The record-union., 1892-03-28
Special 10 the RrcoRn.uS1oS.

Special 10 the REcoRD-UN1oN
LONDON, March q. = Lord Salisbury,
under date of March Goth, replied as fol-
lows to Sir Julian Pauncefote in response
to Mr.. Wharton's note of March ODD. He
says: Notice has been given the owners
OF ships sailing for Behring Sea that the
agreement to arbitrate and theimmediate
arrangements under discussion between
Great Britain and the United States may
affect the liberty of sealing in Behring
Sea. They have had notice of their liza
bility to interruption, and will sail sub
Ject to 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 ii, $780, but when it is rati-
fed both parties must admit that the con-
tingent rights which both desire to pro-
tect becomes vested in the other.
We think the prohibition of sealing, if
it stands alone, would be unjust to Brit
lsh sealers, if the arbitrator should de-
eide adversely to the United States. We
are willing, however, that when the
treaty is ratified to agree to an arrange
nlent similar TO last year, il the United
States Will consent that The arbitrators, in
the event of decision adverse to the
United States, assess the damages in
tlicted on the British sealers during the
pending arbitration. and III the event Of a
decision adverse to Great Britain, assess
damages which the limitation slaughter
shall during the tendency OF arbitration
have inflicted on the United States or its
loser.
AS On alternative, we are willing, after
the ratification of the treaty, TO prohibit
sealing in the disputed waters, if the YES
sells be excepted from prohibition which
produce certificate that they have given
security for such damages as the arbi-
traitors may assess in case the decision is
adverse TO Great Britain, the arbitrators
TO receive necessary authority in that re-
Spect.
In this case the restriction of the
slaughter on the islands viii not, in point
of equity, be necessary. Her maiesty's
Government is unable to see any other
than these two methods of restricting seal
hunting in the disputed waters during
arbitration, which would be equitable to
both parties.
Later, note from Lord Salisbury to
Sir Julian Pauncetorte, under date of
March 18th, says: with further refer
ence to your telegram of March 23d l am
not prepared to admit, as | gather the
President thinks, that we object to arbi-
trate or having jurisdiction to award
damages inflicted IN the past by the party
against whom the award is given. l only
objected to her .majesty's Government
being liable for actions they had not COM
mitted.
Il am ready to consent to referring on
this point the following terms in the case:
Ii the arbitrator decide in favor of the
British Government, they may ask that
they further decide whether the United
States (TONnrnnOnnt tul
any action in the Behriug Sea directly
intlicting wrongful loss on British sub
jectS, and also to assess damages incurred
thereby; that in case the arbitrators de-
eide in favor OF the Government of the
United States, they may ask them to de-
eide further whether the British Govern
ment since 1885 has taken any action in
Behring Sea directly inflicting a wrong
full loss on the United States and their
losses, and if SO, assess damages incurred
thereby"
NOTHING TO GIVE TO THE PUBLIC.
WAsHINGToN, March 27.-Salisbury's
reply to Acting Secretary Wharton's note
OF the I'D inst. expressing the hope of
the President that Lord Salisbury would
give prompt and friendly assistance to a
renewal OF last years modus vivendi for
the protection OF seal life in Behring Sea,
was laid before the President this after
noon. 1t bears date of the 10Th, and was
received by Wharton to-day through
Pauncefote. When Wharton laid it be-
fore the President he had brief talk
with him regarding the contents Neither
the President nor the Secretary would in
dictate through the press the nature of the
communication.
PAUNCEFoTE'S NOTE.
WASHINGTON, March 27.-Pauncefote,s
note of June IA, $780, to Blaine, referred
to in Sansbury's letter of the 10Th, ex-
pressed his regrets at the failure TO re-
ceive assurance that during the negotia-
tons for the settlement OF the seal fish
cry question, British vessels would not
be interfered with by United States rev.
enue cutters in Behring Sea outside of
territorial limits: protested against such
interference with British vessels. and said
that her maleSty'S Government learned
with great concern that the Government
of the United States Issued instructions
to revenue cruisers about TO be dis
patched to Behring Sea under which the
vessels OF British subjects would again
be exposed in the prosecution of that
legitimate industry on the high seas 10
unlawful interference at the hands of
American officers.
Her majesty's Government is anxious
to cooperate to the fullest extent OF their
power with the Government of the
United States in such measure as may
be found expedient for the protection of
the seal fisheries. They at the present
moment were engaged in examining, in
concert with the Government of the
United States, the best .method of arriv-
ing at an agreement upon the point, but
they cannot admit the right OF the United
States OF their own sole motion to restrict
for this purpose the freedom of naviga-
| ton in Behring Sea, nor enforce their
municipal Legislation against British YES
sells on the high seas beyond the limits of
their territorial jurisdiction.
Her majesty's Government was, there
fore, unable TO pass over without notice
the public announcement on the part of
the Government OF the United States to
renew their acts OF interference with
British vessels navigating outside the
territorial waters of the United States, OF
which they previously have had to COM
plain.
The undersigned, in consequence. is
instructed TO formally protest against
such interference, and, therefore, that her
britannia Majesty's Government must
, hold the Government of the United States
responsible for the consequences that
may ensue from any acts which are con-
trary to the established principles of in
ternational law
ANARCHISTS IN FRANCE.
Attempt to Blow Up the Residence of
an Enemy to Their Cause.