The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-03-13

GUS Protest Against The Payment Of the
Award.
The resolution Of inquiry which / offered
fortnight since having been objected to and
laid over, 1 will briefly explain my reasons for
desiring its adoption. For some time past
there have been runors of an unpleasant char
acter touching the mode ia which Mr. Delfosse,
the Belgian minister accredited to this country,
was urged by the British government as the
third commissioner under the treaty of WASH
ington on the question of fisheries. These
rnmors come in form that enforces attention,
and, while will not pretend to vouch for their
accuracy, think they are suffi 3iently grave to
call for authorization or denial. 1t appears by
these reports that during the conference of the
loint bigh commission, IN April 1871, Lord
Rpon, speaking for the Euglsh government,
saio, IN relation to the several proposed arbira-
tlons un Ter scuss'on, that it would not be- the
proper thing for England to offer Belgium or
Portugal as arbltrators, aud he esp clally spoke
OF Belgium as being lncapaeitsted for the func-
ton By reason of her peculiar relations with
EDgladd. This celaratiou was promptly and
emphatically assented to by the American COM
missioner. With the understanding thus vol.
unteered by Lord Ripon the Halifax commits
sion OF three arbitrators on tine fisheries was
agreed 10, our government to came Ohe the
British government to name one. and the two
governments couio,ntly TO uams the third; aud
1t was stipulated thai if the two governments
could not agree on the third com mnissioner
within three mouths that then the Austrian
ambassador at Loadon should nama him.
AS soon as the fishing clsuse of the treaty
went into effect in Julv, 1878. Mr. Fish urged
the British minister, SIR Edward rhorDtoU,
to confer with him as TO a third commissioner,
but he found him without Instructions from his
goverome Mt, and after delaying for some DAYS
Mr.. Fish took the initiative aud submitted
quite number OF Damss for Sir Edw ards con-
sldetaton. Among these, scattered over a
large field, were NJ. Mariscal of Mexiio; Offen-
berg, minister from Russia; Borgess. from Ber.
Ito; Pal0, from Spain; Count de Noaiiles, from
France; Westenberg, from Holland, aud Others
Mr Fish did not include d Delfosss among these
as he considered that mis- name had been fairly
EXCLUDED by the understanding of the Joint
high com mission. SIR Edward Thornton N ado
no response for several weeks, and then au-
swered Mr.. Fish, declining to accept any of the
names submitted by him, and proposed in turn
The single name Of Delfosse. II was fully uu.
derstood, | believe, that Sir Edward was acting
uqder the instructions of Lord Granville, Brit
lsh secretary of foreign aft irs Mr.. Fish
promptly aud peremptorily declised to accept
DPlfosse, and quoted Lord RIpon's remarks 10
regard to Belgium, and he again urged Sir Ed
ward to accept one of the names proposed by
nm, or else to propose some names himself,
"a answer to this Sir Edward state3 that Lord
u u DDufferlu, governor-general of the Dominion Of
Canada, speaking for the Canadians, objected
to any one accredited to our government bsing
taken as third commissioner, and imme diately
after this declaration Sir Edward appeared at
tue State department with fresh instruc ions
from Lord Granville to insist on Delfosse.
though at that very moment Delfosse was ac-
credited to our government. The only alterna-
tive presented by Sir Edward was that his gov
would accept some ''Datch gentle.
man that might be chosen at Hague by the
American and British governments.
The three mouths, within which che two gov
ernmeDts were to act conjointly, having been
thus exhausted apparently by the design of the
BRUSH government, the matter was by treaty
remanded to the Austrian ambassador at Lon
don. A delay OF some years ensued, in conse.
queuce OF the negotiation for a reciprocity |
treaty, and the correspondence was not re- |
sumed until 1876 The result of the whole was |
thar in February, 1877, the Austrian ambsssa-
dor at London named ID losse as the third |
60 It is now reported on authority
Of an interview published in the New York |
Herald, that Mr.. Fish finally assented to the |
appolntmeot of Delfosse by the Austrian am |
oassador. This may or may not be, but it is |
not OF material issue, for the matter had then |
lapsed absolutely into the bands OF the ambas-
sador, aud as he was resident in London, in
easy communication with the Br tish ministry,
they had means of influencing the dec sion that |
were not within our power, and Mr.. Fish may |
well have thought that as the appointment of |
MI OoIlOSs6 was Inevitable a0d unavoidable, |
it Was prudent and expedient to su unit to it |
and in such way as not to incur |
the lIl-wiil OF the third commissioner. can |
we'll see how wise Secretary like Mr. Fish |
might In the end have been thus influenced, |
after having exhausted every effort as he so |
ably, energetically and fearlessly did to keep |
Delfosse off the commission. l do not intend |
n any remarks am making to cast reflections
On Delfosse, who is known as an honor,
able representative of his government l only
IN In Il ~. &c
Is to be cree ite1. Defosse was not in position
to be al imDartial arbitrator, and that in my |
Judgment Great Britain never should have pro-
posed him, and Fish was justified in resisting
MS appo' ntmeat, so long as resistance promised |
to be eHectual, Nor do | mean to imputs any
conduct that was not strictly HONORABLE to Sir |
Edward Thornton, the highly esteemed repre-
sentative of the British government at this
capital, who, in all he did, was simply follow
Ing the Instructions Of Lord Granville, but |
the correspondence for which my resolution |
calls will disclose q designed aud persistent |
effort on the part of the British government to |
secure advantage In the selection of a third |
commissioner on the question of the fisheries. |
l nave never heard that Lord Dufferin had any |
agency in bringing about the appointment of |
Defosse, and specially mention thus lest
previous remark might seem to reflect on an
oonored official not less esteemed by Ameri- |
cans than Canadians. At the same time it Is |
bnt just to remark that the Dominion of Cana
da had no more right to interpose in the matter
than had the States of Massachusetts aud |
Maine, aud that the Governors of those States |
had the same right to speak for their people, in |
regard to the election of a third commissioner, |
as bad Lord Duff -rin to speak for the people of
the Dominion. The negotiation was between |
TWO great nations, and subordinate states and |
provinces had no right to dictate or even sug-
geSt, unless called upon. |
1t may be somewhat premature to speak of |
the award made By the Halifax commission, |
but as it is already discussed in the press of both
countries, brief reference to it may not be out
OF place. The extraordinary nature of that |
award can only be appreciated when the sur
rounding facts are understood In the original |
discussion of the fishery question by the joint |
high commission in 1871, the American com
missioner could be induced to offer ouly one
million dollars for all fishing privileges subse- |
commissioners declined this offer, and would |
enter into no negotiation that did not include |
the admission of the products of Canadian |
fisheries into the American market free of all /
Iuty. The concession, highly advantageous TO |
Oanada and disastrous to our country, was
finally inserted in the treaty, and it was further
agreed to submit to arbitration what amount OF |
additional compensation should be paid Great
Britain for our right to use the ln-shore Usher
les of Nova Scotia for twelve years. aud the |
Halifax commission took the subject under con-
sideration, and the two commissions (Doth in |
effect selected by Great Brittany determined |
that we should pay her $500, 900 in gold coin,
or at the rate of nearly half a million dollars
per annum The duties on the products of
Canadian fisheries imported iuto thus country
tall remitted by the ireaty) would be quite an-
other half million dollars per annum 80 that,
ander this award, we should be actually paw
ing nearly a million of dollars psr annnm In
gold coin for the privilege of in-shore fishing
on the coast of Nova Scotia, when the total
catch oy American fishermen, beyond what we
mad rlgnt 70 take without this treaty, would
not amount to much over 100000 per aunum.
10 other words, we are paying TO Great Britain
Sl,OOo 0O0 PR annum for the privilege of catch
ing $500 600 worth Of fish Such is mere out
line OF the facts of the case, and the injustice
ot tue award Is so pslpsbe that it IS dificult
20 treat it with the respect due to all subjects
Involving International relations.
The question as to the binding force OF the
award Is naturally and necessarily one Of the
gravest interest, not only on account OF the