The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-11-18
THE HALIFAX AWARD AGAIN
LORD SALISBURY EXPECTS THAT TIE
S5,5OO,OOO WILL BE PAID.
Her Mnicsty's Government Unconvinced by
Mr.. Evarts'. Arguments The Decision Of
the Majority of the Commission Final


the Majority of the Commission FinaL
WASHINGTON, Nov 17.-Lord Salisburys
reply to Mr.. Evartss despatch concerning tho
Halifax fishery award begins by recalling the
circumstances which led to the organization Of
the Halifax Commission. Ho says that the
termination OF the reciprocity treaty in 1886 by
the net Of tho United States revived the dinlcul-
ties incidental to the fishery question. and the
danger OF collision between the fishermen Of
the two nations having begun TO manifest itself
soon after tho termination OF the treaty. her
MaJestys Government were anxious to come to
a speedy and satisfactory solution OF tho ques-
ton With this view her Maiesty's Minister at
Washington was directed by Lord Granville to
propose to the Government Of the United States
the appointment OF Joint High Commission.
which should hold its sessions in Washington.
and should treat Of and discuss the mode Of
settling tho different questions arising out Of
the fisheries. as we'll as all those affecting the
relations Of the United States toward her Ma
jesty's possessions in North America. Mr.. Fish
approved OF this proposition, but added
| that II would be desirable to include in
| the deliberations Of tho Joint High Commission
| n consideration Of the other questions then ut
issue between the two Governments. particu-
larry those known as the Alabama claims. 1T
was thus" says Lord Salisbury. owing to tho
importance attached by her Majesty's Govern
ment to tho fisheries question. and to their
anxiety to come to a satisfactory settlement Of
the difficulties connected with II. that tho ncgo-
tiations were commenced which led to the or
| ganization Of the Joint High Commission and
| ultimately 10 the treaty OF Washington" He
| continues;
Aarge portion q the deliberations Of that Commission
now under consultations and after many proposals aud
to
rre far In excess ~ The mere remission Of duty on Ash
s nSerm.S S'G Sr ea1 % aees 20 the SRSre
was' 9 nnIsp SIrI AnsIa hue s 70 No
The authority under which The ileiiaS Commission
~ The Guvetnmsm Of her Britannia Maie,ty mat The
nndcr article IL 1t this treaty are q grcltcr value
than tho.e accorded BY atnSls. ~ and ~ Of III
s.cron y ne. admitted BY The Soye,9mSnI o. The
Imfd s'ses ~ y iar,hcr aEeed tna, 40 ar
privileges seconded BY the United STATES 10 The ,uhrct.
u Of this treaty the amount ~ an, compensation which,
he vi tnied states to the Goscrnmsnt Of 6ss BrtS@ne
MAJESTY ~ rs'4tn oT ", nmYssSs s',%ta'a 70 'nS az
treaty snd that any sum Ct money winch the saii Com
Wi'o9sts may ~ nwaru sna Ir ~, 's na
after such award shall have been gwen -
United States nshermen were admitted TO
the practical use OF the inshore fishery
grounds In advance OF the formal legisla-
ton necessary for that purpose. As regards
the fishery rights therefore. the citizens Of the
| United States were by the treaty put into actual
| possession and enjoyment OF them, That en-
ioyment has been had. and cannot be recalled.
| Whether any and what sum was To be- paid by
the United States for the rights thus conceded
was to be determined. and determined without
| appeal 10y the tribunal constituted under tho
| treaty. Lord Salisbury then details how the
| Halifax Commission was formed and how 1t
did the work Il was appointed To- 90 and then
| gives the decision awarding f5.5W,OOO in gold
to the Government OF her Briianic Majesty. lie
continues AS follows;
TWAS thus a..urcdly not without the most ,horogsh
lAoTluus OF the Hu submitted Ga
their appreciation that majority of The cnnmissiouer'
served that The whole Of the proceedings We're he'd IN
ingion whilst the award given by majority al the
Commissioners ~ thr very terms contained IN aruce y
Ses s o bcr aosy oSern mT S Ey,l ss
eSha.,e inv, ssstan mon the ground dat In e.,
maaS The claim; q Great britain The
cuus!anegs which The treaty @ Westminster had not r.
award which gives any counicn nance 10 the suppo
-uen that The commlssionsrs uayelcd bsyond The lin
mont IN favor OF Wis eonie Is enurcN dcduced rn
what he considers t. be the magnitude of the sum awaui
ed IT'S he contends far IN excess oi what the United
i'f hs S P4Ss% ,aeaG by ne a a maj 'sS
factor wheh the treaty has rot rccoEnad mis
cacuiauon Mt kNarts proceeds " eiNc 900 detail tl'
STT1od a. atm sa he ,e.tci rai NJ Esa4,.
powerful Il not necessary for me 20 say no, ON M
Government sui retain The belief that nis capable o
IN following INN into the details Of his argument Thes
Yer, matters wg,s sSam'prd as i, Va ana Ei.
!
inc Of All he eon.ersuons thst either side was able L
advance aud that decision, within the limits OF Me mat
zeal fhe arguments OF NJ Evarts amount To- a review
% ns re- +sa 10 ITEM he c % & @
awarded d, excessive and that Therefore the ava an.
but to against the validity Of an award solely o.
traitors the very pout referred 10 them serreneon
~ eject TIE saie thins as 10 DISPUTE The iudsmcn
Nacstys Goycfnmcni DO not feel that is their duty
sss ~f1 1 s a'rv o. The SSV We
passed upont 's.nens which they hsv'
DO without undertaking the same laborious
tax ior which he interval which 6s. been III between
g gay sns S' me Ssv o ae Se W., iva, dc
men awarded i 70 be made would certainly not suffice
ncnt Of the Commission by lar more serious dsquand
eaton insS 1 Iuu appsa, ~ VI, cause
pressed the view the facts w,ch they have ietbou'
tssH totally different in me,hod ana result rom lho-
Sa5, Nv EySfts rsierSi"s In his Dc spSteh The mt
probation which they have given 70 the data laid bcor
They have been Of opinion and have insisted with al M
tiS 90 t15 Was The esiilnas compensation which Gn
der the treaty was ths5 que dhe majority 81 the Com
!wohId, la;ins formally ENGAGED era o, to submit !h
open 10 them 10 inquire how that tile Commsso i
came to form an opinion up9n heir caims so widely d!
either side is entitled to treat this dierence as groun,
6fr 'IS s S radon, Witch s reay d ' me-
authorize them 20 entertain. Her MAiesty's Goycrmen
can only accept similar occasions they haN
accepted before the decision Of the tribunal 10 which
they have solemny and voluntarily submitted.
Al the close OF his despatch Mr. Eyars refers 20
sheraton which ought not 10 pass over without oR
scrNAion though he does not place 1t IN the hrst ram
among the objections which he raise against the ard
mission was not unanimous, and that In the treaty
Washington stipulation i IN this case made that Nh
decision Of the majority l. u be binding The opinion
that according ~ tile treaty OF Washington. the Fisher
Commission was incapable Of pronouncing any decision
unless its members unanimous Is one ia which he
Majesty Government are unable To concur II - ~
dcult to produce from text books even Of very
date authority Tor the doctrine that IN International AZ
btratons the majority Of the arDltrators binds IN
am not aware u any authorities who, In respect 10 IN
ternAonal arbrauons could be quoted In the contrar
sense and It would rot be dicu 10 show by reference
TO cases the American aswe - IN the English court
that the same rule has always been ludciay applied II
the ca 81 arltratOns %, public nature The anguag
aud SupuauOn OF the treaty itself 80 lar as they
explicit upon the subject point 10 similar conclusion
Mr. EVArts, indeed, argues that the requirement 81
unanimty was tended because while II Is not dii
OF three other arbitrary tribunals s0t
tie treaty II Is evident that at most this omissio
] would have lett the matter ia uncertainty. The 81.
gesuOn that the trainers Of tho treaty meant by thei
silence pre- scrihc mode O pfuccc ling which before
tribunal thus constituted, Is uueXampled, can only b
accepted the hypothesis that they were delberael
preparing insoubc controversy Tor those Us whOi
| the treaty Was 10 be executed
Lord Salisbury then argues that tho lanRuaR
employed In the case Of the other tribunals 80
> | nm nv trentv show TINT il WAS inteuled III n