Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-03-28
sAL,snunY's REPLY.
England Does Not Object 10 ArbItrAts
she question of Damages,


LONDON, March 97.-Lotd Sails
bury, under date OF March 26lh, replied
us follows TO Sir Julian Pauncelolu IN
response To Mir. Wharion's note Of
March s2ud. lie says: "Notlce was
given 10 owners Of ships sailing for
Bcring sen that there wasan agreement
10 arbitfate, and tina, immediate ar,
Judgements were under discussion be-
tween Great Britain ana the United
States which may affect the liberty OF
sealing Ia Berlng sea. They had rotice
OF their liability 10 interruption, Bnd
viii sail subject to that notice. The
question Of lime, therefore, Ia urgent.
We concur In thinking that, when
tho treaty II ratified, our contract
il governed by your note Of June II,
1890. But, when II IL ratified, both
parties must admit that contingent
rights, which both desire TO protect,
become vested In the other. We
think that prOlibi ion Of sealing,
" II stands alone, would be unjust
TO British sealcrs, IL the aFbltfAtofa
should decide adversely 10 the United
Slater. We are wiling, however,
when the treaty shall be ratified, TO
ngree % au agreement similar 10
last yearis, II the United States will
consent that the arbitrator, Ia tho
rvcnt Of decision adverse 10 the
United States, shall ASSESS the damages
inflicted On the British sealrIs during
the pending arbitration; and, In the
event OF decision adverse 10 Great
Britain, assess tho damages which the
limitation Of the slaughter shall, dur
ing the pendcncy Of arbitration, nave
inflicted on the United States or
H. leestes. Asau alternative we nra
willing, after ratification ut the treaty,
tO prohibit sealing In the disputed
waters, II vessels be excepted from
the prohibition which produce ccr-
tiilCnle that they have given security
Tor such damages ns the atbitrators
may assess Ia onse Of decision I'D.
verse to Great Britain, the arbitratoN
to receive the necessary authority in
that respect. In this case tho res,ric.
ton OF slaughter on the islands viii
not, In point oi equity, be necessary.
Her Majesty's government is unable
10 sea any other than one Of these
two methods OF restricting seal hunt.
ing ia the disputed waters, during the
arbitration, which would be equitable
TO 10th partics.n
A later note from Lord Salisbury 20
Sir Julian pauucei0tr, under date OF
March 20, says: "With further refer.
rncc to your telegram Of March 99rd,
| am not prepared 10 admit ny | gather
that the PRECEDENT thinks, that we .ob.
jeo,ed 10 tine ArbitmtOrs having iurls.
diction to award damages Inflicted In
TIE pat by the party against whom
the award ~ given. only objected 10
her mulosty's government being liable
for acts they have not committed. 1
am ready 10 consent to referring on
this point on the following terms: In
ease the nrhitTators decide In favor OF
the Brtiah government, they may ask
that they further decide whether tho
Unltcl States government since 1855,
has taken amy action Ia Berlng Sea III.
rectly iuilctlng "A wrongful loss on
British subjects, and also 10 assess tho
dnmagcs Incurred thereby, that, In
case tile Grbitrltors decide Ia favor OF
the United Sta!es, they may ask them