APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 5a 
462 No. 336, 
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote. 
FOREIGN OFFICE, May 22, 1890. 
Str: L received in due course your despatch of ihe 23rd January ,* 
inclosing copy of Mr. Blaine’s uote of the 22nd of that month, in answer 
to the protest made on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government on the 
12th October last against the seizure of Canadian vessels by the United 
States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush” in Behring’s Sea. 
The importance of the subject necessitated a reference to the Gov- 
ernment of Canada, and some time elapsed before their reply reached 
Her Majesty’s Government. The negotiations which have taken place 
between Mr. Blaine and yourself afford strong reason to hope that the 
difficulties attending this question are in a fair way towards an adjust- 
ment which will be satisfactory to both Governments. I think it right, 
however, to place on record, as briefly as possible, the views of Her 
Majesty’s Government on the principal arguments brought forward on 
behalf of the United States. 
Mr. Blaine’s note defends the acts complained of by Her Majesty’s 
Government on the following grounds: 
1. That “ the Canadian vessels arrested and detained in the Beliring’s 
Sea were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra bonos mores—a 
pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and permanent injury to 
the rights of the Government and people of the United States.” 
2. That the fisheries had been in the undisturbed possession, and 
under the exclusive control, of Russia from their discovery until the 
cession of Alaska to the United States in 1567, and that from this date 
onwards until 1886 they had also remained in the undisturbed posses- 
sion of the United States Government. 
3. That it is a fact now held beyond denial or doubt that the taking 
of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to the extinction of the species, 
and that therefore nations not possessing the territory upon which seals 
can increase their numbers by natural growth should refrain trom the 
slaughter of them in the open sea. 
Mr. Blaine further argues that the law of the sea and the liberty 
which it confers do not justify acts which are immoral in themselves, 
and which inevitably tend to results against the interests and against 
the welfare of mankind; and he proceeds to justify the forcible resist- 
ance of the United States Government by the necessity of defending 
not only their own traditional and long-established rights, but also the 
rights of good morals and of good government the world over. 
He declares that while the United States will not withhold from any 
nation the privileges which they demanded for themselves when Alaska 
was part of the Russian Empire, they are not disposed to exercise in 
the possessions acquired from Russia any less power or authority than 
they were willing to concede to the Imperial Government of Russia 
when its sovereignty extended over them. He claims from friendly 
nations a recognition of the same rights and privileges on the lands 
and in the waters of Alaska which the same friendly nations always 
conceded to the Empire of Russia. 
With regard to the first of these arguments, namely, that the seizure 
of the Canadian vessels in the Behring’s Sea was justified by the fact 
that they were “engaged in a pur suit that is in itself contra bonos 
* No. 272. 
