And some five vessels of United States' sealing-schooners that make this their port of departure. (Signed) The five United States' sealers mentioned in List No. 1 are, of course, not of record at Victoria, B.C. Note. The address of all the above-mentioned owners is Victoria, B.C., with the exception of John L. Penny, of the schooner "Katharine," whose address is Clayaquot Sound, B.C., viâ Victoria, B.C. No. 366. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. Sir, It contains several references to communications which passed between the two Governments in the time of Mr. Blaine's predecessor, especially in the spring of 1888. Without referring at present to other portions of Mr. Blaine's note, I wish only now to point out some error in the impressions which he has gathered from the records in his office with respect to those communications. He states that on the 23rd April of that year I informed the American Chargé d'Affaires, Mr. White, that it was proposed to give effect to a Seal Convention by Order in Council, not by Act of Parliament. This was a mistake. It was very natural that Mr. White should not have apprehended me correctly when I was describing the somewhat complicated arrangements by which Agreements of this kind are brought into force in England. But two or three days after the 23rd April he called to make inquiry on the subject, and, in reply to his question, the following letter was addressed to him by my instructions: 66 My dear White, "Foreign Office, April 27, 1888. "Lord Salisbury desires me to express his regret that he is not yet in a position to make any further communication to you on the subject of the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea. After his interview with you and M. de Staal he had to refer to the Canadian Government, the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty, but has as yet only obtained the opinion of the Admiralty. The next step is to bring a Bill into Parliament. On the 28th Mr. White replied: "My dear Barrington, "Yours, &c. (Signed) "ERIC BARRINGTON." "Legation of the United States, London, "April 28, 1888. "Thanks for your note, respecting the final sentence of which, 'The next step is to bring a Bill into Parliament,' I must trouble you with a line. "I understood Lord Salisbury to say when I saw him with M. de Staal, and again last week alone, that it is now proposed to give effect to the Conventional arrangement for the protection of seals by an Order in Council, not by Act of Parliament. "When Mr. Phelps left, the latter was thought necessary, and last week I received a telegram from the Secretary of State, asking me to obtain confidentially a copy of the proposed Act of Parliament, with a view to assimilating our contemplated Act of Congress thereto. I replied, after seeing Lord Salisbury last Saturday, that there would be no Bill introduced in Parliament, but an Order in Council. "May I ask if this be now incorrect, as, in that event, I should particularly like to correct my former statement by this day's mail." To this the following reply was on the same date addressed to Mr. White: "My dear White, 66 Foreign Office, April 28, 1888. "Lord Salisbury is afraid that he did not make himself understood when last he spoke to you about the Seal Fisheries Convention. our authorities to act on Order in Council will be "An Act of Parliament is necessary to give power to the provisions of the Convention when it is signed. The merely the machinery which the Act will provide for the purpose of bringing its provisions into force. The object of this machinery is to enable the Government to wait till the other two Powers are ready. But neither Convention nor Bill is drafted yet, because we have not got the opinions from Canada which are necessary to enable us to proceed. "Yours, &c. (Signed) "ERIC BARRINGTON." It is evident from this correspondence that if the United States' Government was misled upon the 23rd April into the belief that Her Majesty's Government could proceed in the matter without an Act of Parliament, or could proceed without previous reference to Canada, it was a mistake which must have been entirely dissipated by the correspondence which followed in the ensuing week. Mr. Blaine is also under a misconception in imagining that I ever gave any verbal assurance, or any promise of any kind, with respect to the terms of the projected Convention. Her Majesty's Government always have been, and are still, anxious for the arrangement of a Convention which shall provide whatever close time in whatever localities is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species. But I have always represented that the details must be the subject of discussion, a discussion to which those who are locally interested must of necessity contribute. I find the record of the following conversation about the date to which Mr. Blaine refers :- "Sir, "The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West. "Foreign Office, March 17, 1888. "Since forwarding to you my despatch of the 22nd ultimo, I have been in communication with the Russian Ambassador at this Court, and have invited his Excellency to ascertain whether his Government would authorize him to discuss with Mr. Phelps and myself the suggestion made by Mr. Bayard in his despatch of the 7th February, that concerted action should be taken by the United States, Great Britain, and other interested Powers, in order to preserve from extermination the fur-seals which at certain seasons are found in Behring's Sea. "Copies of the correspondence on this question which has passed between M. de Staal and myself is inclosed herewith. "I request that you will inform Mr. Bayard of the steps which have been taken, with a view to the initiation of negotiations for an Agreement between the three Powers principally concerned in the maintenance of the seal fisheries. But in so doing, you should state that this action, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, must not be taken as an admission of the rights of jurisdiction in Behring's Sea exercised there by the United States' authorities during the fishing seasons of 1886-87 and 1887-88, nor as affecting the claims which Her Majesty's Government will have to present on account of the wrongful seizures which have taken place of British vessels engaged in the seal fishing industry. "I am, &c. (Signed) "SALISBURY." In pursuance of this despatch, the suggestion made by Mr. Bayard to which I referred was discussed, and negotiations were initiated for an Agreement between the three Powers. The following despatch contains the record of what I believe was the first meeting between the Representatives of the three Powers upon the subject: "The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West. 66 "Sir, Foreign Office, April 16, 1888. "The Russian Ambassador and the United States Chargé d'Affaires called upon me this afternoon to discuss the question of the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea, which had been brought into prominence by the recent action of the United States. "The United States' Government had expressed a desire that some Agreement should be arrived at between the three Governments for the purpose of prohibiting the slaughter of the seals during the time of breeding; and, at my request, M. de Staal had obtained instructions from his Government on that question. "At this preliminary discussion it was decided provisionally, in order to furnish a basis for negotiation, and without definitively pledging our Governments, that the space to be covered by the proposed Convention should be the sea between America and Russia north of the 47th degree of latitude; that the close time should extend from the 15th April to the 1st November; that during that time the slaughter of all seals should be forbidden, and vessels engaged in it should be liable to seizure by the cruizers of any of the three Powers, and should be taken to the port of their own nationality for condemnation; that the traffic in arms, alcohol, and powder should be prohibited in all the islands of those seas; and that, as soon as the three Powers had concluded a Convention, they should join in submitting it for the assent of the other Maritime Powers of the Northern Seas. "The United States' Chargé d'Affaires was exceedingly earnest in pressing on us the importance of dispatch on account of the inconceivable slaughter that had been, and was still, going on in these seas. He stated that in addition to the vast quantity brought to market, it was a common practice for those engaged in the trade to shoot all seals they might meet in the open sea, and that of these a great number sank, so that their skins could not be recovered. It was impossible to state more distinctly that any proposal made was provisional, and was merely made for the purpoose of enabling the requisite negotiations to proceed. The subsequent discussion of these proposals was undoubtedly delayed in consequence of the length of time occupied by the Canadian Government in collecting from considerable distances the information which they required before their opinion on the subject could be thoroughly formed, and after that it was delayed, I believe, chiefly in consequence of the political events in the United States unconnected with this question. I think it desirable to correct the misconceptions which have arisen with respect to these transactions; though I do not think that, even if the view of them which is taken by Mr. Blaine is accurate, they would bear out the argument which he founds upon them. I shall be glad if you will take the opportunity of informing Mr. Blaine of these corrections. No. 367. I am, &c. (Signed) SALISBURY. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. Sir, Foreign Office, June 20, 1890. I HAVE received your despatch of the 3rd instant, and I approve the note which you addressed to Mr. Blaine in reply to his inquiry whether Her Majesty's Government would consent to "make for a single season the Regulation," as to the killing of seals in Behring's Sea, "which in 1888 they offered to make permanent." I am, &c. (Signed) SALISBURY. No. 368. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received June 21.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, June 21, 1890. I HAVE the honour to report to your Lordship that a telegram is published in the "Washington Post" newspaper of to-day, dated Port Townsend, in Washington State, 20th June, stating that the Revenue cutter "Corwin" arrived there on the 18th on its way to Behring's Sea, and will await further orders. In the same telegram it is stated that the "Rush" is at Seattie, in Washington State, and is awaiting orders at that port. Sir, No. 369. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. Foreign Office, June 21, 1890. I APPROVE the reply, inclosed in your despatch of the 6th instant, which you returned to Mr. Blaine's note of the 4th instant, in regard to the proposed exclusion of British sealing-vessels from Behring's Sea during the present season. It is unnecessary, in view of the observations contained in my despatch of the 20th instant, that I should discuss at any length the circumstances which led to an interruption of the negotiations in 1888. the negotiations because "the Canadian Government objected," and that "I assigned no other reason whatever," I should wish you to call Mr. Blaine's attention to the statement of Mr. Phelps recorded in my despatch to Sir L. West of the 3rd April, 1888, that "under the peculiar political circumstances of America at this moment, with a general election impending, it would be of little use, and, indeed, hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation to its issue before the election had taken place." I am, &c. My Lord, Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received June 24.) Washington, June 10, 1890. WITH reference to my telegram of to-day, I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a Memorandum which I gave to Mr. Blaine at our interview of yesterday on the subject of the inability of Her Majesty's Government to exclude British vessels from the high seas without legislative sanction. I have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. Inclosure in No. 370. Memorandum. LORD SALISBURY regrets that the President of the United States should think him wanting in conciliation, but his Lordship cannot refrain from thinking that the President does not appreciate the difficulty arising from the law of England. It is entirely beyond the power of Her Majesty's Government to exclude British or Canadian ships from any portion of the high seas, even for an hour, without legislative sanction. Her Majesty's Government have always been willing, without pledging themselves to details on the questions of area and date, to carry on negotiations, hoping thereby to come to some arrangement for such a close season as is necessary in order to preserve the seal species from extinction, but the provisions of such an arrangement would always require legislative sanction, so that the measures thereby determined may be enforced. Lord Salisbury does not recognize the expressions attributed to him. He does not think that he can have used them, at all events in the context mentioned. No. 371. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received June 25.) (Telegraphic.) Washington, June 25, 1890 ALTHOUGH I have not yet received the Secretary of State's promised reply to your Lordship's despatch of the 22nd ultimo, and though he refuses to proceed with the negotiations until that reply is delivered, I am informed that he has announced his intention of leaving for the north in the course of next week. I therefore venture to suggest that I may be authorized to address at once to Mr. Blaine an official note, replying to the President's inquiry, in the sense of your Lordship's telegram of the 12th instant, viz., that the issue of a Proclamation as proposed by the President involves difficulties of a Constitutional nature, and Her Majesty's Government could only consent to issue it as part of a general settlement, and on the three conditions named below: 1. That the question of the legal right of the United States' Government to interfere with British sealing-vessels in Behring's Sea be submitted to arbitration. 2. That, pending the result of the arbitration, the United States' Government cease all interference with British sealers outside of territorial waters. |