946 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
for the United States but to proceed on the basis of their own confident 
contention, that pelagic sealing is an infraction of its jurisdiction and 
proprietary rights. This, in the opinion of the President, constitutes 
the gravity of the situation, and he is not willing to be found responsi- 
ble for such results as may follow from an insistance on the part of 
either Government during this hunting season on the extreme rights 
claimed by it. The two great Governments interested in the question 
would be discredited in the eyes of the world if the friendly adjust- 
ment of their difficulties, which is so nearly concluded, were to be 
thwarted, or even disturbed, on account of the paltry profits of a sin- 
gle season. But if your Lordship persists in refusing to join the Gov- 
ernment of the United States in stopping pelagic sealing promptly, 
and insists upon the maintenance of free sealing for British subjects, 
the question no longer is one of pecuniary loss or gain, but one of honour 
and self-respect, so far as it affects the Government of the United States. 
The United States have proposed to take no profit from the island 
catch, notwithstanding that their right to take seals on the islands is 
neither disputed nor involved in the arbitration, and to engage that 
the take should be limited to the necessities of the natives. Whether 
with or without indemnity, they are unable to consent that the rights 
of British subjects in Behring’s Sea, which are contested, shall continue 
to be exercised while arbitration is pending. The President finds it 
difficult to believe that your Lordship is serious in proposing that bonds 
against the injury which may be inflicted on the jurisdiction or property 
of the United States shall be taken by the United States Government 
from the owners of about 100 Canadian vessels, and he must decline to 
discuss a suggestion which only his respect for your Lordship, and his 
belief that the gravity of this discussion is fully realized by your Lord- 
ship, enables him to treat seriously. 
In order to secure the proposed bonds, the United States would have 
to pursue owners upon the sea, and as the condition is to be that “any 
damages which the Arbitrators shall adjudge” shall be paid by the 
owners, while no power to adjudge such damages is given to the Arbi- 
trators by the Treaty, the transaction would be of no value to the 
United States, and without risk to theowners. But however adequate 
the security offered, the United States Government cannot consent to 
have its rights impaired, pending their determination by a Tribunal 
of Arbitration. The reference in Mr. Blaine’s last note to the incon- 
sistency of Her Majesty’s Government in denying responsibility for the 
acts of Canadian sealers was not meant to imply that the United States 
would be willing to consent to the conversion of their property into a 
claim for damages, particularly as the Arbitrators cannot determine such 
a claim unless the Treaty be revised. Your Lordship should bear in 
mind, whilst making your present proposal, that the fact of the Arbi- 
trators not having jurisdiction as to damages is the result of conces- 
sions made by the United States Government to your views. 
The President fails to see how claims can, by law or equity, be brought 
by subjects of either Power against their respective Governments, on 
account of restraints imposed with a view to the promotion of the public 
good or of international peace. There is full provision in the Treaty 
itself against the suggestion, that the conclusion of the arbitration will 
not be reached before the season of 1893. As to the Delagoa Bay Arbi- 
tration, your Lordship is in error in thinking that it has been proceed- 
ing for four years. It dates from a period of less than one year ago. 
If the Treaty is promptly ratified, mutual interests will be a sufficient 
guarantee against delay. The sole obstacle to such a consummation is 
