New-York tribune., 1878-11-11
TILE HAL[E1X AW1RD.

Baltimore.
THE H4LfFIX AWIRD.
The dispatch in which Secretary EvaTts sub
mlts to the British Government the feelings
of the United States respecting The cXOrbitant
award of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax,
has no connection with the question OF the
right of the Provincial Legislatures to modify
or restrict the operations Of solemn treaty
That is point which may yet have an i'm
pCrtaut bearing upon the discussion as to the
Dayment of tie five ana half millions; but
at present we must believe that Great Britain
will assent to the argument so wCIl stated IN
Mr.. Evarts's paper published last month, and
disavow a pretensiOn which would subordinate
treatv-making powers to the local police.
Neither is the dispute as to the pIOprcty of the
award complicated by any differences Of
opinion respecting The competency of two ar
bitrators to pronounce judgment without the
assent of the third. Mr.. Evarts presents with
great force the argument for requiring unan-
unity; but if Great Britain persists in the
opposite view, he declares that "this Govern
"ment will regard the maintenance OF entire
" good faith and mutual respect in all deal
"i ings under the beneiicent Treaty of Wash
"ington as of paramount concern, and will
90 not assume to press its own interpretations
" of the Treaty on this point against the de-
" liberatc Interpretation of Her Majesty's Gov
"ernnent to the contrary "a promise in
which he will be cordially supported by an
overwhelming public opinion. The dispatch
now published is concerned wholly with the
inauiry whether the Halifax Award is intrin-
sically just.
Mr.. Evarts remarks that if the award had
relation only to the sum of the payment
involved, the United States might prefer to
waive discussion, and close the transaction at
once But we are obliged to look at further
consequences. We are asked to pay $5,500,-
600 for twelve years enjoyment of the fishing
privileges, and nearly half that period has
already expired The old controversy will soon
come up again and we cannot afford to preju-
dee our rights in the negotiations that will
ther ensue, by silent assent to the principles
upon which the extraordinary judgment at
! Halifax seems to have been established. Nor
is there any ground for complaint that
we are improperly reopening a case
which arbitration has settled beyond
appeal. 1t is always competent for
either of the parties to an arbitration to
examine an award in respect of its covering
only the very matter submitted. And the
precise complaint of the United States is that
| the award is invalid because the arbitratOrs
based it upon the consideration Of matters
not submitted to their jurisdiction. To quote
the language of Mr.. Evarts "With every
anxiety to find some rational explanation of
the enormous disparity between the pecu-
"niary computations of the evidence, and the
| "pecuniary measure announced by the con-
" curing commissioners, this Government has
"been unable to do so upon any other hy-
"pOthcsis than that the very matter defined
Gin Article XVIII. and to which the proofs
" on both sides were applied, and the very
"matter measured by the award Of the con-
curing commissioners, were not identical
"nor even similar. and that such award, upon
this reason, transcends the submission"
| Precisely what the arbitratOrs did consider,
nobody knows except themselves, and perhaps
| they do not know. The asserting majority
agreed upon the round sum of S5,50O,O00,
without disclosing the arithmetical process by
which they reached it. But we do know
what was submitted 10 them. 1t was not the
| value of any of the privileges granted to us
| by the Treaty Of 1918; those had been ours
| for more than half century, and we had not
the remotest idea of putting them again in
| dispute, or paying anything for them under the
| Treaty of Washington. 1t was not the value
of access to the inshOre fisheries Of the Gulf OF
| st. Lawrence in the development Of our mcrcan-
| tile or naval marine that was inapprccabe
| in money. 1t was not the value of the
removal of occasions of strife that too, was
| inadmissible as an element in a pecuniaTy
computation. 1t was merely, on the one hand,
the actual money value of certain inshore fish
cries of the Gulf and on the other the value
of access to United States markets and United
States fishing grounds granted to the Cana
dans as an offset. These are purely statis-
tical questions, and it was the duty of the
Commission to decide them upon the strength
of the testimony presented by the two par
ties. The inshOre Gulf fishery opened to the
United States under the Treaty of Washing
ton was that of mackerel, no other fish being
caught on those grounds in any considerable
number. Now it was shown at Halifax that
the whole mackerel catch of the United States
III the Gulf of st. Lawrence, both within
and without the three-miie limit, was only
167,945 barrels in the Ave years already