FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE BEHRING SEA 
SEAL FISHERIES, 
No 21. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 17.) 
WASHINGTON, July 4, 1890. 
My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit a copy of the reply which 
I have received from the Secretary of State to my note of the 27th 
ultimo, of which a copy was inclosed in my despatch of the 27th ultimo.* 
It appears to me that Mr. Blaine attaches an undue significance to 
the word “forthwith” in my above-mentioned note. 
It is obvious that, if British sealers are to be requested not to enter 
Behring’s Sea this season, on the ground of the proposed arbitration, 
there must be no delay in proceeding to that mode of adjustment, and 
it was, therefore, naturally made a condition not “that the President 
shouid forthwith accept a formal arbitration which your Lordship pre- 
scribes,” but ‘‘that the two Governments should agree forthwith to 
refer to arbitration” the question of the legality of the seizures of 
British sealing-vessels. 
That is the question of law in difference between the two Govern- 
nents, and Iam at a loss to understand why Mr. Blaine should com- 
plain of its being so stated. 
I shall have the honour of addressing your Lordship in a separate 
despatch on the present situation of the question, which has been 
brought back again by the United States Government to a question of 
legal right. 
I have, &c. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
[Inclosure in No. 1.] 
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote. 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 2, 1890. 
Sir: Your note of the 27th ultimo, covering Lord Salisbury’s reply to the friendly 
suggestion of the President, was duly received. It was the design of the President, 
if Lord Salisbury had been favourably inclined to his proposition, to submit a form 
of settlement for the consideration of Her Majesty’s Government which the President 
believed would end all dispute touching privileges in Behring’s Sea. But Lord Salis- 
bury refused to accept the proposal unless the President should “forthwith” accept 
a formal arbitration which his Lordship prescribes. The President’s request was 
made in the hope that it might lead to a friendly basis of agreement, and he cannot 
think that Lord Salisbury’s proposition is responsive to his suggestion. Besides, the 
*See “United States No. 2 (1890),” p.510. 
591 
