21 G DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



l)y this ^YlloloRa^o slnnglitor of the ])i'()diiciii.c: foinnlcs nnd their off- 

 S]>riii.n-. 



The ten-inile limit wouhl give the inariindeis the vantage .yrouiid for 

 hilliiij.'' the seals that are in the water by tens of thousands searehini>- 

 for food. The opportunity, under eover of log ami night, for stealing 

 silently npon the islands and slaughtering the seals within a mile or 

 even less of the keeper's residence would largely increase the aggregate 

 destrnction. Under such conditions the British vessels could evenly 

 divide with the United States, within the three-mile limit of its own shores 

 and upon the islands themselves, the whole advantage of the seal fish- 

 eries. The respect which the sealing^ vessels would pay to the ten-mile 

 limit would be the same that wolves pay to a tlock of sheep so placed 

 that no she]>herd can guanl them. This arrangement according to your 

 l)ro]vjsal, was to continue (or three months of each year, the best months 

 in the season for depredations upon the seal herd. ]Mo course was left 

 to the United States or to Kussia but to reie<;t the proposition. 



The pro])Ositions made by Lord Salisbury in 1S88 and the ])ropositions 

 made by Her Majesty's Minister in Washington in 181K> are in signifi- 

 cant contrast. The circumstances are the same, tlie conditions are the 

 same, the rights of the United States are the same in both years. The 

 ])Osition of England has changed, because the wishes of Canada have 

 demanded the change. The result then with which the United States 

 is expected to be content is that her rights within the Behring Sea and 

 on the islands thereof are not absolute, but are to be determined by one 

 of Her Majesty's provinces. 



The British Government would assuredly and rightfully complain if 

 an agreement between her representative and the representative of the 

 Uinted States should, without notice, be broken ott" by the United States 

 on the ground that the State of California was not willing that it should 

 be completed. California has a governor chosen independently of the 

 executive power of the Natioual Government; Canada has a governor 

 appointed by the British Crown. The legislature of California enacts 

 laws with which the executive power of tlie United States has no right 

 whatever to interfere; Canada enacts laws with which the executive 

 power of Great Britain can interfere so far as abs<ilutely to annul. Can 

 the Government of the United States be expected to accept as final a 

 decision of the Government of Great Britain that an agreement with 

 the United States can not be fulfilled because the x>i'ovince of Canada 

 objects! 



This review of the circumstances which led to the present troubles 

 on the Behring Sea question has been presented by direction of the 

 President in order to show that the responsibility does not rest with 

 this Gov-ernment. The change of policy made by Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment without notice and against the wish of this Government, is in 

 the President's belief the cause of all the differences that have followed. 

 I am further instructed by the President to say that while your pro- 

 posals of April 30 can not be acceiited, the United States will continue 

 the negotiation in hope of reaching an agreement that may conduce to 

 a. good understanding and leave no cause for future disi)ute. In the 

 President's opinion, owing to delays for which this Government is not 

 responsible, it is too late to conclude such negotiation in time to ai»]>ly 

 its results tlie present season. He therefore pro])oses that Her Majesty's 

 Government agree not to permit the vessels (which in his judgment do 

 injury to the property of the United States) to (Miter the Behring Sea 

 for this season, in order that time may be secured for negotiation that 

 shall not be disturbed by untoward events or unduly inllueuced by 



