Page images
PDF
EPUB

ratifications du Traité, les accords et déclarations qui sont men-
tionnés dans le Protocole seront considérés comme approuvés sans
autre ratification spéciale.
Fait à Rome, le 6 Décembre, 1891.

(L.S.) RUDINI.
(L.S.) G. MALVANO.
(L.S.) N. MIRAGLIA,
(L.S.) B. STRINGHER.
(L.S.) A. MONZILLI.
(L.S.) GRAF E. SOLMS.

NOTIFICATION by the Government of India, respecting the

Appointment of the Judicial Assistant to Her Majesty's Consul-General for Fars to be a Subordinate Judge within the Limits of the Persian Coast and Islands.Simla, June 23, 1891.

In virtue of the powers conferred by section 23 of “ The Persian Coast and Islands Order in Council, 1889,"* and section 22 of " The Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869," as applied to the said coast and islands by the said Order, the Governor-General in Council is pleased to appoint the officer for the time being holding the appointment of Judicial Assistant to Her Majesty's Consul-General for Fars, and the coast and islands of the Persian Gulf, to be a Subordinate Judge within the local limits of the said coast and islands; and, under sections 24 and 28 of the said Act, to invest him with the powers of a Subordinate Judge of the first class, and of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes for the trial of suits cognizable by sach Courts up to the amount of 500 rupees.

This appointment is made subject to the assent of the Secretary of State, which will hereafter be published in the “Gazette of India."

* Vol. LXXXI, page 913. † Approved by the Secretary of State for India, August 20, 1891. [1890-91. LXXXII.]

X

CORRESPONDENCE between Great Britain and the United

States, respecting the Behring Sea Seal Fisheries.-1890, 1891.*

[Continued from Vol. LXXXII, pages 202 to 291.]

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received July 17.) MY LORD,

Washington, July 4, 1890. I HAVE the honour to transmit a copy of the reply which I have received from the Secretary of State to my note of the 27th ultimo, of which a copy was inclosed in my despatch of that date.

It appears to me that Mr. Blaine attaches an undue significance to the word “forthwith” in my above-mentioned note.

It is obvious that, if British sealers are to be requested not to enter Behring Sea this season, on the ground of the proposed arbitration, there must be no delay in proceeding to that mode of adjustment, and it was, therefore, naturally made a condition not “ that the President should forth with accept a formal arbitration which your Lordship prescribes," but that the two Governments should

agree forthwith to refer to arbitration ” the question of the legality of the seizures of British sealing.vessels.

That is the question of law in difference between the two Governments, and I am at a loss to understand why Mr. Blaine should complain of its being so stated.

I shall have the honour of addressing your Lordship in a separate despatch on the present situation of the question, which has been brought back again by the United States' Government to a question of legal right.

I have, &c., The Marquess of Salisbury.

JULIAN PAUNCEYOTE.

(Inclosure.) Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote. SIR,

Department of State, Washington, July 2, 1890. Your note of the 27th ultimo, covering Lord Salisbury's reply to the friendly suggestion of the President, was duly received. It was the design of the President, if Lord Salisbury had been favourably inclined to his proposition, to submit a form of settlement for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government which the President believed would end all dispute touching privileges in

* This correspondence is extracted from Parliamentary Papers, United States, No. 1 and No. 2, 1891.

Behring Sea. But Lord Salisbury refused to accept the proposal unless the President should " forth with " accept a formal arbitration which his Lordship prescribes. The President's request was made in the hope that it might lead to a friendly basis of agreement, and he cannot think that Lord Salisbury's proposition is responsive to his suggestion. Besides, the answer comes so late that it would be impossible now to proceed this season with the negotiation the President had desired.

An agreement to arbitrate requires careful consideration. The United States is perhaps more fully committed to that form of international adjustment than any other Power, but it cannot consent that the form in which arbitration shall be undertaken shall be decided without full consultation and conference between the two Governments.

I beg further to say that you must have misapprehended what I said touching British claims for injuries and losses alleged to have been inflicted upon British vessels in the Behring Sea by agents of the United States. My declaration was that arbitration would logically and necessarily include that point. It is not to be conceded, but decided with other issues of far greater weight.

I bave, &c., Sir J. Pauncefote.

JAMES G. BLAINE.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury.- (Received

August 25.) My LORD,

Magnolia, August 14, 1890. I had the honour to receive on the 11th instant your Lordship’s despatch of the 2nd of this month, relating to the Behring Sea controversy, and I now beg to inclose herewith a copy of the note with which, in accordance with the instructions contained in that despatch, I forwarded a copy of the same to the Secretary of State.

I have, &c., The Marquess of Salisbury.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[ocr errors]

copy of

(Inclosure.)—Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

Magnolia, August 12, 1890. I TRANSMITTED without delay to the Marquess of Salisbury a

your note of the 30th June relating to the Behring Sea controversy, and in which you comment upon a despatch from his Lordship, dated the 22nd May, of which I had the honour to leave a copy with you. I have now received a despatch from Lord Salisbury, dated the

[graphic]

2nd August, in reply to those comments, and, in accordance with his Lordship’s instructions, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of it and of its inclosures. You will observe that in the last paragraph, I am directed to state that Her Majesty's Government have no desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in Behring Sea which was conceded by Great Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the present possessors of Alaska in virtue of Treaties or of the law of nations; and that if the United States' Government, after examination of the evidence and arguments which are produced in that despatch, still differ from them as to the legality of the recent captures in that sea, Her Majesty's Government are ready to agree that the question, with the issues that depend on it, should be referred to impartial arbitration.

In that case I am authorized to consider, in concert with you, the method of procedure to be followed.

I have, &c., J. G. Blaine, Esq.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury.—(Received

December 30.) My LORD,

Washington, December 19, 1890. I have the honour to transmit herewith a printed copy of a note which I received on the 17th instant from the Secretary of State.

It contains the reply of the United States' Government to your Lordship's despatch of the 2nd August last, offeriog on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to submit to arbitration the question of the legality of the recent seizures of British sealing-vessels in the Behring Sea by United States' revenue cruisers.

The voluminous character of this note precludes any attempt to give even a brief abstract of its contents within the limits of a despatch.

Its main feature, however, is that while the United States' Government decline to submit to arbitration the real question in controversy, namely, the legality of the seizures of British vessels in the Behring Sea outside of territorial waters, they express their willingness to submit to arbitration certain historical and political questions which, in my humble opinion, would raise false issues, however pertinent they may be as supplying materials for argument in support of the American contention. For, even if all those questions were decided in favour of the United States, it would not follow that the seizures were justified, or that the claim of the

United States to the control of any part of the Behring Sea outside of territorial waters could be supported by international law.

I have, &c., The Marquess of Salisbury.

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

(Inclosure.)- Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

SIR,

Department of State, Washington, December 17, 1890. Your note of the 12th August, which I acknowledged on the 1st September, inclosed a copy of a despatch from the Marquess of Salisbury, dated the 2nd August, in reply to my note of the 30th Jume.

The considerations advanced by his Lordship have received the careful attention of the President, and I am instructed to insist upon the correctness and validity of the position which has been earnestly advocated by the Government of the United States in defence of American rights in the Behring Sea.

Legal and diplomatic questions, apparently complicated, are often found, after prolonged discussion, to depend on the settlement of a single point. Such, in the judgment of the President, is the position in which the United States and Great Britain find themselves in the pending controversy touching the true construction of the Russo-American and Anglo-Russian Treaties of 1824 and 1825, Great Britain contends that the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the Treaties, was intended to include, and does include, the body of water which is now known as the Behring Sea. The United States contends that the Behring Sea was not mentioned, or even referred to, in either Treaty, and was in no sense included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean.” If Great Britain can maintain her position that the Behring Sea at the time of the Treaties with Russin of 1824 and 1825 was included in the Pacific Ocean, the Government of the United States has no well-grounded complaint against her. If, on the other hand, this Government can prove beyond all doubt that the Behring Sea, at the date of the Treaties, was understood by the three Signatory Powers to be a separate body of water, and was not included in the phrase “ Pacific Ocean,” then the American case against Great Britain is complete and undeniable.

The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase north-west coast,” or “north-west coast of America.” Lord Salisbury assumes that the “north-west coast” has but one meaning, and that it includes the whole coast stretching northward to the Behring Straits. The contention of this Government is that by long prescription the “north-west coast” means the coast of the Pacific Ocean, south of the Alaskan Peninsula, or south of the

« PreviousContinue »