936 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
No. 237. 
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received March 10.) 
WASHINGTON, March 1, 1892. 
My Lorp: With reference to the question of the renewal of the 
modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to inclose copy of the 
note which, upon receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 27th ultimo, 
[ addressed to Mr. Blaine on the subject. 
I have, &c. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
155 [Ineclosure in No. 237.] 
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine. 
WASHINGTON, February 29, 1892. 
Sir: Immediately upon the receipt of your note of the 24th instant, respecting a 
renewal of the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, and in accordance with the wish 
therein expressed, I telegraphed its contents to the Marquis of Salisbury. 
In that note, after observing that it is impossible to conclude the Arbitration 
within the time originally set, and that the delays have been much greater on the 
part of Great Britain than on the part of the United States, you proceed to inform 
me that in the view of the President the new modus vivendi should be much the same 
as that of last year in terms; that owing to the earlier date this year it could be 
more effectively executed; but that ‘‘if Her Majesty’s Government would make their 
efforts most effective, the sealing in the North Pacific Ocean should be forbidden.” 
After pointing out ‘‘the great need of an effective modus,” you state that ‘‘ holding 
an Arbitration in regard to the rightful mode of taking seals while their destruction 
goes forward, would be as if, while an Arbitration to the title to timber-land were 
in progress, one party should remove all the trees.” 
I have the honour to inform you that I have received a reply from Lord Salisbury 
to the following effect: 
In the first place, his Lordship states that he cannot in any degree admit that the 
delays have been greater on the part of Great Britain than on the part of the United 
States. 
As regards the necessity for another modus vivendi, Her Majesty’s Government con- 
sented to that measure last year solely on the ground that it was supposed that there 
would be danger to the preservation of the seal species in Behring’s Sea unless some 
interval in the slaughter of seals were prescribed both at sea and on land. But Her 
Majesty’s Government have received no information to show that so drastic a remedy 
is necessary for two consecutive seasons. On the contrary, the British Commissioners 
on the Behring’s Sea Joint Commission have informed Her Majesty’s Government that, 
so far as pelagic sealing is concerned, there is no danger of any serious diminution 
of the fur-seal species as a consequence of this year’s hunting. 
Nevertheless, Lord Salisbury would not object, as a temporary measure of pre- 
caution for this season, to the prohibition of all killing at sea within a zone extend- 
ing to not more than 30 nautical miles around the Prybiloff Islands, such prohibition 
being conditional on the restriction of the number of seals to be killed for any pur- 
pose on the islands to a maximum of 30,000. 
Lord Salisbury, referring to the passage in your note in which you compare the 
case to an Arbitration about timber-land from which the trees are being removed by 
one of the parties, observes that he hardly thinks the simile quite apposite. His 
Lordship suggests that the case is more like one of Arbitration respecting the title 
toa meadow. While the Arbitration is in progress, he adds,-we cut the grass, and 
quite rightly, for the grass will be reproduced next year, and so will the seals. 
I have, &c. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
