Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Uhl.
Washington, May 20, 1895.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 18th instant in reply to mine of the 11th, in which I announced the decision of my Government not to renew for the season 1895 the experimental arrangement for the voluntary sealing up of arms and implements of fishery which was adopted last season with a view to the better protection of sealing vessels against unnecessary interference within the area of the Bering Sea award during the close season.
You inform me that pending the reply of my Government to that proposal its acceptance had been inferred by your Government from the delay in the reply as well as from the language of the British Bering Sea order in council, 1895. You base that inference on the recital in that order in council which states that certain “arrangements” had been made between our respective Governments, and you conclude that the word “arrangements” must be held to include the agreement or understanding between Secretary Carlisle and myself respecting the renewal of the sealing up of arms arrangement.
In the first place, I beg leave to remind you that, as explained in my note of the 11th, there was no “agreement or understanding” between Secretary Carlisle and myself, except that I should refer his draft of proposed regulations for 1895 (of which a copy was inclosed in my note) to my Government for their approval and concurrence.
In the next place, it appears to have entirely escaped the observation of your Government that the “arrangements” mentioned in the order in council of 1895, as well as in all the previous British orders in council, as having been made between the two Governments, are expressly stated to be arrangements for giving effect to articles 4 and 7 of the regulations prescribed by the Bering Sea award, which relate to the form of license, the distinctive flag, and the fitness of the men employed. No inference, therefore, could possibly arise from the language of the order in council, that the arrangements therein mentioned extended to the proposed renewal of the arrangement respecting the sealing, up of arms. “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
As regards the delay on the part of Her Majesty’s Government in replying to the proposal, it should be borne in mind that the question was one calling for careful inquiry into the working of the arrangement during the season of 1894.
As before mentioned, it was an experimental measure, designed for the protection and convenience of the masters of sealing vessels, who themselves objected to it after the experience of one season.
Moreover, it led to the seizure of two British sealing vessels by United States cruisers under a misapprehension by the naval officers concerned as to their legal powers and in violation of the agreement between the two Governments of May 4, 1894 (see Ex. Doc. No. 67, p. 120), which declared that unless there should be evidence of seal hunting no sealing vessel should be seized or detained merely on account of seals, sealskins, or fishery implements being found on board.
A lengthened inquiry into the whole working of the arrangement, therefore, became necessary before Her Majesty’s Government could be expected to arrive at a conclusion. They will learn, no doubt with satisfaction, that the instructions which you mention have been sent by [Page 629] your Government to the officers of the United States patrolling fleet, and I shall not fail to transmit to them a copy of your note by the earliest opportunity.
I have, etc.,