APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 859 
No. 134. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 14.) 
NEWPORT’, September 4, 1891, 
My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that [addressed 
a note on the 26th ultimo to the United States Government in the sense 
of your Lordship’s telegram of the 26th ultimo,* complaining of the 
violation of the Agreement of the 15th June, 1891, with regard to the 
killing of seals by the United States Agent in the seal islands, and 
expressing the conviction of Her Majesty’s Government that the Presi- 
dent will not countenance any evasion of the true spirit of the Agree- 
ment, and will take the necessary measures to insure its. strict 
observance. 
I have now received a note from the Acting Secretary of State, in 
reply, in which he informs me that my statement will receive the 
immediate attention of his Government. 
I have, &e. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, 
No. 135. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received September 21.) 
NEWPoRT, September 10, 1891. 
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 28th ultimo, trans- 
mitting copy of the private and wnofficial letter which I addressed to 
the Acting Secretary of State on the subject of the compensation clause 
of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, I have now the honour to 
inclose a copy of the reply which I received from Mr. Wharton to that 
communication, and the substance of which I reported to your Lord- 
ship in my telegram of the 8th instant. 
I have, &c. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, 
[Inclosure in No. 135.—Private and Unoflicial.] 
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote. 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 7, 1891. 
My Drar Sir JULIAN: Your private and unofficial note of the 26th August was duly 
received, and I desire now to reply to it in the same private and unofficial manner. 
The President is unable to see how the damage clause last proposed by him can be 
held to imply an admission on the part of Great Britain ‘of a doctrine respecting 
the liability of Governments for the acts of their nationals or other persons : sailing 
under their flag on the high seas, which is not warranted by internationallaw.” T he 
proposition was expressly framed so as to submit to the Arbitrator the question of the 
liability of Great Britain for the acts of vessels sailing under its flag. It did not 
assume a liability, but was framed expressly to avoid this objection, which had been 
urged against the previous proposal. I quote from my note of the 23rd July: 
89 “The United States might well insist that Her Majesty’s Government should 
admit responsibility for the acts of the Canadian sealers which it has so directly 
encouraged and promoted, precisely as in the proposal the United States admits 
* See No. 125. 
