to arbitration the first part of that question, if it should be thought desirable to do so; but they would give that consent with the reservation that they do not admit that the decision of it can conclude the larger questions which the Arbitrator would have to determine. To the latter part of No. 3 it would be their duty to take exception :

"What rights, if any, in the Behring Sea were given or conceded to Great Britain by the said Treaty?

Great Britain has never suggested that any rights were given to her or conceded to her by the said Treaty. All that was done was to recognize her natural right of free navigation and fishing in that as in all other parts of the Pacific Ocean. Russia did not give those rights to Great Britain, because they were never hers to give

away.

"4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that Treaty ?"

This fourth question is hardly worth referring to an Arbitrator, as Great Britain would be prepared to accept it without dispute. The fifth proposed question runs as follows:

"5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the furseal fisheries in the waters of the Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any special rights or jurisdiction held by her in such fisheries or in the waters of Behring Sea, or out of the ownership of the breeding islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their young thereon, and going out from the islands for food, or out of any other fact or incident connected with the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial possessions of the United States ?"

The first clause," What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in the waters of the Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits?" is a question which would be very properly referred to the decision of an Arbitrator. But the subsequent clause, which assumes that such rights could have grown out of the ownership of the breeding islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thereto, involves an assumption as to the prescriptions of international law at the present time to which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to accede. The sixth question, which deals with the issues that will arise in case the controversy should be decided in favour of Great Britain, would perhaps more fitly form the substance of a separate reference. Her Majesty's Government have no objection to refer the general question of a close time to arbitration, or to ascertain by that means

how far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for the preservation of the seal species; but any such reference ought not to contain words appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the matter to the United States.

There is one omission in these questions which I have no doubt the Government of the President will be very glad to repair; and that is the reference to the Arbitrator of the question, what damages are due to the persons who have been injured, in case it shall be determined by him that the action of the United States in seizing British vessels has been without warrant in international law. Subject to these reservations, Her Majesty's Government will have great satisfaction in joining with the Government of the United States in seeking by means of arbitration an adjustment of the international questions which have so long formed a matter of controversy between the two Governments.

I have to request that you will read this despatch to Mr. Blaine, and leave a copy of it with him should he desire it.

Sir J. Pauncefote.

I am, &c.,

SALISBUKY.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(Telegraphic.)

Foreign Office, April 17, 1891. BEHRING SEA. Mr. Blaine's suggestion, which you mention in your private letter of the 7th April, that, pending the award of the Arbitration on the Bebring Sea question, all seal fishery should be stopped, both by sea and land, seems worthy of consideration.

If we approve of it, would Mr. Blaine prefer that the proposal should come from us?

Sir J. Pauncejote to the Marquess of Salisbury.--(Received May 8.)

MY LORD,

Washington, April 27, 1891.

I HAVE the honour to inclose a copy of the note which 1 addressed to Mr. Blaine, informing him that your Lordship was disposed favourably to entertain his alternative suggestion for a modus vivendi pending the result of the Behring Sea arbitration, namely, to stop all sealing, both at sea and on land, and inquiring whether, in case the proposal be finally accepted, he would prefer that it should be made by Her Majesty's Government.

In my telegram of the 23rd instant I had the honour to report to your Lordship the verbal reply which I had received from Mr. Blaine to that communication. It was to the effect that he

would prefer that the proposal should come from Her Majesty's Government, but that before taking any further step he desired to communicate by telegraph to the President, who was absent from Washington. I called to-day on Mr. Blaine to inquire whether he was now prepared to proceed with the proposal. He informed me that the President felt some difficulty arising from the fact that the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands are under contract to maintain a large number of natives (Aleuts) engaged in their sealing operations, and these they would have to support at a heavy loss during the whole period of the modus vivendi. This loss would ultimately fall on the United States' Government, and he had, therefore, suggested whether it might not be stipulated that a moderate number of seals might be killed on the islands, sufficient to cover the loss in question. I replied that I did not think such a suggestion would commend itself to your Lordship. The proposal that sealing should be stopped, both at sea and on land, was based on the recommendation of the United States' Government Agents, whose Reports had been laid before Congress, and copies of which I transmitted to your Lordship in my despatch of the 20th February last.

In acceding to the proposal, Her Majesty's Government would give a striking proof of their solicitude for the preservation of the seal species, and of the spirit of conciliation with which they were animated. There was to be an equal sacrifice on both sides, and it would be unreasonable that the proposed modus vivendi should be saddled with any special reservation for the benefit of either Party.

I further observed that, in view of the fact that the opening of the fishery season is already at hand, no time should be lost in putting it into force, if it is to be of any value this season.

I suggested that it might be agreed to put it in force for this season, irrespectively of the arbitration, and that in such case it would be a convenient time to send a Joint Commission of experts to the islands to collect evidence for the purposes of arbitration. I failed to perceive how any Arbitrators would undertake to pronounce an award on the question of a close time without proper materials on which to found their judgment, and these materials could alone be supplied by a Joint Commission. I added that I had no authority from your Lordship to make such a suggestion, but that I ventured to throw it out for consideration. Mr. Blaine replied that, as regards the reservation of the right to kill a limited number of seals on the islands to cover the loss which would result to the Company for the support of the Aleuts in their employ, that was a condition which might perhaps not be insisted on; but he was absolutely opposed to the suggestion of sending a Joint Commission of Experts to Behring Sea, or to putting in force the modus vivendi until the terms of the arbitration had been definitely agreed to.

I pointed out that if this were to be a condition of the arrangement, it would probably be too late to put it in force this season, in view of the time which might elapse before the preliminaries of the arbitration had been settled, and I reminded him that his proposal was simply that it should take effect "pending the result of the arbitration."

He replied that his proposal, as understood by the President as well as himself, was subject to that condition, and he seemed to attach importance to it as being calculated to accelerate your Lordship's acceptance of the terms of arbitration proposed by his Government. I therefore explained to him that all your Lordship knew at present respecting the proposal was that it had been made by the United States' Government, obviously in their own interest, and that Her Majesty's Government had certainly nothing to gain by acceding to it. I begged him to disabuse the mind of the Presi dent of the idea that your Lordship, in giving the proposal a favourable consideration, had been actuated by any other sentiment than that of friendliness to the United States' Government.

I added that if owing to delay in the settlement of the terms of arbitration, the proposed modus vivendi should not be put in force this season, and the predictions of the United States' Government Agents as to the consequences which must ensue from the noncessation of sealing should be verified, the blame would certainly not attach to Her Majesty's Government.

I have, &c.,

The Marquess of Salisbury.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received May 14.)

MY LORD,

Washington, May 5, 1891.

I HAVE the honour to inclose a copy of a note which I received last night from Mr. Blaine containing detailed proposals for a modus vivendi during the approaching fishery season in Behring Sea, based on the principle of a cessation of seal killing both at sea and on land. The note contains a lengthy defence of the reservation desired by the President of the right to kill 7,500 seals for the support of the native residents of the Pribyloff Islands, a reservation which seems to me seriously to detract from the equality and simplicity of the original proposal. As regards Mr. Blaine's narrative of what passed between us in relation to the proposed modus rivendi, your Lordship will perceive from my despatch of yesterday's date that he appears to have forgotten that the reason why I did not telegraph to your Lordship his alternative proposal for a modus vivendi was that it had been arranged between us, at my

suggestion, that he should make the proposal concurrently with his reply to your Lordship's despatch of the 21st February, for which I had so urgently pressed him.

I cannot call to my mind that the President's name was ever mentioned in the course of our two interviews, which Mr. Blaine correctly describes as "a conversational exchange of views."

If the President was so anxious that the alternative proposal should be telegraphed at once to your Lordship, it is to be regretted that Mr. Blaine did not apprize me of the President's wishes, as I should have certainly complied with them.

Mr. Blaine's reply to your Lordship's despatch of the 21st February was not delivered until the 14th April, and then it was not accompanied by the proposal for a modus vivendi. But fortunately I had informed your Lordship of the proposal by letter a few days after it was made, and I received a prompt reply by telegram which I communicated to Mr. Blaine on the 20th April. Mr. Blaine, therefore, cannot justly complain of any delay on my part, or on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in relation to this matter. I have, &c.,

The Marquess of Salisbury.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

SIR,

(Inclosure.)—Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Washington, May 4, 1891. DURING the month of March last, a few days after the adjournment of Congress, acting under the instructions of the President I proposed to you that a modus vivendi be agreed upon touching the seal fisheries pending the result of arbitration of the question at issue between the two Governments. The President's first proposal which I submitted to you was that no Canadian sealer should be allowed to come within a certain number of miles of the Pribyloff Islands.

It was, however, the conclusion of the President, after reading Lord Salisbury's despatch of the 21st February, that this modus vivendi might possibly provoke conflict in the Behring Sea, and to avoid that result he instructed me to propose that sealing, both on land and sea, should be suspended by both nations during the progress of arbitration, or during the season of 1891. On both occasions it was a conversational exchange of views, the first at my office at the State Department, the second at my residence.

The President was so desirous of a prompt response from Lord Salisbury to his second proposition that I ventured to suggest that you request an answer by cable if practicable. Especially was the President anxious to receive an answer, which he trusted would be