242 , DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



Lord Salisbury had stated that " the Cauadian Government objected 

 to any such restrictions [as those asked for the protection of the seal 

 fisheries], and tliat until Canada's consent could be obtained, Her Maj- 

 esty's Government was not Avilling to enter into the convention." 



I am justified, therefore, in assuming tliat Lord Salisbury can not recur 

 to the remark of Mr. Phelps as one of the reasons for breaking off the 

 negotiation, because the negotiation was in actual i)rogress for more 

 than four montlis after the remark was made, and Mr. Phelps himself 

 took large part in it. 



Upon this recital of facts. I am unable to recall or in any way to 

 qualify the statement which I made in my note of June 4th, to the effect 

 that Lord Salisbury " abruptly closed the negotiation because the Ca- 

 uadian Government objected, and that he assigned no other reason 

 whatever." 



Lord Salisbury expresses the belief that even if the view I have 

 taken of these transactions be accurate tliey would not bear out the 

 argument which I found upon them. The argument to which Lord 

 Salisbury refers is, 1 presume, the remonstrance which 1 made by direc- 

 tion of the President against the change of policy by Her Majesty's 

 Government without notice and against the wish of the United States. 

 The interposition of the wishes of a British province against the con- 

 clusion ot a convention between two nations, which, according to Mr. 

 Phelps, " had been virtually agreed upon except as to details," was in the 

 President's belief a grave injustice to the Government of the United 

 States. 



I have, etc., 



James G. Blaine. 



CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS 

 IN BERING SEA FORMERLY POSSESSED BY RUSSIA AND 

 TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE TREATY OF 

 1867 (Continued). 



Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Faunccfote. 



No. 166.] Foreign Office, August 2, 1890. 



Sir : I have received and laid before the Queen your dispatch No. 

 101 of the 1st ultimo, forwarding a copy of a note from Mr. Blaine, in 

 which he maintains that the United States have derived from Russia 

 rights of jurisdiction over the waters of Behriugs Sea to a distance of 

 100 miles from i\w, coasts transferred to them under the treaty of the 

 30th March, 18G7. 



In replying to the arguments to the contrary effect contained in my 

 dispatch 100a of the 22d May, Mr. Blaine draws attention to certain 

 expressions which I had omitted for the sake of brevity in quoting 

 from Mr. Adams's dispatch of the 22d July, 1823. He contends that 

 these words give a different meaning to the disi)atch, and that the latter 

 does not reliite but actually supjiorts the present claim of the United 

 States. It becomes necessary, thereibre, that I should refer in greater 

 detail to the corres])ondence, an exauunation of Avhich will show that 

 the passage in qu(>stion can not have the significaTU'.e Avhich Mr. Blaine 

 seeks to give to it, that the words omitted by me do not in reality affect 



