APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 61% 
Beyond this issue on the particular question of fact, whether I did or 
did not assent to the proposals of the United States as unreservedly as 
Mr. Phelps imagined, there is a larger question in regard to which I 
must respectfully differ from the opinion expressed by Mr. Blaine. He 
speaks of these conversations as constituting an Agreement, and 
alludes to one of them under the name of the Agreement of the 25th 
February. I do not think that this was the object which the parties 
liad in view in the conversation to which Mr. Blaine refers. They were 
not making binding stipulations or definitive Agreements. No word, as 
far as I remember, was uttered on one side or the other to indicate that 
so unusual a meaning was attached to the language used. ‘They were, 
as such conversations usually are, preliminary conversations, intended 
to lead up to an Agreement. If the words uttered in a conversation at 
which no notes are taken are intended to constitute in any sense or 
degree an Agreement between persons taking part in the conversation, 
it seems to me essential that the subsequent record which contains the 
phrases which are to be construed as an Agreement should be drawn 
up with the concurre:ce of both the parties who have taken part in the 
conversation. Any other course must necessarily lead to misunder- 
standing. 
If Mr. Blaine should revert to the matter again you may read to him 
this despatch, but I do not think the question is of sufficient importance 
to require any communication on your part unless he should refer 
specially to it. 
Tam, &c. 
(Signed) SALISBURY, 
No. 16. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 12.) 
|Telegraphic.] P. 
WASHINGTON, November 12, 1890. 
I failed in my efforts to see Mr. Blaine until to-day, when I reminded 
him of your Lordship’s proposal of arbitration in the Behring’s Sea con- 
troversy, and pressed him for an answer in view of the approaching 
meeting of Parliament. He said that the delay in sending an answer 
was due to the pressure of home politics during the recess. He was, 
however, now engaged I in writing me a note in answer to my note of the 
12th August, in which I communicated to him your Lordship’s despatch 
of the £ ond August. This note he said would be delivered before the 
meeting of Parliament or the reassembling of Congress, and would, he 
thought, advance matters. In the meantime any further discussion is 
deferred. 
No.7. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received November 17.) 
WASHINGTON, November 7, 1890. 
My Lorp: IL have the honour to transmit herewith two copies of the 
transcript of record in the appeal case of the schooner ‘Sylvia Handy” 
», the United States, 
