294 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



tions wliicli tlie arbitrator would liavo to deteriniiie. To the Inttor pari 

 of No. 3 it would be their duty to take exception : 



What rights if any, in the Behring Sea were given or conceded to Great Britain by 

 the said treaty ? 



Great Britain lias never suggested that any rights were given to her 

 or conceded to her by the said treaty. All that was done was to recog- 

 nize her natural right of free navigation and fishing in that as in all 

 other parts of the Pacific Ocean, liussia did not give those rights to 

 Great Britain, because they w^ere never hers to give away. 



(4) Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in 

 Beliring Sea east of the water boundary in the treaty between the United States 

 and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that 

 treaty ? 



This fourth question is hardly worth referring to an arbitrator, as 

 Great Britain would be prepared to accept it without dispute. 

 The fifth proposed question runs as follows: 



(5) What are now the riglits of the United States as to the fur-seal fislicrics in the 

 waters of the Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such 

 rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any special riglits or jurisdiction held 

 by her in such fisheries or in the waters of Bcliriug Sea, or out of the oNMicrship of 

 the breeding islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their 

 young thereon, and going out from the islands for food, or out of auy other fact or 

 incident connected witli the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial posses- 

 sions of the United States? 



The first clause, ''What are now the rights of the United States as 

 to the fur-seal fisheries in the w^aters of the Behring Sea outside of the 

 ordinary territorial limits'? " is a question which would be very properly 

 referred to the decision of an arbitrator. But the subsequent clause, 

 which assumes that such rights could have grown out of the ownership 

 of the breeding islands and the habits of the seals in resorting thereto 

 involves an assumption as to the prescriptions of international law at 

 the present time to which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared 

 to accede. The sixth question, wliich deals with the issues that will 

 arise in case the controversy should be decided in favor of Great Brit- 

 ain, would perhaps more fitly form tlie substance of a separate reference. 

 Her Majesty's Government have no ol ejection to refer the general ques- 

 tion of a close time to arbitration, or to ascertain by that means how 

 far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for the preservation 

 of the seal species; but any such reference ought not to contain words 

 appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the matter to the 

 United States. 



There is one omission in these questions which 1 have no doubt the 

 Government of the President will be very glad to repair; and that is 

 the reference to the arbitrator of the question, what damages are due to 

 the persons who have been injured, in case it sliall be determined by him 

 that the action of the United States in seizing British vessels has been 

 withoutwarrant in international law. Subject to these reservations Her 

 Majesty's Government will have great satisfaction in joining with the 

 Government of the United States in seeking by means of arbitration an 

 adjustment of the international questions which have so long formed 

 a matter of controversy between the two governments. 



I have to request that you will read this dispatch to Mr. Blaine, and 

 leave a copy of it with him should he desire it. 

 1 am, etc., 



Salisbury. 



