ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 35 



I refer to the letter of Sir Julian Paiiiicefote to Mr. Blaine of April 

 tlie 29"^, 1890. Mr. Blaine had become Secretary of the United States, 

 and the correspondence is contained in the S'** volume of the Appendix 

 of the British Case. As late as that date Sir Julian Pauncefote, in an 

 elaborate letter to Mr. Blaine, encloses a proposed Treaty. He encloses 

 the entire draft of the Treaty which, as he thought, embodied the views 

 of the two Governments as they existed at that time, and which he 

 seems in his letter confidently to have anticipated would have been 

 accepted by the American Government. It was not accepted, but not 

 upon any difficulty about the point I am now talking about; whoever 

 will take the trouble to go through the pages will see that the draft then 

 submitted by Sir Julian Pauuc-^lOte which is a very elaborate draft from 

 Lord Salisbury founded the objection not on this point but others; and, 

 as illustrating what the Governments were then trying to accomplish, his 

 Treaty contains these points. This is the first Article : "The High Con- 

 tracting Parties agree to appoint a mixed Commission of Experts who 

 shall enquire fully into the subject and report to the High Contracting 

 Parties within two years from the date of this Convention the result of 

 their investigations, together with their opinions and recommendations 

 on the following questions". Then it states five questions, which I need 

 not read, having reference only to the best method of protecting the 

 seals. Then Article 2: "On receipt of the Eeport of the Commission 

 and of any separate Eeports which may be made by individual Commis- 

 sioners, the High Contracting Parties will proceed fortli with to determine 

 what International Eegulations, if any, are necessary for the purpose 

 aforesaid, and any Eegulations so agreed upon shall be embodied in a 

 further Convention to which the accession of the other Powers shall be 

 invited ". 



Then the third Article is. — "In case the High Contracting Parties 

 should be unable to agree upon the Eegulations to be adopted, the ques- 

 tions in difference shall be referred to the Arbitration of an imi^artial 

 Government who shall duly consider the Eeports hereinbefore men- 

 tioned, and whose Award shall be final, and shall determine the condi- 

 tions of the future Convention." That is where these Governments stood 

 on the 25th of April, 1890. 



Great Britain I repeat, pressing to have the subject determined by 

 the mixed Commission, willing to provide that if the Regulations reported 

 by tlie Commission should not be adopted by the Government, that an 

 Arbitration should take place to determine what Eegulations should be 

 adopted. The first suggestion was that it was to be referred to the 

 Governments. This ultimately took a different shape, and resulted in 

 the formation of the present Triburuil. In the letterof Sir Julian Pannce- 

 fote transmitting the document which I have read he says. "The draft, 

 of conrse contemplates the conclusion of a further Convention after full 

 examination of the report of the mixed Commission. It also makes pro- 

 vision for the ultimate settlement by Arbitration of any difterences which 

 the report of the Commission may still fail to adjust whereby the impor- 

 tant element of finality is secured, and in order to give to the proposed 

 arrangement the widest international basis the draft provides that the 

 other Powers shall be invited to accede to it. The above proposals 

 are of course submitted ad referendum, and it only now remains for me to 

 commend them to your favourable consideration and to that of the Eus- 

 sian Minister. They have been framed by me in a spirit of justice and 

 conciliation and with a most earnest desire to terminate the controversy 

 in a manner honorable to all parties and worthy of the three great 

 nations concerned." 



