The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-03-28
TWO PLANS SUGGESTED.
The Conditions on Which England
viii Renew Last Years
Agreement
One Proposition Is That the
Loser at Arbitration Pay
Damages.
Tho Other Allows British Vessels. ON civ
Ing Security for Damage Done. to
Continue Fishing.

III LONDON, March 27.--Lord Salisbury, un-
der date Of March &C. replied as follows to
blrJul1an Pauncefote in response to Assist
ant Secretary of State Wharton's note of
hlaFeh 22. He aays: "Notice was given
owners of ships sailing for Boring sen that
the agreements to the arbitration and the
immediate arrangements under discussion
between Great Britain and the United
States, may affect the liberty of sealing IN
Berlng sea. They had notice Of their liza
billty to interruption and will sail subject
20 that notice. The question Of time,
therefore. is not urgent We concur In
thinking that when the treaty is ratified
our contract will be governed by your note
of June IA, 1890. But whom it is ratified
both parties must admit that the con tin
gent rights which both desire to protect be-
come vested in the other. We think the
prohibition Of sealing, it it stands alone,
would BE- unjust to British sealers, if the
arbitrators should decide adversely to the
United States. We are willing, however,
when ths treaty is ratified, to agree to an
arrangement similar to last year's, if the
United States will consent that
the arbitrators in the event of
9 decision adverse to the United
States, assess tho damages inflicted on
British senlers during the pending arbitra-
tion; and in the event Of decision adverse
TO Great Britain assess damages which the
Limitation of slaughter shall during the
pending arbitration have inflicted on the
United States or it's lessees. Az an aIterna-
tive we are willing until the ratitica-
tion OF the treaty, to prohibit sealing in
disputed waters, if vessels be excepted
from the prohibition which produce Ger
tficate that they have given security for
such damages as the arbitrators may as
seas in case the decision is adverse to Great
Britain, the arbitrators to receive the nee
essary authority in that respect. In this
case the restriction of slaughter on the is
lands will not in point of equity be neces-
sary. Her majesty's government is unable
e see any other than one Of these two
methods Of restricting seal hunting in the
d1Rprasd waters during the arbitration,
whicn would be equitable to both parties, :,
A later note from Lord Salisbury to Sir
Julian Pauncefots, under date Of March
B. says: with further reference to YOUR
telegram of March %. ] am not repaired to
admit. as gather the presio.aat thinks,
that We objected to the arbitrators having
jurisdiction to award the damages inflicted
in tho past by the party against whom the
award is given. / only objected to Her
Majesty's government being liable for acts
they had not committed. / am ready to
consent to referring this point on the fol-
lowing terms: In case the arbitrators de-
eide in favor Of the British government, we
may ask that they further decide whether
the United States government since 1885
has taken any action in Bering sea directly
inficting wrongful loss on British subjects;
and also in cass tho arbitrators decide in
favor of the government of the United
States it may ask them to decide further
whether the British government since 1885
has taken any action in BerinR sea directly
inf1icting wrongful loss on the United
States and its lesses, and if so assess the
damages.