64 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES 0. CARTER, ESQ. 



by Lord Salisbury is one upon the question of legal right, and also upon 

 the question of damages. We tind here, therefore, the first germ of 

 that final submission of the matters in dispute to arbitration which 

 eventually grew into tlie treaty under which our present proceedings 

 are had. I may at once refer, altliough it is not in the order which I 

 had adopted, to the answer of Mr. Blaine to this proposal. It is found 

 in his letter of July 2, 1890, on page 239. 



Mr. Blaine to Sir Jnlian. Pnuiicefote. 



Depaktment of State, Wasliinrjton, July 2, 1S90. 



Sir: Yoar note of tlie 27tli ultimo, covering Lord Salisbury's reply to the friendly 

 suffgestiou of the President was duly received. It was tlje design of tlie President, 

 if Lord Salisbury had been favorably inclined to his proposition, to submit a form 

 of settlement for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government which the Presi- 

 dent believed would end all dispute touching privileges in Behring Sea. But Lord 

 Salisbury refused to accept the proposal unless the President should ^'forthwith" 

 ' accei>t a formal arbitration, which his lordship prescribes. 



The President's request was made in the hope that it might lead to a friendly 

 basis of agreement, and he can not think that Lord Salisbury's proposition is 

 responsive to his suggestion. Besides, the answer comes so late that it would be 

 impossible now to proceed this season with the negotiation the President had 

 desired. 



An agreement to arbitrate requires careful consideration. The United States is, 

 perliaps, more fully committed to that form of international adjustment than any 

 other i)ower, but it can not consent that the form in which arbitration shall be 

 undertaken shall be decided without full consultation and conference between the 

 two Governments. 



I beg further to say that you must have misapprehended what I said toucliing 

 Britisli claims for injuries and losses alleged to have been inflicted upon British 

 vessels in Behring Sea by ageuts of the llnited States. My declaration was that 

 arbitration would logically and necessarily include that point. It is not to be con- 

 ceded, but decided with other issues of far greater v/eight. 



I have the honor to be, sir, etc., .Tames G. Blaine. 



The learned Arbitrators will remember the letter which I read some 

 time ago, before the recess, from Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote, 

 written perhaps under some measure of irritation at what he supposed 

 to be the unreasonable delays of (Jreat Britain and the shifting of 

 ground by her in respect to interim measures of protection. To that 

 letter the JMarquis of Salisbury writes an answer, or writes a note 

 designed to be an answer, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, on the 20th day of 

 ■June, 1890. As it does not raise a material point in the discussion, I 

 will not read it, unless my friends on the otiier side should deem it 

 essential; but I will attempt a summary of it. It is on page 23G of the 

 A])])endix to the American Case. 



The points that he endeavors to make in it are substantially these: 

 that the agreement which Avas originally made between him and Mr. 

 Phelps in reference to the close season was a provisional agreement 

 only, not designed to be final; and the intimation is that the United 

 States were hardly justified in conceiving it to be a final one. He then 

 says that it was dependent upon the views which Canada might enter- 

 tain of it, although he does not state that he, at the time, stated to 

 Mr. Phelps, or otherwise in such manner that it would reach the 

 American Government, that it was conditional u])on any acceptance of 

 it by Canada; and he says that if the United States were not at first 

 a])prised of this, they were at a subsequent period, which, indeed, is 

 true, although it was not until after a considerable delay. In the next 

 place, he says that the delay of two years which has been occasioned 

 was not solely in consequence of the objections of Canada, but that it 

 was made necessary in consequence of a divergence of views between 



