The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-03-28
The Attitude Now assumed by the
British Premier.
THE PROHIBITION OF SEALING UNJUST.
Conditions Under Which an Arrangement Similar
TO That Of Last Year Will De
Entertained.
sreclal to TIE MORNING CALL

LONDON, March 27.-Lord Salisbury, un-
der date of March 26, replied as follows
to SirsJulian Pauncefote in response to Mr..
Wharton'S note of March %. He says:
Notice was given owners of ships sailing
Tor the Bering Sea that agreements to arbi-
trate and immediate ARRANGEMENTS under
discussion between Great Britain and the
United States may affect the liberty of seal
Ing In Berng Sea. They had notice of their
liability 10 interruption and will sail subject
TO that notice. The question of time there
fore is not urgent. We concur in thinking
that until the treaty is ratified our contract
Is governed by your note Of Juue IA, 1890,
but when 1t is ratified both parties must ad-
NIT that the contingent rights which both
desire 10 protect become vested iI Others.
We think the prohibition of sealing, il it
stands alone, would be unjust TO Brit
ish seaiers if the arbitrators should
decide adversely to the United States.
We are willing, however, when the treaty
is ratified 10 agree TO an arrangement
similar TO last year if the United States
will consent that the arbitrator in the event
OF decision diverse 10 tie United States
assess damages inflicted on British sealers
during pending arbitration, and in the
event of decision adverse TO Great Britain
to assess damages which the limitation of
bilTation, have inflicted on the United
States OF It's leSSees. AS An alternative we
are willing after the ratification of the
treaty TO prohibit sealing IN tie disputed
waters If vessels be excepted from prohibi-
tlon which produce a certificate that they
have given security for such damages a.
the arbitTators may assess In case Of de-
cision adverse TO Great Britain, the arbi-
traitors to receive necessary authority in
that respect. ID this case the restriction of
slaughter on the islands will not in point of
equity be necessary Her Majesty's Gov
ernment Is unable TO see any other than
these two methods of restricting seal hunt
ing in disputed waters during arbitration,
which would be equitable TO both parties"
A later note from L'rd Salisbury to Sir
Julian Pauncefote, under date Of March IS
says: with further reference to your
telegram Of March %, am not prepared to
admit. as gather that the President thinks,
that we objected 20 arbitrate, or, having
jurisdiction, to award damages inflicted in
the past by the party against whom the
award is given. l only objected to her
Malesty's Government being liable for ae-
tlon they had not committed. / am ready
10 consent to the referring of this point on
the following terms: In case the arbitrators
decide in favor Of the British Government
they may ask that they further decide
whether the United States Government
since 1885 has taken any action in the
BeriDg Sea directly inhictiDg wrongful less
on British subjects, and also TO assess
damages Incurred thereby; that in case the
arbitrat0rs decide in favor of the Govern
ment Of the United States, they may ask
them TO decide further whether the British
Government, since 1885, has taken any ac-
tion in the BeIing Sea directly infiictng
wrongful loss on the United States, and
their losses, and If so, assess the damages
incurred thereby"