APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 885 
T suggested that, in the meanwhile, copies of the seven Articles and 
of the Joint Commission Article, which have been agreed to, should be. 
. signed by him and me on behalf of our respective Governments. 
He said that he would submit that course to the President. 
I have, &c. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
110 [Inclosure 1 in No. 160]. 
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote. 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 22, 1891. 
Sir: I have laid before the President your note of the 17th instant, and he directs 
me to express his regret that your Government has not seen fit to accept the modi- 
fied form of the 7th clause which was proposed in my note of the 23rd July last. 
This modification of the clause in question was made with a view to obviate the 
objection urged in your note of the 13th July, and the President is unable to see how 
it 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 per- 
sons sailing under their flag on the high seas for which there is no warrant in inter- 
national law.” 
The proposition was expressly framed, so as to submit to the Arbitrators the 
question of the liability of each Government for specified acts complained of by the 
other, and its language no more implies an admission of liability on the part of one 
Government than on the part of the other. It is precisely because the two Govern- 
ments cannot agree as to the question of liability that arbitration becomes neces- 
sary. The facts upon which the respective claims for compensation rest are not 
seriously in dispute; to wit, the seizureof vesscls and the killing of sealsin Behring’s 
Sea, and it would probably not require the aid of Arbitrators for their ascertain- 
ment. Butit is the more important and difficult question of liability respecting 
which the two Governments find it necessary to invoke the interposition of impartial 
arbitration. It was not the intention of this Government to require of Great Brit- 
ain any admission of liability for the acts complained of, but it has felt that if the 
arbitration was to result in a full settlement of the differences between the two 
Governments, the question of respective liability for these acts should go to the 
Arbitrators for decision. 
In the informal Conferences which have taken place between us since the date of 
my note of the 23rd July, you will remember that 1 have solicited from you any sug- 
gestions in support of the objection that the modified clause assumes a liability on 
the part of your Government, having in view on my part an amendment of the 
phraseology to overcome the objection, and I have to express disappointment that 
no such suggestions were found in your note of the 17th instant. It was for this 
reason, and in the hope that the clause might be made acceptable to your Govern- 
ment, that, after the receipt of your note, I submitted to you informally the follow- 
ing amendment to be added to the 7th clause, as proposed in my note of the 23rd 
July: 
“The above provision for the submission to the Arbitrators by the United States 
of claims for compensation by reason of the killing of seals by persons acting under 
the protection of the British flag shall not be considered as implying any admission 
on the part of the Government of Great Britain of its liability for the acts of its 
nationals or other persons sailing under its flag.” 
We have now been informed by you that your Government is unwilling to accept 
the clause even with this addition by way of amendment. 
When in your note of the 21st February last you communicated the desire of Lord 
Salisbury for a ‘“‘reference to the Arbitrator of the question of damages due to per- 
sons who have been injured, in case it should be determined by him that the action 
of the United States in seizing British vessels had been without warrant in inter- 
national law,” the President cheerfully accepted the suggestion, and, coupling with 
it the claim of damages preferred by the United States, proposed to submit both ques- 
tions, as presented by the respective Governments, to arbitration, thus making a com- 
plete and final settlement of all differences between the two Governments connected 
with the seal fisheries. To withdraw this comprehensive submission of specified 
claims, and substitute for it a mere reference to the Arbitrator of questions of facts 
touching the same claims, which are not to be held binding upon either Government, 
as you propose, is, in the opinion of the President, an imperfect, and, he fears, may 
