APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. AAI 
his Government were adinitted, and then to refer the question of liabil- 
ity to some eminent jurisconsult for decision, on written statements and 
answers submitted by the two Governments respectively. 
I objected that the whole Behring’s Sea controversy would be raised 
in such an arbitration, which it appeared to me would of necessity 
involve grave questions of international law more fitting for solution by 
an areopagus of the Great Powers. 
Mr. Blaine dissented from this view, urging that, as his Government 
had asserted no claim to the Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum, no estab- 
lished principles of international law would be in dispute. 
The Arbitrator would only have to find whether, under the cireum- 
stances, the United States Government ought to pay damages for the 
seizures. If he found in the affirmative, the damages previously 
assessed would be paid. 
I observed that, apart from other objections, it seemed to me prema- 
ture to talk of arbitration; and I reminded him that at our first inter- 
view (reported in my despatch No, 190 of the lst November, 1889) he 
expressed the opinion that, if an arrangement in regard to a close time 
should be arrived at, his Government would not wish that private 
individuals who had acted bond fide in the belief that they were exer- 
cising their lawful rights, should be the victims of a grave dispute 
between two great countries which had happily been adjusted. I 
inquired why he was no longer disposed to adopt this friendly and 
equitable mode of treating the question. 
Mr. Blaine replied that he was not aware, at that time, of the mag- 
nitude of the claims. He now learned for the first time that they were 
actually computed at nearly 500,000 dollars. Making all allowances 
for exaggerated demands, the claim was still too large to be dealt with 
in any other way than by an appropriation vote of Congress, and his 
Government were not prepared to propose a vote of such an amount 
unless the liability of the United States Government had been pre- 
viously established by the award of an arbitrator. 
If Her Majesty’s Government were disposed to agree to an arbitra- 
tion such as he had indicated he was quite willing to resume at once 
here the tripartite negotiation for a close time commenced in London, 
and concurrently to proceed with the necessary steps for the settle. 
ment of the question of damages. 
I replied that at present my instructions were that Her Majesty’s 
Government would come to no agreement for a close time unless they 
obtained satisfaction in the matter of d: amages, and that I thought they 
would only accept arbitration on the question of amount. But I prom- 
ised Mr. Blaine to communicate his proposals to your Lordship without 
delay, and I have accordingly done so by telegram. 
I have, &e. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
No. 281 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received by telegraph, 
February 8.) 
[Extract.] 
WASHINGTON, February 8, 1890. 
With reference to my telegram of yesterday’s date, I have the honour 
to inquire whether your Lordship would see any objection to the tri- 
partite negotiation for a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea, and the 
