62 OKAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Fatincffote. 



DepartmicxNT of State, Washington, June 2, ISDO. 

 My Dear Sir Julian: I have had a prolonged interview witli tlie President on 

 tlie matters upon wliicli we are endeavoring to come to an agreement touching tlie 

 fur-seal question. Tlie President expresses the opinion that an arbitration can not 

 be concluded in time for this season. Arbitration is of little value unless conducted 

 with the most careful deliberation. What the I'resident most anxiously desires to 

 know is whether Lord Salisbury, in order to promote a friendly soliitiou of the 

 question, will nuxhe for a single season the regulation which in 1888 he offered to 

 make permanent. The President regards that as the step whicii will lead most 

 certainly and most promptly to a friendly agreement between the two Governments. 

 I am, etc., 



James G. Blaine. 



The two Goverinneuts now appear to have come to a decided differ- 

 ence respecting tlie measures which they were prepared to assent to 

 providing for an interim preservation of the seal. We have a commu- 

 nication here from Sir Julian that Lord Salisbury thinks that the 

 measure proposed in 1888, and provisionally accepted by him, was too 

 extreme a measure. He is not prepared to assent to it, and snggests 

 a further difficulty, namely, that, in the absence of legislation by 

 Parliament, the Government would not be enabled to enforce it uijon 

 British vessels. 



In answer to the suggestion of an inability to execute such a restrict- 

 ive provision without an act of Parliament, I will say, without reading 

 the correspondence, that Mr. Blaine suggested that the United States 

 Government would be satisfied if, without an act of Parliament, the 

 Government of Great Britain would issue a proclamation forbidding 

 pelagic sealing, or requesting vessels to abstain from it. That i>ro- 

 posal was answered by Sir Julian on the 27th of June. I read from 

 page 1!23 of the Urst volume of the American Appendix: 



Sir Julian Fuunccfvte to Air. Blaine. 



Washington, June 27, 1890. 



Sir: I did not fail to transmit to the Marqxiis of Salisbury a copy of your note of 

 the 11th instant, in which, with reference to his lordship's statement that British 

 legislation would be necessary to enable Her Majt sty's Government to exclude Brit- 

 ish vessels from any jiortion of the high seas ''even for an hour'', you informed me, 

 by desire of the President, that the United States Government would be sntisUed 

 ''if Lord Salisbury would by public proclamation simply request that vessels sail- 

 ing under the British flag should abstain from entering the Behriug Sea during the 

 present season ". 



I have now the honor to inform you that I have been instructed by Lord Salisbury 

 to state to you in reply that the President's request presents constitutional difH- 

 cnlties which would preclude Her Majesty's Government froin acceding to it, except 

 as part of a general scheme for the settlement of the Behriug Sea controversy, and 

 on certain conditions whicli would jtistify the assumption by Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment of the grave responsibility involved in the ]iroposal. 



Those conditions are : 



I. That the two (Jovernments agree forthwith to refer to arbitration the question 

 of the legality of the action of the United States Government in seizing or other- 

 wise interfering with British vessels engaged in the Behriug Sea, outside of terri- 

 torial waters, during the years 1886, 18!<7, and 1889. 



II. That, pending the award, all interference with British sealing vessels shall 

 al)solutely cease. 



III. That the United States Government, if the award should be adverse to them 

 on the question of legal right, will comyiensate British subjects for the losses which 

 they may sustain by reason of their compliance with the British inoclainatiou. 



Such are the three coiulitious on which it is indispensable, in the view of Ifer 



Majesty's Government, that the issue of the pro]>()sed ])rocl!iiuation should be based. 



As regards the compensation claimed by Her Majesty's Government for the losses 



