IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A MA 1.0 I.I [SIM IM I ^ Ilia I I4£ 12.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 < 6" — ► ^, p ^. //, signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur g&uche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 * S 6 v» il ys T ^^ ^^ UNITED STATES. No. 1 a898y ^IJ^rtMlamont. if^'ipers by A, TELEGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE k iv ;0 ^ BESFEOTINO EAL FISHING IN BEHRING'S SEA. DVBINO THE SEASON OF 1892. Presented to both House* of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. March 1892. *'.n i' ■ LONDON: PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE BT HARRISON AND SONS, ST. MARTIN'S LANE, raiMTIMI IK OBDINAKT TO HI* MAjnTT. And to be porcbued, eitbar directly or thronKb Mjr Bookidler, from KTRB AND 8P0TTISW00DB. East HAkDwa SnicBr, Fun Stubt, E.G., amo 32, Abingdon Stbkbt, Wbbtminitbb, S.W.j ob JOHN MENZIES & Co., 12, Hamotbb SrMKr, EoiNauBaif, and BO, Wbit Nilb SnuBT, OlabooW) ob HODGFS, riOGIS, & Co., IM. SHArfwr tranr, Dobmn. .—6688.] Price 2d. TABLE OF CONTENTS. \^we. 1 j Sir J. .I'aiincefote 2 I 7b si' J- Pauncefote., 8 Sir J. Pauncefote „ To Sir J. Pauncefote 3 Lord Stanley of Preston to Lonl Knutsford \ ■I Sir J.'tauiicelbte To Sir J. Pimncefote, , 10 II 12 13 U 15 16 Sir J. Pauncefote To Sir J, Pauncefote., Sir G. Bnden- Powell.. To Sir J. Pauncefote. , Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of ^reston 1 7 Sir J. Pauncefote 18 I To Sir J. Pauncefote, 19 Telegraphic Telegraphic Telef^raphic relegrophic Felegraphic Telesraphie Telegraphic I'clegraphic Teleijrapiiic Telegraphic Telegraphic Telegraphic Telegraphic Tclegrapriic Telegraphic Telegraphic Telegraphic Telegraphic Telegraphic Date. Subject. Feb. 8, 1892 Jl/or/uf viWiK^t pressed for by Mr. Blaine 16, Cannot express opinion as to modui vivendi until informed of its provisions. Prohibition of sealing does not seem necessary . . 17, Mr. Blaine urges consideration of modus vivendi by Joint Commission. Can neces- sary authority be given ? ., 19,. . Joint Commission may consider »io(iu.? viVent^i, but Her Majesty's Government must reserve right of action 23, Canadian Government iiave no information showing necessity of modus vivendi. If Her Mcjesty's Government have such infor- mation, Canada would not object to zi ne of 2.5 miles if accompanied by restrictions as to scaling on land '25, Communication made to Mr. Blaine in sense of No. 2. Substance of his reply, pressing for modus vivendi . . . ,, 2G, Sends verbatim paragraph from Mr. Blaine's note referred to in above . . ., 26, Opinion of Britisli Commissioners as to modus vivendi. No serious risk of depletion this year, but limited temporary measure recom- mended 27, Her Majesty's CJovernmeiit have no informa- tion to show iicci'ssily of modus vivendi two years runniiig. Compromise suggested by Behring's Sea Commissioners in No. 8 may be proposed . . 26, Mr. Bh.ine learns that forty-six sealers have cleared for Behriug's Sea Mar. 8, Reply of United States' Government to pro- posal in No. 9. Urges necessity for modis vivendi, in order to preserve value of property pending arbitration ,. , . , , 9, To repent above to Canada y. Expresses opinion that renewal of modus vivendi, though not necessary, would be beneficial . , . . . , , , 13, To repeat above (o Canada 18, Answers Nc. 11, Renewal of modiiis vivendi may give ground of complaint by British sealers if .Arbitrators decide in their favour. Suggests that sealing should be permitted to vessels giving security for any damages awarded by .Arbitrators.. ,. ,, 18, To direct port authorities on Pacific to warn owners of vessels who have cleared or are clearing for Behring's Sea that they do so at their own risk ,. .. ,, 23, Communication mada to United States' Govern- ment in sense of No. 16. Reply received, stating that renewal of modus vivendi h the least that ran be accepted, and that United States' Uoveinment must ciaintain their right-i ., 06, Two alternative proposals by Her Majesty's Government as to the conditions on which sealing might be prohibited this season 26, Proposed form of reference to Arbitrators of question of damages . . . . Page 1 1 I 2 10 11 /•?^ ■:'i . Telegraphic Correspondence respecting Seal Fislnng in Behring's Sea (Junng the Season of 1892. > No. 1. «.•. i>. Ui '■''■r^a Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. — (Received February 8.) . .. ^ (Telegraphic.) .•-'*, Washington, February 8, 1B&2. I FORWARDED, hy hag, on the 6th instant, tor your Lordship's approval, a draft Belu'ing's Sea Arbitration Convention which has b(!en proposed by Mr. Blaine. The Joint Commission is embodied in it, and Mr. Blaim; insists that the proceedings of the Joint Commissioners shall be informal until it is signed. After much delay, they meet to-day for the first time. A modus vivendi during the next fishery season is pressed for by Mr. Blaine, and he hopes that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to put into force any Regulations which may be recommended % 'the Joint Commission for immediate application. ' ' '. i ' VU ' H'V ' M! ".' No. 2. ■ . . v;:.,"^ The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. ;^j^^lx. . ; ,!■ . (Telegraphic.) "' Foreign Ofice, February IQ, 1^92. THE draft Conv(mtion, incloscid in your despatch of th(!'5th instant, for referring to arbitration the questions at issue between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States in connection with tlie seal fisheries in Behring's Sea, has l)een referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, who have been ask<'d to furnish a Report on its terms at their (earliest convenience. Her Majt^sty's Government cannot express an opinion upon Mr. Blaine's proposal for a fresh modus vivendi during the present year until they are further informed as to what the provisions of the modus vivendi are to be. It does not §eem to be at all necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species that sealing should be entirely prohibited. No. 3. > Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. — (Received February 18.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, February 17, 1892. WITH reference to your Lordship's telegram of the 16th instant, Mr, Blaine presses that the question of the modus vivendi should be considered and reported on by the Joint Commission. I have informed him that, in my opinion, it has no power to do so under its present mandate. Will your Lordship inform me whether you are willing that the necessary authority shall be given to the Commission, provided that no obligations are imposed upon either Gbvemment by its report ? \ , , [298] B 2 3 No. 4. The Marquia of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, February 18, 1892. HER Majesty's Government have had under their consideration Mr. Blaine's proposal, reported in your telegram of yesterday, that the Joint Commission should examine and report on the question of arranging a fresh modus vivendi during the next seal-fishinff season in Behring's Sea. They nave no objection to its being considered by the Commission whether, in case the decision of the Arbitrators is not obtained before June on the points to be submitted to them, any modus vivendi will be necessary, and, in that case, what should be its provisions. Her Majesty's Government must, however, reserve absolutely their right of action .in,. respect to any recommendations that may be made by the Commissioners. In the present state of Parliamentary business, it seems unlikely that it would be possible to obtain any fresh powers from Parliament. " The Seal Fishery (Behring's Sea) Act, 1891," is still in force, but it only gives power to prohibit sealing in Behring's Sea by Order in Council within limits and for a period to be specified in the Order itself. You should communicate to the Canadian Government the substance of your telegram of the 17th instant, and of my reply. ( No. 5. Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.* — {Received February 24.) (TelegT-aphic.) Ottawa, February 23, 1892. WITH reference to your telegram of the 16tli instant r(>specting the modus vivendi in Behring's Sea, my Ministers do not possess any information to show that a modus vivendi is necessary, or that it can be veasonal)ly demanded. If, however, such information has reached Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Dominion would not oppose such a modus vivendi provided that it were confined to a zone of moderate limits, say, 25 miles, around the seal islands, and provided that it is accompanied by stringent restrictions against the killing of seals on land, with better supervision than during the modus vivendi of last year. Any arrangement of a more extended character would involve compensation to the sealing-vessels, nnd for this, of course, Canada could not be expected to make provision from the funds of the Dominion. I : No. 6. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. — {Received February 25.) (Telegraphic.) ,, . Washington, February 25, 1892. BEHRING'S SEA morfus uiDcnrfi. With reference to your Lordship's telegram of the 16th instant, I have informed Mr. Blaine that your Lordship could not give an opinion until you learned what modus vivendi was proposed. Following is the substance of a note which I have received in reply : — The arbitration cannot possibly be concluded within the period of time which was contemplated originally. The delays which have occurred have been much more by Great Britain than by the United States. The President suggests that the modus should be similar in terms to that of last year, but that it should be more fully executed. More eflicient measures on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be practicable this year owing to the earlier date. More seals than ever were taken last year, the departure of the sealing-vessels having taken place previous to the agreement as to the modus vivendi. The prevention of sealing in the North Pacific Ocean would be the most effective measure for Her Majesty|s Government to adopt. The large number of sealers preparing to go forth from British Columbia would have to receive notice of this. The number of sealerc is * Repeated to Sir J. Pauncefote. ♦ '• t f »' 8 reported to b(* larger than ever, and without n^gulationa there will be an immense destruction of females heavy with young. Mr. Blaine urgently requests me to send the contents of the note to your Lordsliip by telegraph. I have not yet mentioned the question of authorizing the Joint Com- mission to report on the modus vivendi on the conditions mentioned in your Lordship's telegram of tlie 18th instant. No. 7. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. — {Received February 20.) ' (Telegraphic.) Washington, February 26; 19/92. MY telegram of yesterday. ' .•''=' "' •• • ' ■ ■ •- Mr. Blaine specially desires me to telegraph 'to your tx)rdship w^rlTaft'ni'tho following paragrapli contained in liis note of the 24tli instant respecting tlie modus, vivindi: — "Holding an arbitration in regard to the rightful mode of taking seaisi wMle their destruction goes forward, would b(; as if, wliile an arbitration to the title to timber-land were in i)rogress, one party w^ere to cut and remove all tlie trees.'' He attaches much importance to this illustration. • •. i-^'i".:*; ., - ■ - '■ ' ..^■"^ No. 8. ■ ■■■ ■■ • ' - -.^■■■■Ta . :-,.;.i^: Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. — {Received February 27.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, February 26, 1892. WITH reference to your Lordship's telegram of the 25th instant, the opinion of the British Behring's Sea Commissioners as to a modus yiy en rfi may be convenient' to your Lordsliip at this juncture. They report as follows : — " Wo do not apprehend any danger of serious further depletion of the fur-seals resorting to the Pribyloff Islands, as the result of hunting this year, unless excessive killing l)e permitted on the l)reeding islands. As a judicious t(;mporary measure of precaution, liowever, for the season, and looking to permanent regulations for the tishery as a Avliole being established in time for the season of 1893, we Avould recom- mend the probil)ition of all killing at sea during this season, within a zone extending to, say, not mor(> tban 30 nautical miles around the Pribylott" Islands, such prohibition being conditional on the restriction to a number not to exceed 30,000 as a maximum of the seals killed for any purpose on the islands." I believe that the necessity for the total cessation of pelagic sealing will be insisted on by the American Commissioners, if the question be referred to the Joint Commission ; but I submit that it is not necessary for us to go beyond the opinion of our own experts, pending arbitration. No. 9. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir ./. Pauncefote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, February 27, 1892. HER Majesty's Government have had mider their oonsideratiqn your telegrams of the 25th and 26th instant, dealing with the question of the modus uitendi proposed by Mr. Blaine for the approaching seal-hunting season. They cannot admit in any degree the correctness of Mr. Blaine's statement, that there have been greater delays on the part of this country in the negotiations for settling the Behring's Sea difficulty than there have been on that of the. United States. ■■■■:'■. The consent of Her Majesty's Government was given last year to & modus vivendi solely on the ground that the preservation of the seal species in those waters was supposed to be endangered unless some interval were given during which there , would be a cessation of hunting both on land and sea. No information has reached Her Majesty's Government to lead them to suppose that so ditistio a measure is requisite for two successive seasons. Indited, tlioy are informed l)y \hv British luenihors of the .loinl Commission now sittin' the litigation, without a('('ountal)ility ? Usually a Court of Chancory wouhl placi' » rcceivor or trustoo in charK'i!, and hold the income of the ])roporty for the benefit of tlie previiihn;>' party. You say that Lord Salisbury, rejeL'tin<«' the illustration used by Mr. lilaiiie. " su;;f>ests (liat the case is more like one of arititration respectin<>- title to a meadow. Wliile tiie arbitrati(»ii is j;oin};' on we cut the f^rass ; and quite rightly, for (he <>'rass will be reproduced next year, and so will the seals." ' He can liardly mean by (his illustration that, beinj>' in contention with a neighbour regarding' the title ((» a meadow, he could by any precedent in (he Equity Courts or by any standard of connuon honesty be justified in pocketing the whole or any part of the gains of a harvest without accountability to the adverse claimant whose exclusive title was afterwards established. It is no answer for (he trespasser to say that the true owner will have an undiminished harvest next year. Last year's harvest was his also. If by the use of the plural pronoun his Lordship means thai the harvest of the contested meadow is lo be divided between the litigants, 1 beg to remind him (ha( the title of the United States to the J^ribyh)ff Islamls has not yet been contested, and that our Hag does not float over any sealing-vessel. The illustration is ina|»t in the further jjarticular that the seals not taken this year may be taken next, while the grass nnist be harvested or lost. :;■ , ■■ ;"' ■"' This Government has already been advised in the course of this corresi)ondence tluii Great Britain rejmdiates all obligatiinis to indenmify the United States for any invasion of its jurisdiction, or any injury done to its sealing property by the Canadian sealers. The attempt to make a damage clause one of the Articles of the Arbitration Agreement failed, because Her Majesty's (jrovermnenl would not consent thai the ([Uestion of its liability to indemnify the United States for the injuries done by Ihe Canadian sealers should be submitted. Two extracts fntm the correspondcmce will sutticiently recall the attitude of the respecti\i' Govermnents. In my note of the 2;^r(l July 1 said : " The President believes that Her Majesty's Government may justly be held responsible, under the attendant circumstances, for injuries d(me to the jurisdictional or property rights of the United States by the sealing- vessels flying the liritisb flag, at least since the date when the right of these vessels to invade the Behring's Sea and to pursue therein the business of ])elagic sealing was made the subject of diplomatic intervention by Lord Salisbury. In his ojjinion, justice requires that Her Majesty's Government should respond for the injuries done by those vessels, if their acts are found to have been wrongful, as full}' as if each bad borne a commission fnmi the Government to do the ad comi)laine(l of. The jnesence of the master, or even of a third jjerson. under circumslances calculated and intended to give encouragement, creates a liability for trespass at the common law, and much more, if his presence is accompanied with declarations of right, protests against the defence which the owner is endeavouring to make, and a declared pnr])()se to aid the trespassers if they are resisted. The justice of this rule is so apparent that it is not seen how, in the less technical Tribunal of an international arbitrati(m, it could be held to be inapplicable. "The United States might well insist that Her Majesty's Government should admit responsibility for the acts of the Canadian sealers, which it has so directly encouraged and promoted. ])recisely as in the proposal the United States admits responsibility for the acts of its revenue vessels. IJut, with a view to remove what seems to be the last ])oint of difference in a discussion which has been very much protiiicted. the President is willing to modify his ijrojjosal, and directs me to oU'er the foUowing : — "The Government of Great Britain having presented the claims of its subjects for compensation for the seizure of their vessels by the United States in Bebriug's Sea; and the Government of the United States having ])resented, on its own behalf as well as of the lessees of the privilege of taking seals on tlie Paibyloff Islands, claims for compensa- tion by reason of the killing of seals in the Behring's Sea by persons acting under the protection of the British flag, the Arbitrators shall consider and decide upon such claims in accordance with justice and I'quity, and the respective rights of the High Contracting Powers, and it shall be ciunpelent for the Arbitrators to award such compensation as, in their judgment, shall seem equitable." In your note of the 17(h October you say : — "I regret to inform y(ni that Her Majesty's Government, after the fullest con- sideration, have arrived at the conclusion that this new clause could not properly be assented to by them. In their opinion, it implies an admission of a doctrine respecting the liabilities of Governments for the acts of their nationals or other persons sailing 6 under their flag on the liigh seas, for which tliere is no warrant in the law ot nations. Thus it contains the following words : — "'The Government of the United States luiving i)resoi»ted on its own hehalt, as well as of the lessees of tlie privilege of taking seals on tiie PrihyljIT Islands, claims for compensation hy reason of the killing of seals in Bclning's Sea by persons acting under the protection of the British flag, tlie Arbitrators simll consider and decide ui)on such claim,' "These words involve the jjroposition that llor Majesty's Governmt'nt an- liable to make good losses resulting from the wrongful action of persons sailing outside their jurisdiction under the British flag. Her Majesty's Government could not accept such a doctrine." The President cannot believe that, while holding tliis view of its accountability, the Government of Great Britain will, pending the arbitration, countenance, much less justify or defend, the continuance of pelagic sealing by its subjects. It should either assume responsibility for the acts of these sealers, or restrain them from a pursuit the lawfulness of which is to be determined by the arbitration. " 'In your note of the 29th February you state that Her Majesty's Government has been informed by the British Commissioners '"' that, so fai as pelagic sealing is concerned, there is no danger of serious diminution of the fur-seal species as a consequence of this year's hunting," and upon this ground Lord Salisbury places his refusal to renew the modus of last year. His Lordship seems to assume a determination of the arbitration against the United States and in favour of Great Britain, and that it is already only a question of so regulating a common right to take seals as to preserve the species; i)y what right does he do this ? Upon what principle does he assume that if our claims are established, any diminution of the seals, whether serious or not, during this season, or indeed, any taking of seals, is to be without recompense ' In the ojjinion of the President, it is not consistent with good faith that either party to an arbitration should, pending a decision, in any degree diminish the value of the subject of arbitration or take any profit from the use of it without an agreement to account. Before an agreement for arbitration had been reached, the prohibition of pelagic sealing was a matter of comity ; from the moment of the signing of that Agreement it became, in his opinio',, a matter of obligation. During the season of 1891. notwithstanding the restrictions resulting from the modus adopted, the Canadian sealers took, in the Behring's Sea alone. 28,703 skins, or nearly four times as many as the restricted catch upon our island. This Government is now advised that fifty-one vessels from British Columl)ia and sixteen from Nova Scotia have sailed, or are about to sail, for the Behring's Sea to engage in taking seals. This large increase in the fleet engaged makes it certain, in tbe absence of an ctVective restrictive agreement, that the destruction of seal life during tliis season by pelagic sealing will be unprecedented, and will, in the opinion of i)ur Commissicmers. so nearly destroy the value of the seal fisheries as to make what will remain of so little value as scarcely to be a worthy subject for international arbitration. The proposition of Lord Salisbury, to prohibit tbe killing of seals at sea " within a zone exi^ending to not more than 30 nautical miles around the Pribyloff Islands," is so obviously inadequate and so impossible of execution that this Government cannot enter- tain it. In the early part of the discussion of the subject of a modus for last year this method was tentatively suggested, among others, in conversation between yourself and Mr. Blaine. But it was afterwards, in effect, agreed by both Governments to be inadequate, and was not again referred to in the correspondence. In the Memorandum furnished by you with your note of the 6th June you say, " Lord Salisbury points out that if seal-hunting be prohibited on one side of a purely imaginary line drawn in the open ocean, while it is permitted on the other side of the line, it will be impossible in many cases to prove unlawful sealing, or to infer it from the possession of skins or fishing tackle." This was said with reference to the water boundary of our purchase from Russia, but it is quite as applicable to the 30-mile zone which he now suggests. The prevalence of fogs in these waters gives increased force and conclusiveness to the point made by his Lordship against an imaginary water-line. The President cannot agree, now that the terms of arbitration have been settled, that the restrictions imposed shall be less than those which both Governments deemed to be appropriate when it was still uncertain whether an early adjustment of the controversy was attainable. He therefore hopes that Her Majesty's Government tvill consent to renew the arrangement of last year with the promptness which the exigency demands, and to agree to enforce it by refusing all clearances to sealing-vessels for Jlxc » aH proliibitcd waters, and by rccalliiif? from those waters all suci? vessels as have alreadj cleared. This Government, will honourably abide the judgment of the IIi;f|i Tril)unal which has been agreed upon, wliether that judgment be lavoural)le or nnfavourabio ; and will not seek to avoid a just responsilnilty for any of its acts which by that judgment are found to bo unlawful. But certainly the United States cannot be expected to suspend tho defence, by such means as are within its power, of the property and jurisdictional rights claimed by it pending tho arbitration, and to consent to receive them from tl'at Tribunal, if awarded, shorn of much of their value by the acts of irresponsible persons. I have, &c. (Signed) WILLIAM F. WMARTOJ^. No. 12. The Man^ ds of Salisbury to Sir J. Fauncefote. (Telegrnphic.) Foreign Office, March 9, 1892. I SHOULD wish you to repeat to Lord Stanley your telegram of yesterday, about Behring's Sea. No. 13. '. > Sir O. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisburji. — {Received March 10.) (Telegi'aphic.) Washimjton, March 9, 1892. WITH reference to the modus vivendi, I am of opinion that the taking of ono season's "i'aited crop cannot injure the seal herd, but that, although not necessary, tho renewal of last year's prohibition and the 7,500 limit Avould be bcnefteial. As th(^ Arbitration Convention conditions ocean rights, I hojxr that the Canadian Government has warned the British Columbian sealers that the viltimat(» 0A\nt!r8hip of the seals taken this year in Behring's Sea depends upon the verdict of the Arbitrators. Tho alternatives for the sealers appear to be either to incur the (!xpens(^ of the catch subject to this risk, or to forego, without compensation, one season's catch of, say, 20,000 (in Behring's Sea), on condition that 7,500 instead of 30,000 av(; taken on tho islands, increased numbers of seals in future seasons, and enhanced prices for this spring, being also insured by such restrictions. No. 14. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, March 15, 1892. I SHOULD wish you to repeat to the Governor-General the telegram I have received from Sir G. Baiden-Powell, dated 9th March. No. 15. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, Maroh 18, 1892. HER Majesty's Government have had under their consideration, and have consulted the Governor-General of Canada in regard to, the arguments in favour of a renewal of the modus vivendi of last year, contained in Mr. Wharton's note of the 8th instant, the substance of which is given in your telegram of that day. The necessity of reference to Ottawa has caused a delay in returning an answer. The information which has reached Her Majesty's Government does not lead them to believe that, in order to prevent an undue diminution of the number of fur-seals, any necessity exists for the suspension of sealing for another year. Beyond this question, however, I understand that the Government of the United 1.2981 8 states consider that, should free sealing he permitted this year, and the United States' claim to jurisdiction in Behring's Sea be upheld by the Arbitrators, they have a right to be protected from the loss that they will have suitered by the sealing operations. Her Majesty's (Jovemment do not dispute that thei-e will be some foundation for this contention when the Arbitration Agreement has been ratified. But there is this defect in the prohibition of all sealing as a remedy, that if the British contention (shall be upheld by the Arbitrators, there may be ground for complaint on the part of the British sealers who will have been excluded from Behring's Sea. Further, no security exi-Ls that the Arbitrators will have given their decision tefore the sealing season of 1893 arrives. As you pre aware, there has been an arbitration pending for four years between this country, the United States, and Portugal, which is not yet approaching conclusion. Serious damage would be caused to the sealing industry by a suspension of hunting for a prolonged period. As a more equitable arrangement, might it not be agreed that sealing-vessels shall be at liberty to hunt in Behring's Sea on condition that security is given by the owner of each vessel for satisfying the award of damages, if any, which the Arbitrators may eventually pronounce ? • No. 16. Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston. (Telegraphic.) Downing Street, March 18, 1892. PLEASE direct the proper port authority at all hai'bours on the Pacific coast to inform owners avIio are clearing or have cleared this year for Behring's Sea that Her Majesty's Government and the United States' Government have agreed, subject to the ratification of the Senate, to submit to arbitration the question whether sealers have a right, without permission of tlie United States, to seal in the eastern half of Behring's Sea, east of the llussian line, and that it is possil)le the sentence of the said Triluinal may be given Avithin the jirescmt fisliing season. Moreover, that both Her Majesty's Government and th(; United States' Government liave made propositions for intermediate ll(\n'ulations restraininsf tlie cateh of seals in the said Avaters in case the said -' bitration Agreement should be ratified. Neith(>r the Arbitration Agreement nor any intermediate Agreement have yet been definitively adopted between tlie two Governments, and Avhether they are adopted, and at what date, is necessarily a matter of uncertainty. But notice is hereby given to all sealers ]iroposing to seal in the said waters that they do so at their oavu risk, and after warning of tJie lial)ility to inter- ruption to Avliicli they may 1)e exposed in consequence of either of tlie said AgreenKMits. ■ No. 17. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. — {Received March 24.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, March 23, 1892. LAST night I received the reply of the United States' Government to my note (>ml)odying the substance of your Lordship's telegram of the 18th instant on the Behring's Sea question. Tlie President requested that it should be telegraphed to your Lordship. Tlie sul)stanc(> of it is as follows : — The President had given immediate attention to my note, on account of the extreme gravity and urg(>ncy of the matter, growing out of the fact that anv modus Vivendi will be made inett'ectual i'or the protection of the interests of the United States by much further piotraction, and that, by reason of the impossibility of commu- nicating with the Canadian sealers, immunity will he given to them. 'Tliesc vessels liave hastened their departure, as is known, 'in order to escape notice of any modut Vivendi being servc^l ujKm them. Forty-sffven vessels have already cleared,' and if measures be not taken to stop them, they will pursue the slaughtcM- of gravid female sejils to the very shores of the lireeding islands. This is a crime against nature. If the arbitration proceeds, the United States' Government expect to be able to show that the ;i larger percentage of the pelagic catch consists of female seals. It is surprising and disappointing, in view of the above, that your Lordship should assume that suspension of such sealing for another year is not necessary, in order to prevent the imdue diminution of the seal-herds, and that you should insist that it should continue. If Her Majesty's Government pays so little regard to the contentions of the United States' Government as to refuse to respect them for a single season, the President is unable to understand for what reasoii it should have been proposed and agreed to by your Lordshij) to give them the status implied by the agreement to. submit them to arbitration. It was open to ncnther party to disregard the contention of the other front th(> date of the signature of the above Agi'cement. It must be assumed that the object which tlu; two Governments had in view was the jiromotion of good-will and peace but ; if, while arbitration is pending, tlu; subject-matter is dealt with by either of tlwni on the basis of its own contention only, this purpose is not attained; on the contrary, and even if it should be possibh^ under such circumstances to proceed Avith the arbitration, a iiew sense of injuiy and injustice is added. If Her Majesty's Government proceeds this season on tiie br'-.is of its contention as to the rights of the Canadian sealers, no choice remains foi- tlie United States but to proc<'tHl on tlie basis of their own confident contention, that pelagic sealing is an infmction of its jurisdiction and proprietary rights. This, . . _ . . m he the is opniion of the not willing to President,, constitutes the gravity of the situation, and he is not willing to be found responsible for such results as may follow fr(»m an insistance on the ])art of either Government during this hunting season on the extreme riglits claimed by it. The twO' great Governments interested in the question would be discredited in tiie eyes of the world if the friendly adjustment of their difficulties, Mhicli is so nearly concluded,, were to be thwarted, or even disturbed, on account of the ])altry ])rotits of a single season. But if your Lordship persists in refusing to join the Government of the United States in stopping i)elagic sealing jjromptly, and insists upon the naaintenanco of free sealing for British subjects, the question no longer is one of pecuniary lo.-^s or gain, but one of honour and self-resjject, so far as it affects the Governnnrnt of the United States. The United States have proposed to take no profit from the island catch, notwith- standing that their right to take seals on the islands is neither (lisi)uted nor involved in the arbitration, and to engage that the take sliould be limited to the necessities of the natives. Whether with or without indemnity, tlicy are unable to consent that the rights of British subjects in Behring's Sea, Avhich are contested, shall continue to be exercised while arbitration is pending. The President finds it difficult to believe that your Lordship is serious in proposing that bonds against the injury which may be inflicted on the jurisdiction or property of the United States shall be taken by the United Sf^ates' Government fi*om the owners of about 100 Canadian vessels, and he muBt decline to discuss a suggestion which only his resp(>ct for your Lordshij), and his belief that the gravity of this discussion is fully realized by your Lordshij), enables him to treat seriously. In oi'der to secure the proposed bonds, the United States would have to pursue OAMiers u\)on the sea, and as the condition is to be that " any damages which the Arlntrators shall adjudge" shall be paid by the owners, while no power to adjudge such damages is given to the Arbitrators by the Treaty, the transaction would l)e of no value to the United States, and without risk to the owners. But however adequate the seeiu'ity ottered, the United States' Government cannot consent to have its rights, impaired, ])ending their determination by a Tribunal of Arbitration. The reference in Mr. Blaine's last note to the inconsistency of Her Majesty's Government in denying responsibibty for the acts of Canadian sealers was not meant to imply that the United States would be willing to consent to the conversion of their property into a claim for damages, particularly as the Arbitrators cannot determine such a c\sx,u\\ unless the Treaty be revised. Your Lordship should bear in mind, whilst making your present proposal, that the fact of the Arbitrators not having jurisdiction as to damages is the result of concessions made by the United States' Government to your views. The President fails to see how claims can, by law or equity, be brought by subjects ol either Power against their respective Governments, on account of restraints imposed with a view to the promotion of the public good or of international peace. There is ftiU provision in the Treaty itself against the suggestion, that the conclusion of the arbitration will not be reached before the season of 1893. As to the Delagoa Bay Arbitration your Lordship is in error in thinking that it has been proceeding for four years. It uates from a period of less than one year agoi,. If the Treaty is promptly ratified, mutual interests will be a sufficient guarantee against delay. The sole obstacle [298] D 10 io such a consummation is thfi prevalent belief, that Great Britain's refusal to preserve the status quo of the propertv, and her insistance on continuance of pelagic sealing during the arbitration, to the injury of the rights of the United States, largely defeats the object for which the Treaty was made. The note ends with the* following Avords : "The President directs me to say, in conclusion, that the modm vivendi of last year is the least that this Government can accept. In reason, the restraints after a Treaty of Arbitration should be more absolute, not less. He does not desire to protract the discussion, and having now, in the most friendly spirit, submitted tlie considerations which support the just demand of this Government, that the property which is now the subject of an agreed arbitration shall not he subject to spoliation pending the arbitration, h(^ expresses the hope that Lord Salisbury will give a prompt and friondly assent to the renewal of the modus vivendi. Th(^ President will hear with regn^t that Her Majesty's Government continues to assert a right to deal with this subject precisely as if no provision had been made for the settlement of the dispute ; and in that event, this Government, as has already been pointed out, will be compelled to deal with the subject upon the same basis, and to use every means in its power to protect from destruction or serious injury property and jurisdictional rights which it has long claimed and enjoyed." No. 18. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, March 26, 1892. IN reply to your telegram of the 23rd instant, notice has been given to the owners of shi^js sailing for Behring's Sea, that both the Agreements which are at present under discussion between Great Britain and the United States — that as to Arbitration and that as to an intermediate arrangement — may affect the liberty of sealing in Behring's Sea. They have, therefore, notice of their liability to possible interruption, and wdll sail subject to that notice. The question of time is not, therefore, urgent. Inform President that we concur in thinking that when the Treaty shall have been ratified there will arise a new state of things. Until it is ratified our conduct is governed by the language of your note of the 14th June, 1890. But when it is ratified both parties must admit that contingent lights have become vested in the other, which both desire to protect. We think that the prohibition of sealing, if it stands alone, will be unjust to British sealers, if the decision of the Arbitrators should be advevse to the United States. We are, however, willing, when the Treaty has been ratified, to agree to an arrangement similar to that of last year, if the United States will consent that the Arbitrators should, in the event of a decision adverse to the United States, assess the damages which the prohibition of sealing shall have inflicted on British sealers during the pendency of the Arbitration ; and, in the event of a decision adverse to Great Britain, should assess the damages which the limitation of slaughter shall, during the pendency of the Arbitration, have inflicted on the United States or its lessees. As an alternative course we are also willing, after the ratification of the Ti'eaty, to prohibit sealing in the disputed waters, if vessels be excepted from the prohibition which produce certificate that they have given security for such damages as the Arbitrators may assess, in cas(s of a decision adverse to Great Britain ; the Arbitrators to receive the necessary authority in that behalf. In this case the restriction of slaughter on the islands will not, in point of equity, be necessary. Her Majesty's Government are unable to see any other than one of these two methods of restricting seal-hui^ting in the disputed waters during the Arbitration, which will be equitable to both parties. 11 No. 19. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J, Pauncefote. lO IN "8 a !P ■a >8 O cn •*. s s' *t OR) (b en "■ "S CD J* O * a SL ^ 00 \y. — oDo cj: !2{ QQ OS o 00 CD to H^. ODO*.J J- />«<■» ±u>.