The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-11-18
LORD sall.eury Talks on lhe Fl.h auea

| WAsuuSdroS, November l7.-Lord Sails
bury, In reply to Secretary Evarts' dis
patch concerning the Halifax Fisher,
Award, after recalling at considerabl,
length circumstances which led to the or
ganization OF the Commission, and quoting
the decision given by the majority OF thu
Commissioners, says: II
at was not without a most thorough anC
laborous investigationin the question sub
mitted to their adjudication that's major
ity OF the Commissioners arrived ut the
decision quoted, and it must be observed
that the whole OF the proceedings were
held in strict conformity with the terms oi
the Treaty of Washington, whilst the
award was given by majority oi the
Commissioners in the very terms contain.
ed in Article % OF the Treaty. In the
dispatch which has been communicated "a
Her Majesty's Government. Mr.. Evarts
seeks to invalidate the award, which Is the
root OF this exhaustive investigation,
upon the ground that in estimat!
ing the claims, Great Britain's Com.
missioners must be assumed to
have taken into consideration circum.
stances which the treaty Of Washington
had not referred TO them. There Is moth.
ing on the face OF the award which gives
any countenance TO the supposition that
the Commissioners travelled beyond the
limits assigned to them by the treaty.
Mr.. Evarts' argument in favor OF this
contention is entirely deduced from what
he considers to be the magnitude OF the
award. tits, he contends, so far in excess
OF what the United States Government be-
lieves to be true solution OF the problem
submitted by the treaty, that some facts
which the treaty has not recognized must
necessarily, in his opinion, have been in.
jected into the calculation.
Mr.. Evarts proceeds 10 give in detail the
consideration BY which, In his judgment,
the result arrived at should be tested, He
gives his reasons for believing that
mackcrcl is the only fish to whose capture
in tho waters opened by Great Britain
any value should be assumed, and that no
account is to be taken OF herring, halibut,
cod, lake, palIock or bart fish. He com.
putcs the number OF mackcrel which the
United States fishermen have caught with
in the three mile line during the years Of
the treaty, the period OF which has expired,
and in!ers from 1.-THE numbers which they
are likely 10 catch within the same area
during The interval which remains, and
concludes this branch OF his argument by
estimating on various hypothesis the
profit which the United States fishermen
are likely to have made. rom the mackerel
which they have probably caught. On
the other side he estimates ut very high
value the profit which the British fisher
men have,dcrived from the opening ofmar-
kcts Of the United States and concludes
that the sum fixed bythis award isso much
larger than these considerations would
have justified that the United States gov
ernmcnt can only explain It's magnitude
on assumption that the committee has mis-
taken the question that was referred to it.
That Mr.. Evarts' reasoning is powerful, 1t
is not necessary for me TO say. Nor, on
the other hand, will he be surprised TO hear
that Her Majesty's Government will still
retain tho belief that it is capable OF refu-
tation, but in their opinion they would
not be justified in following him into the
details OF his arguments. These very mat.
tiers were examined ut great length and
with conscientious scrutiny by the Com
missioners, whose award is under discus
sion. The decision Of the majority was
given after full hearing OF all considera.
tions that either side was able to ad-
vance, and that the decision within the
limits OF tho matter submitted to them is
under thetreaty, withOutapp Theargu.
ment OF Mr.. Evart's amounts to this: 81
should review their, award upon the ques-
ton OF TACT, and particularly the computa-
ton referred to them" He contends that
the sum awarded is excessive, and that,
therefore, the award must have been ar
rived at by some illegimate process, but
to argue against the validity OF an award
solely upon the ground OF the conclusion
arrived ut by the arbitrators on the very
point referred TO them, is erroneous; is
in effect the same thing as TO dispute the
judgment which they have formed on the
evidence. Her Majesty's Government
does not feel that 1t Is their duty to put
forward any opinion adverse or favorable
to the decision which the. majority
OF the Commissioners have passed upon the
ailidayits and dispositions which they
have had TO consider. Her Majesty's gov
crnmcnt could notdo 50 without at least
the same laborious investigation as that
which was performed by. the Commission,
a task for which the interval which has
been left between Oct 10, the day on which
Mr.. Evarts dispatch was delivered to me,
and November %, the day on which the
payment awarded is to be made, would
certainly not suffice; but they are pre-
cluded from passing in review on the judg-
ment OF the Commission. They cannot be
Judges OF the appeal in this case because
they have been the litigants, and as liti-
gants they have expressed their views
upon the facts, which they have felt bound
in that capacity to maintain. Their com
putations have been materially different
in method and result from those which
the American counsel sustained, and
which, in part, Mr.. Evarts reiterates
in his dispatch. Their Interpretation,
which they have given to the law before
thetribunal, has been in complete antago-
nism to his. They have been OF the opin.
ion, and have insisted with all the force Of
argument their agents could command,
that fifteen millions was a legitimate com.
pensation which under the treaty was
their due. a majority OF the Commission.
crs decided to reduce that claim nearly by
two-thirtls. Having formally engaged Ia
submit this matter TO arbitration, don't
think that this opens to them to inquire
how il was thnt the Commission came Ia