APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 691 
No. 6. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 8.) 
WASHINGTON, April 27, 1891. 
My Lorp: With reference to my telegam of the 22nd instant, I 
have the honour to inclose a copy of the note which | addressed to Mr. 
Blaine, as reported in my above-mentioned telegram, informing him 
that your Lordship was disposed favourably to entertain his alterna- 
tive suggestion for a modus vivendi pending the result of the Behring’s 
Sea arbitration, namely, to stop all sealing, both at sea and on land, 
and inquiring whether, in case the proposal be finally accepted, he 
would prefer that it should be made by Her Majesty’s Government. 
In my telegram of the 25rd instant I had the honour to report to your 
Lordship the verbal reply which I had received from Mr. Blaine to that 
communication. It was to the effect that he would prefer that the pro- 
posal should come from Her Majesty’s Government, but that before 
taking any further step he desired to communicate by telegraph with 
the President, who was absent from Washington. I called to-day on 
Mr. Blaine to inquire whether he was now prepared to proceed with the 
proposal. He informed me that the President felt some difficulty aris- 
ing from the fact that the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands are under con- 
tract to maintain a large number of natives (Aleuts) engaged in 
3 their sealing operations, and these they would have to support at 
a heavy loss during the whole period of the modus vivendi. This 
loss would ultimately fall on the United States Government, and he 
had, therefore, suggested whether it might not be stipulated that a 
moderate number of seals might be killed on the islands, sufficient to 
cover the loss in question. I replied that I did not think such a sug- 
gestion would commend itself to your Lordship. The proposal that 
sealing should be stopped, both at sea and on land, was based on the 
recommendation of the United States Government Agents, whose 
Reports had been laid before Congress, and copies of which I trans- 
mitted to your Lordship in my despatch No. 41 of the 20th February 
last. 
In acceding to the proposal, Her Majesty’s Government would give a 
striking proof of their solicitude for the preservation of the seal species, 
and of the spirit of conciliation with which they were animated. There 
was to be an equal sacrifice on both sides, and it would be unreason- 
able that the proposed modus vivendi should be saddled with any 
special reservation for the benefit of either party. 
I further observed that, in view of the fact that the opening of the 
fishery season is already at hand, no time should be lost in putting it into 
force, if it is to be of any value this season. 
I suggested that it might be agreed to put it in force for this season, 
irrespectively of the arbitration, and that in such case it would be a 
convenient time to send a Joint Commission of Experts to the Islands 
to collect evidence for the purposes of arbitration. I failed to perceive 
how any Arbitrators would undertake to pronounce an award on the 
question of a close time without proper materials on which to found 
their judgment, and these materials could alone be supplied by a Joint 
Commission. I added that I had no authority from your Lordship to 
make such a suggestion, but that [ ventured to throw it out for con- 
sideration. Mr. Blaine replied that, as regards the reservation of the 
right to kill a limited number of seals on the islands to cover the loss 
which would result to the Company for the support of the Aleuts in 
their employ, that was a condition which might perhaps not be insisted 
