Office of the Historian

Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

British Legation,
Washington, May 11, 1892.

Sir: In the memorandum which you placed in my hands on the 23d ultimo, respecting the instructions to be issued to naval officers charged with the enforcement of the modus vivendi in Behring Sea, under the convention of the 18th ultimo, it was suggested that sealing vessels found in Behring Sea in contravention of the convention should be seized without the previous warning given last year, owing to the late date at which the modus vivendi of 1891 was agreed to.

I transmitted the memorandum to the Marquis of Salisbury, and I have now received his lordship’s observations thereon.

Lord Salisbury points out that the act of Parliament referred to in the memorandum throws on the owner and master of any ship found in Behring’s Sea with the equipment specified, the duty of proving innocent intent. The British instructions of last year did not require proof of previous warning before seizure, but authorized the naval officers to let a vessel go with warning if they thought the master was acting in [Page 640] ignorance of the prohibition or believed his ship to be outside the line of demarcation.

Her Majesty’s Government see no reason for altering that instruction. They will take steps to warn the sealing vessels which cleared before notice was given of the renewal of the modus vivendi, and it is not likely that many vessels will be left unwarned. But, in their opinion, it would seem desirable that, in order to obviate cases of hardship which might arise, the United States naval officers should receive some discretion similar to that given in the British instructions.

I have, etc.,

Julian Pauncefote.

Memorandum referred to in preceding note.

[undated.]

The British seal fishery act of 1891, paragraph 5, made the presence of a vessel in Behring Sea with sealing outfit, etc., a prima facie offense. But, owing to the late date at which the modus of 1891 was agreed to, the naval vessels abstained from making arrests until after the sealers had received a warning. This fact was the chief cause of the in efficiency of that modus. It is proposed to make effective the modus of 1892 by enforcing the provision of the act above cited without further notice.