, 
520 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
No. 345. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 3.) 
WASHINGTON, May 23, 1890. 
My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday’s date, I have 
the honour to inclose herewith extracts from the “New York Herald” 
and the “New York Evening Post” relative to the instructions given 
to the Revenue cutter “Bear,” and to the report that the Cabinet had 
decided to reject the Behring’s Sea proposal. 
Your Lordship will observe that in the account of the alleged inter- 
view with the correspondent of the “Evening Post,” the Secretary of 
the Treasury is reported to have denied ever having seen the British 
proposal, which throws some doubt upon the statement in the “ Herald,” 
that the Cabinet had refused to accept the proposal. 
I have, &e. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
[Inclosure 1 in No. 345.—Extract from the ‘‘ New York Evening Post” of May 22, 1890.) 
Tht BEHRING’S SEA QUESTION. 
What Secretary Windom says of a Current Report. 
[Special Despatch to the ‘‘ Evening Post.”] 
WASHINGTON, May 22, 1890. 
Secretary Windom was asked this morning what truth there was in the report 
telegraphed from here last night, that he had taken a decisive stand in the Cabinet 
meeting yesterday against the acceptance of the British Behring’s Sea proposal. 
“‘T have not read the despatch,” he answered. ‘If cousequently cannot plead te 
the indictment.” 
“Did you authorize the statement, then, that you did not oppose the acceptance 
of the proposal?” 
“What is the nature of the proposal said to be?” he asked, in reply. 
“That is not given.” 
“No British proposal,” he then said, ‘‘has been submitted to me. I am here 
simply to enforce the law, and Iam trying to do so. But, naturally, I do not care to 
discuss the matter till I have had a chance to see of what I am accused.” 
The instructions given to the Commander of the Revenue cutter “ Bear” respect- 
ing the capture of sealing-vessels in Alaskan waters are identical with those of last 
year, except that captured vessels are to be dismantled, so as {o prevent any repeti- 
tion of the offence during the season. The Commander is to warn all persons against 
entering Behring’s Sea for the purpose of violating the laws of the United States 
therein, and particularly the Jaw which provides that no person shall kilk any fur 
seal ‘‘within the limits of Alaska territory or the waters thereof.” What those 
limits are has not beendefined. The British Columbian sealers hold that they are the 
waters within 3 miles of any land of Alaska territory. Do we hold the con- 
470 trary? Not so far as any authentic documentary evidence has been submitted. 
Not so far as either Congress or the President has declared. We have not gone 
to the length of laying down one rule for Behring’s Sea and a different one for the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence. It would seem, therefore, that the Government has put into 
the discretion of the Commander of a Revenue cutter a question of extreme gravity 
which it has not ventured to decide for itself, and that upon his decision muy rest 
issues of vast importance. Of course, no discussion of the Behring’s Sea question 
of any value will be possible until the negotiations between Secretary Blaine and 
Sir Julian Pauncefote are made public. 
