The San Francisco call., 1895-11-26
Said the Senator Had Created
Prejudices That Defeated
the Claims.
HIS FULL CORRESPONDENCE.
British Diplomats Yet Appear to Be
Confident That Ample Damages
Will Be Paid.

correspondence between Sir J uIlan Paunce-
fote, British ambassador to the United
States, and the Foreign Office, covering the
period from May 8, 1894, to August 81, 1895,
respecting the claims in connection with
the Bering Sea seizures, was received by
the State Department to-day. An abstract
of it was cabled by The United Press from
London a week ago, but many interest
ing points remain TO be covered. 1t would
appear from Sir Julian's dispatch to
Lord Kimberley on the 2Sth of February
last, that the adverse majority in the
House of Representatives against settle.
ment of the claim for S425, 900 was "a sur
prise as well as grave disappointment"
to him. 'Strong party feeling" he con-
tinues, ''would seem to account for the re-
lection of so just and desirable an agree
ment, and, as your Lordship will have
noticed from the Enclosures in my dispatch,
statements have been made in Congress
which are entirely misleading, both as to
the law and the facts of the case"
Sir Julian then reviews some of these
statements and concludes his letter with
the declaration that they "were calculated
to prejudice the minds of many members
of Congress and also turn public opinion
against 4 settlement of the question, which
was equitable and advantageous to both
parties"
The most interesting feature of the cor
respondence is the dispatch under date of
March Is last to Lord Kimberley, in which
Sir Julian makes vigorous rejoinder to
the argument of Senator Morgan of Ala
bama against the payment of the $425, 900.
His summary of Senator Morgan's objec-
tions, which Sir Julian says the Senator
was refused leave to print in the Congress
sional Record as a part of his speech and
which were communicated to The United
Press in the form of a memoranda after
the adjournment of Congress, covers the
following points:
"That the United States never agreed to
arbitrate the question of the liability for
damages consenting only to negotiate re-
specting them; that the total amount
claimed by Great Britain was $542 ,169; that
the items for the loss of profits should not
be allowed; that the excess proposed to be
allowed by she Secretary of State was fully
$1S2, 900; that ten of the ships seized were
owned by citizens of the United States,
and that the amount claimed by British
subjects, less speculative damages, was
only $70,924; that even this amount was
excessive inasmuch as the personal claims
should be deducted, leaving only $36, ,2S9,
and that SIS, 500 of this sum is not allow
able as charge for the seizure OF the Hen
rietta, which occurred under the modus
vivendi."
Replying to Senator Morgan's first con-
tention ''that the United States never
agreed TO arbitrate the question of liability
for damages, etc." Sir Julian observes
that mo admission of liability became
necessary from the moment that the Paris
tribunal, by its award, had rejected the
legal pretensions of the United States to q
special property in the fur seals resorting
to the Pribyloff Islands. That decision at
once proclaimed the lllegality of the seiz-
ures and the liability OF the United States
to satisfy the claims. That was the basis
of the diplomatic negotiation for the ad-
justment of the claims, and I am at loss
how to conceive what other view could be
taken without disputing the Paris award"
Sir Julian goes on TO show that Senator
Morgan was mistaken in fixing the total
amount of the claims at S542, 169. 1t was,
he says, upward of $786, 900. Senator Nor
gan, he says, would allow no compensa-
ton for loss of profit of the fishery season
and quotes from the Judgment of the tri-
bunal in the Geneva arbitration the we'll
known passage to the effect that no COM
pensation car be awarded under the head
of prospective earnings" as they depend
''upon future and uncertain contingent
cies." But Senator Morgan omits to men
tion that the tribunal did in fact take such
losses into consideration in awarding a
gross sum by way of indemnity, the tri-
bunal allowing a large item ''in lieu of
profits" This is shown by the estimates
of damages contained in protocol 20 of the
Geneva conferences, in which the decision
to awardthe gross sum of $l5, 500, 900 is re-
corded. Continuing, Sir Julian says:
"But of all the unfounded objections
which have been urged again st the claims
that which seems to have made the great
est impression upon the public mind is
the statement that most of the vessels on
behalf of which the claims are made were
owned by persons whom Senator Morgan
stigmatized in the Senate as recalcltrant
and rascally Americans who hired them
selves out to the British flag to rob the
Government of the United States and to
violate its laws and dishonor the coun-
try"
These ''vituperative epithets." Sir Julian
says, are quite unmerited, and he shows
by reference to the British navigation laws
that no alien can hold any share in a regis
tered British vessel under penalty of for
feiture of the vessel to the crown. The
owner of vessel may mortgage her to an
alien, but he does not thereby part with
his property In the vessel-he only makes
her security for the loan.
Sir Julian sarcastically inquiries why the
American citizen should be called "ras-
CAL" What law has he violated by ad-
vancing this money, and in what respect
has the United States Government been
robbed - considering that it has no prop
erty in the fur seal, as was solemnly de-
clareo by the tribunal of Paris? The Brit
ish flag and the law of nations. Sir Julian
asserts, have been violated on the high seas,
and it appears to him that any inquiry
into the sources of the capital invested in
the industry pursued by the vessel at the
-