APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 907 
Mr. Blaine readily admitted that in such case there would be an end 
of the Agreement, and said that every one would then be free to go in 
and make havoc of the seal fishery; but he persisted in treating it as 
a most remote contingency. He deprecated making arrangements to 
meet the evil before it arose, and thought the mere suggestion of such 
interference by other Powers would be mischievous. ‘Che point had 
not been raised before, and he could not understand why it should be 
introduced at this late hour when we were on the point of signing the 
Agreement. 
L replied that the difficulty of protecting the seal fishery otherwise 
than on the basis of an international agreement among all the Powers © 
had been repeatedly pointed out in the press of both countries, and by 
every writer on the subject. It was, indeed, admitted by the last para- 
graph of the 6th Article itself, whereby the two Governments agreed 
to invite the adhesion of the other Powers to the Regulations. -Kven 
if the contingency in view were so remote, as Mr. Blaine contended, I 
could not see what harm it could do to have such understanding as 
that suggested by your Lordship, and proposed in my note of the 1st 
instant, which would provide for the case of any difference of opinion 
arising as to the gravity of the injury caused to the fishery by the 
violation of the Regulations under foreign flags. 
Mr. Blaine said that he could not consent to add a new term to the 
6th Article as already agreed to after so much correspondence and 
discussion. 
I replied that there could be no agreement if the two Governments 
were not ad idem as to its meaning. The arrangement proposed by 
your Lordship was in no way inconsistent with the 6th Article. 
130 It was merely intended to make it clearer, and to regulate the 
action of the two Governments in certain events which might 
cause difficulties hereafter. 
Mr. Blaine, however, insisted that it would be time enough to deal 
with those difficulties if and when they should arise. 
I then brought the interview to a close, and on the same day I 
addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, of which a copy is transmitted herewith. 
I received this day a reply thereto, of which I have the honour to 
inclose a copy. 
This correspondence does not carry the matter any further, but it 
places on record the fact that while the United States Government 
admit that the proposed Regulations may be rendered nugatory by their 
violation under the flags of other Powers, they decline the reasonable 
proposal of Her Majesty’ s Government to settle beforeland the con- 
ditions under which the Regulations shall be deemed to have lapsed 
or to be suspended. 
The conclusion would seem to be that each Government will be free 
to form its own judgment of the situation, and to take such action as it 
shall think fit under the circumstances. 
I have, &c. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
[Inclosure 1 in No. 188.] 
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote. 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 2, 1891. 
Sir: I have attentively read your note of the 1st instant, and submitted it to the 
President. ‘The President is unable to see the danger which Lord Salisbury appre- 
hends, of a third nation engaging in taking seals regardless of the Agreement 
