Rensselaer Republican, Volume 24, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 March 1892 — SALISBURY’S REPLY. [ARTICLE]

SALISBURY’S REPLY.

Willing to Renew the Vivendi in Certain Contingencies, ts Uncle Sam Will Ratify the Traaty apd Agree to Pay Damages to Poachers, if the Arbitrators Decide Against Him. 1 Lord Salisbury, under date of March 26, nade public on the 28th,' has replied as follows to Sir Julian Pauncefote, in reipoßse to Mr' Wharton's note of March 23. “In reply to your telegram of the 23d nst., notice has been given to owners of ‘hips sai'ing for Beringsea that the agreement at present under discussion between Great Britain and the United States as to

arbitration, and the one as to an intermeiiate arrangement, may affect the sealing m Bering sea. They have, therefore, notice of their liability to probable interruption, and will sail subject to that notice. The question of time is not, therefore, urgent. Inform the President that we concur in thinking that when the treaty has been ratified there will arise a new state jf things. Until it is ratified our conduct s governaUby thelatffeu&ge of your note jn the 14th ot June, 1890. But when it is ratified both parties must admit that contingent rights have become vested in the jther, which both desire to protect, "We think that the prohibition of seal* ing, if it stands alone, will be unjust to British sealers if the decision of the arbitrators should be adverse to the United States. We are, however, willing when the treaty has been ratified to agree to an arrangement similar to that of last year if the United States will consent that the arbitrators should, in the eventof a decisidh adverse to the United States, assess the damages which the prohibition of sealing shall have inflicted on British sealers during the pendency of arbitration, and in the syent of a decision adverse to Great Britain should assess the damages which the

imitation of slaughter should, during the tendency of arbitration, have inflicted on :he United States or its lessees. “As an alternative course we are also willing, after the ratification of the treaty, lo prohibit sealing in-the disputed waters, if vessels be excepted from prohibition which produce a certificate that they have riven security for such damages as the arbitrators may assess in case of a decision adverse to Grent Britain, the arbitrators to receive the necessary authority in that behalf. In this case a report of slaughter an the islands will not, in point of equity be necessary.”

“Her Majesty's government is unable to see any other than one of these, two meth)ds of restricting seal-killing in the disputed waters dering the arbitration which would be equitable to both parties.” A later note from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote, March 26, says: “With further reference to your telegram of the 23d iust., I am not prepared to admit, as I gather that the President thinks that we have objected to the arbitrators having jurisdiction as to damages inflicted in the past by the party against whom the award is given. I only objected to her Majesty’s government being liable for acts they have not committed. lam ready to consent to a reference on this point on the following terms: “That in case the arbitrators should decide in favor of the British government that government may ask them further to decide whether the United States governernment has, since 1885, taken any action in Behring sea directly inflicting wrongful loss on British subjects, and, if so, to assess the damages incurred thereby; that in case the arbitrators should decide in favor of the government of the United States, that government may ask them to jleclde further whether the British government has, since 1885, taken action in Behring sea directly inflicting wrongful loss on the I nited (States, and, if so, to assess the damages incurred thereby.”