ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 63 



and injuries sustained Ly British subjects by reason of the action of the United 

 States (loveinment against British sealing vessels in the Behring; Sea during the 

 years 1886, 1887, and 1889, I have already informed Lord Salisbury of your assur- 

 ance that the United States Government would not let that claim stand in the way 

 of an amicable adjustment of the controversy, and I trust that the reply which, by 

 direction of Lord Salisbury, I have now the honor to return to the President's 

 inquiry, may facilitate the atiainmeut of that object for which we have so long and 

 so earnestly labored. 



I have, etc., Julian Pauncefote. 



The President. If you liave come to the end of a branch of this 

 subject, I think it wouUl be well to interrupt here. 



[The Tribunal thereupou took a recess.] 



On reassembling- 



The President said: Mr. Carter, will you resume your argument? 



Mr. Carter. I had just read Sir Juliau Pauncefote's note to Mr. 

 Blaine, in which he conveys the terms under which Lord Salisbury was 

 prepared to accede to Mr. Blaine's request that the British Govern- 

 ment would, by procLamation, request an abstention from pelagic seal- 

 ing in Bering Sea during tbe then coming season, or present season. 

 The Arbitrators will observe that Lord Salisbury stated that there were 

 grave constitutional difficulties in the way of taking the course sug- 

 gested, and that the British Government could not adopt such a course 

 as that unless there were a very complete justification for it: that it 

 created a responsibility which the Government was not prepared to 

 assume unless there was very great occasion for it, but intimated that 

 if three conditions were complied _ with, they would, notwithstanding, 

 make that request. Those conditions were that the two Governments 

 should forthwith agree to submit to arbitration the question of the 

 legality of the action of the iJuited States Government in making the 

 seizures; that, pending the award, all interference with British vessels 

 by the United States should cense; and third, that the United States 

 Government, if the award should be adverse to it on the question of 

 legal right, would compensate British subjects for tlieir losses. 



The learned Arbitrators will observe — of course, they, cannot fail to 

 observe — throughout this correspondence the play of diplomatic skill 

 and ability on the part of each side in dealing with the other, and it is 

 observable in these views of Lord Salisbury. He found that the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States were extremely anxious to i^revent pelagic 

 sealing in Bering Sea during the coming season: that, nimble to get 

 anything better, they would content themselves with a request from 

 the British Government by proclamation that such sealing should not 

 be engaged in. Finding that they were so anxious upon that score, he 

 thought that by acceding to their views in that particular he might 

 gain certain advantages: first, absolute non interference with British 

 sealing vessels during the pendency of the negotiation, and, second, a 

 reference to arbitration, which should include, not only a determination 

 upon the questions of right, but also a determination upon questions 

 of alleged damages sustained by British vessels. The Arbitrators will 

 here perceive the first direct suggestion of the scheme of an arbitration 

 upon the questions of right. That is the principal feature of this letter. 

 It is true that an arbitration had been at an anterior period suggested 

 by Sir Julian Pauncefote; but it was to be the arbitration of a friendly 

 Government, in case the two Governments should not find themselves 

 able to agree upon the question of regulations, after they had received 

 the report of the proposed mixed Commission of experts: and the arbi- 

 tration thus suggested by Sir Julian Pauncefote was, you will perceive, 

 only upon the question of regulations. The arbitration here suggested 



