Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1878-03-22
THE HALIFAX AWARD.
The Fall History OF a Very Important
Measure.
n " Ha-,)d

of the question 80 far as may be
for enabling readers to follow the
discussion un~derstandingly. Most Of the
requisite information lies in q narrow COM
pass; but the documents, though recent,
are not easily accessible to the general
We will begin by repeating what We have
repeatedly said-that the history Of
Mr.. Delfosse's appointment is q subordinate
matter. Had the award been reasonable
this topic would not have been brought into
discussion. Still We canno regard its intro
duction pv MI. Blaine as irrelevant. Before
congresses passes an appropriation for pay
ing the award it is right for it to inquire
into all parts Of the Transaction. Since
questions may be raised as to the honor of
our government if it should refuse to pay
the exorbitant award it is proper to inquire
whether the complaining party, if there
should be a complaining party, will come
into the cour, OF International honor with
clean hands. 1t is at least singular that a
gentleman to whom our government per-
emptorily and persis,ently objected, but in
whose selection the British government
steadily insisted until the expiration of the
three months, was afterward appointed by
the Austrian ambassador at London. The
difference of the two governments respect
ing Mr.. Delfosse; for had he been acquaint-
ed with it his sense of impartiality would
not have permitted him 10 make such a Sc
lection. 1t is a legitimate inference from
the facts, as they now appear, that the Aus
trian minister was hoodwinked and unduly
influenced by the British government, to
which he was accredited. But as our gov
erdment made no protest and even express
ed its official acquiesence in terms Of high
compliment to Mr.. Delfosse it is precluded
from making his appointment a ground of
objection to the award. II he was an unfit
umpire our government should. have pro-
tested at once, and have refused to 60 fur
ther unless the government Of Great Britain
would join it in requesting the Austrian
ambassador to make a different selection. If
the commission was Improperly constituted
our government should have refused to sub
init its case to such a tribunal. But, al
though the manner of Mr.. Delfosse's ap-
pointment has only a historical interest, the
call for information on that subject is entire
lv proper.
The question of paying the award must
be decided on other grounds. Unless the
award is a monstrous violation Of equity it
ought to be paid. Perhaps in a large view
it may be expedient to pay it, although
monstrous but that is a question to be de-
termined after proper elaboration. Even
if our government shall conclude that it is
wiser. on the whole, to submit to the e1tor.
ton, the treaty allows twelve months after
the declaration Of the award for its pay
ment&; and We violate no obligation by
a~vailing ourselves of what remains of this
period for discussing the question before de-
Gliding it. We entered into no treaty obi
cation to ego it blind" If we finally con.
clude to submit to a manifest and monstrous
extortion in obedience to a scrupulou, sense
of honor our national character will not
suffer,by having it made known to the world
that we look upon the award as a fragrant
violation Of Justice. 1t from merely eunc-
tillous scruples we consent to pay FIVE and
a half millions for a privilege worth moth
ing We are, at least, entitled TO have it
kno IN that our sense Of justice revolts
against the undue advantage which has
been taken of us.
Our government is on record, in the Ian
guage of the treaty ITSELF as holding that
compensation is really due, and that the
privileges w granted are as valuable as
those we received. The twenty-second ar
ticle begins in these words: "Inasmuch as
it is asserted by the government Of Her
Britannia Majesty that the privileges &C
corded to the citizens of the United States
1nder article XVIII. of this treaty are Of
value than those accorded by arti-
lies XIX. and XXI. of this treaty to
he subjects of Her Britannia Majesty, and
his assertion is not admitted by the govern
nent of the United States, it is further
,OraaI that oono-~s0rors nho11 h, o,ro,rs
ID to determine, etc. This significant par,
If the treaty cannot be ignored in the pres
INT discussion. In the very act Of making
he treaty, in the very language Of the treaty,
re denied that any compensation was fairly
ish negotiators to have this denial inserted
vas = virtual concession on their part that
The compensation, if any, ought to be mod
crate. This part of the treaty cannot be
left out Of view in any reasonable estimate
Of the justice Of the award.
Other parts Of the treaty have quite az
close a bearing on the question Of our obi
Thetreaty provided for submitting
three separate questions to arbitration
namely, the great question Of the Alabama
which was submitted TO the Geneva
tribunal; the Northwestern boundary ques
ton, which was submitted 10 the Emperor
Germany, and the Fl .herles question,
which was submitted TO the Halifax com
mission. In the wording ofthe treaty there
is a marked difference between the binding
force Of the several awards. II vas express
" stipulated that the decision Of the ma
jority Of the Geneva arbitrators should be
oinding but there sss no such stipulation
respecting the Halifax commission. The
boundary question, being rub
mitisd TO a single arbitrator, admitted Of no
provision about . majority. Bat The con
,sast In this respecs besseen the Geneva