Sir Julian
Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.
British
Legation,
Washington, December 17,
1891.
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I
conveyed to the Marquis of Salisbury by telegram the substance of your
note of the 14th instant respecting the sixth article of the proposed
Behring Sea arbitration agreement, and that I have received a reply from
his lordship in the following sense:
Lord Salisbury is afraid that, owing to the difficulties incident to
telegraphic communications, he has been imperfectly understood by the
President. He consented, at the President’s request, to defer for the
present all further discussion as to what course the two Governments
should follow in the event of the regulations prescribed by the
arbitrators being evaded by a change of flag. It was necessary that in
doing so he should guard himself against the supposition that by such
consent he had narrowed the rights of the contending parties or of the
arbitrators under the agreement.
But in the communication which was embodied in my note of the 11th
instant, his lordship made no reservation, as the President seems to
think, nor was any such word used. A reservation would not be valid
unless assented to by the other side, and no such assent was asked for.
Lord Salisbury entirely agrees with the President in his objection to
any point being submitted to the arbitrators which is not embraced in
the agreement; and, in conclusion, his lordship authorizes me to sign
the articles of the arbitration agreement, as proposed at the close of
your note under reply, whenever you may be willing to do so.
I have, etc.,
[Page 605]
Text of articles for insertion in the Behring
Sea arbitration agreement.
The following is the text of articles for insertion in the Behring
Sea arbitration agreement, as settled in the diplomatic
correspondence between the Government of the United States and the
Government of Great Britain:
I.
What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s
Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did
Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of the cession
of Alaska to the United States?
II.
How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries
recognized and conceded by Great Britain?
III.
Was the body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea Included in the
phrase “Pacific Ocean,” as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great
Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea
were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said treaty?
IV.
Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as to the
seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary, in the
treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867,
pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty?
V.
Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of
protection or property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of
the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside
the ordinary 3-mile limit?
VI.
If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such
position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the
establishment of regulations for the proper protection and
preservation of the fur seal in, or habitually resorting to, the
Behring’s Sea, the arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent
regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective
Governments are necessary, and over what waters such regulations
should extend, and to aid them in that determination the report of a
joint commission to be appointed by the respective Governments shall
be laid before them, with such other evidence as either Government
may submit.
The contracting powers furthermore agree to cooperate in securing the
adhesion of other powers to such regulations.
VII.
The respective Governments having found themselves unable to agree
upon a reference which shall include the question of the liability
of each for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the
other, or
[Page 606]
by its citizens,
in connection with the claims presented and urged by it, and being
solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or
longer delay the submission and determination of the main questions,
do agree that either may submit to the arbitrators any question of
fact involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon, the
question of the liability of either Government upon the facts found
to be the subject of further negotiation.
James G. Blaine,
18th
December, 1891.
Julian Pauncefote
,
18th December,
1891.
