Charles has been asking for, a finding that it was an illegal s(;izure ; and, if so, I presume that would satisfy his requirement, as undoubtedly it would meet tiie view which I intended to indicattj in the question I put to you. " Mr. Phelps. — Your Lordsliip Avill see that if you ask the opinion of the Counsel of the United States what would be tlie just and risrht course for the United States' Cioverninent to pursue in the future negotiations if such were the finding of the Tribunal, our answer might he one way. If you ask us if we are authorized here to bind the United St;ites to any conclusion in future negotiations, we must answer that w(! liave no such riuthorifv, and have no right to make a declaration that would bind them. " Lord //«;niPM. — That is why I put in the word 'authoritative." " Mr. Phvlps.-AXii are not authorized to make any such statement or to give any such asstu-ance. I am free to sny, and I believe that to be the view of my associates., that after a finding by the Tribunal upon the five questions involved, it would not seem to me becoming on the ])art of the United States, who have agreed to abide by this Award, to contradict the Award when the qttesticm of its propriety arose upon this subordinate matter of seizure ; but it must be a question for those who control the dipU)matic relations of our (lovernnient, and is not a question that we are authorized in reference to. " The Presidfnt. — That is all very well, Mr. Phelps ; but we have here the United States before us in the persons of their Agent atid Counsel, and we have the right (o ask them what is the authoritative and olFicial interpretation put by the United States u|)on om^ word used iu an Article of a Treaty which limits our powers. We have the right to ask you, what is the interpretation put by the United States upon those words 'question cf liability' r " M . Phelps. — That cpiestion the Tribunal is (piite entitled to put, and that ([uestiou we are qiute ready to answer. We have eutleuvoured to answer it; that in the discussion of (piestioiis under Arti(-le VIII the Tribunal is invested with no authority whatev(n- except to find the facts, leaving the l(>gal consequences of those facts, so far as these seizures are concerned, for future consideratiou. "Then if the Tribunal goes further, and asks me what that future consideration on the part of the United States' Government would he, I reply in the first place that I have no doubt that it ought to regard the decision of the Tribunal as conclusive upon the questions arising under this Treaty, but that I im not authorized to go beyond this arbitration and the power with which the Tribunal is invested under this Article, and give an authoritative assurance as to what those in iharge of the United.States' Qovern- [238] G 42 ment when that time comes may do. Tho distinction may be a refined one, but it^is one tlmt we feel compelled to make. " The President. — "VVe understand that very well. We merely wanted to know what was your interpretation of those words • questions of liability.' We know the interpretation of the English Government. " Mr. Phelps. — Our interpretation of that is, as T have said, that Article VIII simply provides for the finding of such facts— material facts, of course — as either party may desire to have found, and may offer sufiicicnt evidence in support of. What consequences shall come from that finding is a point that it seems to us is not sub- mitted to this Tribunal. It will be for the after consideration of the Government. But I should not seriously doubt, when you ask my opinion, when those jjoints come to be considered hereafter by the United States' Government, that the decision of the Tribunal upon the first five questions will be res))ccted there as elsewhere." In his criticisms of the amount of the claims, Mr. Morgan is alleged to have stated : " The Schedule of Claims for each vessel contained an item designated variously as ' probable catch,' ' balance of catch,' ' estimated balance of catch,' " &c. These were clearly pi'ospcctive profits or speculative damages, and were all based on future or contingent occurrences, forming no ])asis of fact on which an equitable finding as to amount of damages could be predicated. They sliould not be allowed. Similar claims were presented by the United States to the Arbitrators of the " Alabama " claims in 18J2 at Geneva, and in their decision tiiey say : " And wJiereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies, tlic Tribunal is unanimously of opinion that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head." Mr. Morgan omits, however, to add that in the award of a gross sum to the United States the Arbitrators allowed in lieu of the claim for prospective catch one year's wages and 25 per cent, on the value of the vessels and their outfits. This is clear from the 29th Protocol of the Proceedings of tho Tribunal, and is shown in detail in the statement inclosed in Lord Tenterden's despatch of the 9th September, 1872, setting forth how the gross Award of 15,500,000 dollars was arrived at. That statement, after setting forth the gross amount of the American claims, thus — Claim!) for losses by insurgent cruisers (including the new claims for wages, &c.) Prospective catch, if allowed, an additional sum of . . , . . . Claims for pursuit and capture . . . . Dollars. 14,437,143 3,511,055 6,735,063 24,683,061 With interest at 7 per cent., which, taken for 'J years, would amount to. . 15,550,464 Total .. .. .. .. .. .. 40,233,715 proceeds as follows : — " The Tribunal disallowed the claims for pursuit and capture and for prospective catch. " They further disallowed : — Dollars. '• The claims for gross freight .. .. .. .. .. 1,007,153 Double claims.. .. ., .. .. .. .. 1,682,243 And moy further be assumed to have disregarded the new claims to the amount of .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,450,000 Making a further roiluction from the American claim of 14,437,144 dolliug ol" .. .. .. .. 4,139,396 And leaving a bahmce of .. .. .. ,, 10,297,7-18 Taking a mean between this and the British estimate of 7,464,784 dollars, tlie result is .. .. .. .. ., .. 8,881,266 To this mu8t be added two ollowanccs made by the Tribunal :— • In lieu of prospective catch, one yrar's wages, and 25 per cent, on the value of the vessels . . . . . . . , . . 988,000 In lieu of the claims for gross freight, 50 per cent, of the claims as net freight .. .. .. .. .. .. 503,576 Total .. .. .. .. .. .. 10,372,842 Which, with interest at 6 per cent, for about 8 years, gives a result of . , 15,600,000 " As actually arrived at by the Tribunal." 1 Bi 1 e i. c IS h \\ 3S le ic is in 31'. lat 'V ;ive 49 The claims in respect of which this " allowance in lieu of prospective catch " was made were on helialf of whalers, whose industry is still more speculative and uncertain than that of the sealers, and the ohservations of the British Arbitrator, Sir A. Cockburn, on that part of the Award form a striking contrast to the statements attributed to Senator Morgan. At p. 253 of the reasons for dissenting from the Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, he says : " But, independently of the undeniably exaggerated amount of the claims, a demand for gross prospective earnings as distinguished from net eari:JA^ is quite incapable of being maintained. This is admitted in the argument of the United States, and is clearly demonstrated in the British Report. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the only allowance which ought to be made in respect of prospectiv(; catch is in the nature of interest from the time of the destruction of the vessel, I should myself be disposed to adopt a more liberal mode of compensation, and to award for prospective profits a reasonable percentage on the values of the vessels and outfits," &c. The Fortune Bay claims to which Sir J I'auncefote alludes in his despatch of the 28th February wore almost entirely claims for prospective damages. Of the total amount of 103,000 dolliiis, claimed by the United States in that case, only 1,400 dollars Avas for actual destruction of property. (Beport of Judge Bennett, p. 3 of 0. 3762, 1883.) The American vessels were only iuterforod with on one day, yet they claimed for the whole season's profits, and the profit claim was based, not, as in the British Behring Sea claims, on the actual results of the season interrupted, but on the profits of previous years, though the season of 1878 was an exceptionally bad one (p. 2 of C. 3702 of lb83). The action which gave rise to the claims was not that of the British Government, but of a mob of fishermen in an outlying part of the Colony, enraged at seeing the laws to which they themselves were subject violated by their competitors. The American vessels claiming largely employed natives of Newfound- land in their vessels, and though these as British subjects were unquestionably amenable for violation of the laws of Newfoundland by fishing on Sunday, the British Government took no exception to the American claims on that ground. But although the American claims were almost entirely for prospective damages, though they arose largely from the violation of British laws by British subjects imployed by United States' citizens, though they claimed for a whole season when they were only interfered with on one single day, and though, if the claims were valid, the claimants had a legal remedy in the Courts of the Colony against the perpetrators of the alleged loss and damage, for which the British Government were in no way responsible, yet the British Government, within three years from the date of the claims arising, paid practically the whole sum demanded by tlie United States' Government, araovmting to three-fourths of the claims actually put forward by the claimants. The Behring Sea claims arise out of the direct action of the United States' Government — action declared by an International Tribunal to be entirely unjustifiable. They are made out, not for profits based on the results of profitable seasons, but on the actual results of the seasons in which they arose. Some of the claimants not only lost their property, but suil'ered a rigorous imprisonment in a severe climate. The arrangement made between the two Governments for the payment of a lump sum amounting to little more than half of the claims preferred, without any allowance whatever for interest, cannot be regarded as otherwise than a settlement favourable to the United States, bearing in mind that the claims had already been outstanding for ten years, and that more than a year had elapsed since the decision of the Ai'bitrators had been given. It is not easy to believe that if the late Congress had been fully acquainted Avith the circumstances it would have refused its sanction to so reasonable a proposal, recommended as it was by the Federal Government, or would have declined even an appropriation for the payment of the claims, subject to their examination by a Com- mission to be appointed for that purpose, or lor the simple expenses "' — '• " Commission. of such a 3 i a. ^ ^1 Si ^ I n e 3' 9 a, 3 o '•4 O '4" n 5 P o o ^ = n ^ s "« (t i:i 1 S. R 5' cn 2. aq P 5- r 09 • *• 5" i' o ™ (A i. i 2 n ™ a, (1> 2 a -5 n o a- s X M* M a H IS !2; o «! i J . t . ',;."'» B„...O.HtQOi NAT.ONALS I ^'-'^ . . ,iCi CN 3ti ^