840 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
No. 116. 
Mr. Howard to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received July 29.) 
{ Telegraphic.] 
St. PETERSBURGH, July 29, 1891. 
With reference to Sir Robert Morier’s telegram of the 17th instant 
respecting the visit of the British Commission to the Russian seal- 
fisheries, I have the honour to state that I have received a note from 
the Russian Government giving them the necessary permission and 
stating that instructions had been sent to the Governor-General of the 
Amoor Province to facilitate the object of their mission. 
INO: ALT. 
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Howard. 
FOREIGN OFFICE, July 31, 1891. 
Srr: Ihave received your telegram of the 29th instant, ee that 
the Russian Government have authorized the British Commissioners in 
Behring’s Sea to visit the Russian seal fisheries, and that the Governor- 
General at Amoor has been requested to afford them every facility. 
I have to request you to convey to the Russian Government the 
thanks of Her Majesty’s Government for their action in this matter. 
Iam, &e. 
(Signed) SALISBURY, 
No. 418; 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 3.) 
WASHINGTON, July 24, 1891. 
My Lorp: In my despatch of the 14th instant.I had the honour to 
transmit to your Lordship a copy of the note of the 13th which I 
addressed to the United States Government, submitting the new clause 
in the Arbitration Agreement which I had been authorized by your 
Lordship to propose on the subject of damages. I have had several 
discussions at the State Department, in the course of which I have 
strongly contended for the principle that the validity of any claim put 
forward by either party should be left to the decision of the Arbitrators. 
This I consider a most important point, for it is highly improbable 
that the United States Government should succeed in establishing their 
claim to an exclusive right of fishery on the high seas, except under a 
new rule of international law, based on exceptional circumstances, and 
which the Arbitrators may lay down as applicable to the present case. 
If so, it would seem inequitable that Great Britain should pay damages 
for the infraction of an ex post facto rule of law. Moreover, a claim of 
damages for injury caused to the property of the United States in the 
seal islands alleged to have been caused by pelagic sealing may be open 
to objection on the ground of its remoteness and of the impractica- 
_ bility of fixing any correct measure of compensation. 
