The New York herald., 1878-11-18

tiers referred 10 them to the best of their judgment
ana according TO justice and equity. The commission
then, after meeting the day for the purpose
OF approving and signing the protocol of the previous
days proceedings adjourned until the 2sth day OF
July, 1877. The commission having met, pursuant TO
adjournment, ON the 2sth day of July the United
states agent named the counsel retained ON behalf OF
the United states and al the next conference heid on
the 3Oth day OF July. the or Her Majesty gov
ernment was opened and was concluded on the lo'h
day Of September. That of the United states ~
America opened the 10Th Of the same month
and closed on the cath day of October.
IL is unnecessary that | should here reclte each
step IN these heightened proceedings IL VII De sui-
hcent 20 state that eghtyfour witnesses In all were
examined on behalf Of Her Britannia Majesty s gov,
ernment and soventyeght on the part of the United
States Of America These witnesses were subjected TO
the most searching cross-examination BY counsel u
the greatest ability and among those examined viii
be found the names OF many persons who, from their
special knowledge OF the subject both practically ana
generally were well qualifed To express opinion.
and whose evidence entitled 10 the greatest
weight in the investigation OF the master.
Three hundred aidavfts produced in support Of
the of Her Britannia Maiestys government and
80 in support of the United States. the deponents
comprising those who were also IN position TO give
valuable and convincing testimony with regard 10 the
fisheries but who from various causes We're nnaoie
10 give oral evidence before the commission.
Noiuminous mass OF documentary anu stats ucai mat
ter WAS produced and submitted to the commission
either side. and about fourteen entire days We're
devoted to arguments OF counsel upon the whole case
AWARD or THE COMMISSION.
The commission held in all seven'y-eight sittngs
OF about four hours duration each. aud the proceed
ings terminated the sd day of November. 1877.
by the announcement Of the following award
The undersigned appoin articles
% aud % of he Treaty of washngton o. the sh II May
Majesty as stated in articles m and 2i OF said treaty the
amount ~ any compensation which in their opinion,
ss @ s y ss s Si IN for s
privileges accorded 70 the citizens OF the nitsd states
mparta examined the matters referred 70 them accord
ns to sna e eg.S ~ 10 s o M,h se s 18th @ II
june, 1877, award the sum Of s,ooo in gold 70 be paid
o Her Britannia Majesty in accordance with the provisions
ssned Halifax this 2sd day q November ls77
The United States ommissoner is of opinion that the
sssss TO n bs ss on nn
the United States by said treaty and he cannot therefore
And the imsriean COMMISSIONS deems duty
ih Board 10 maxi m award nds tie treaty with
'''' T. II KELLoGG Commissioner
THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION
II was thus assurcdly not without the most thor
ough and laborous investigation OF the question sub
ntted 20 their appreciation that majority OF the
Commissioners arrived at the decision above quoted
and it be observed that the whole Of the pro-
ceedings were held in strict conformity with the
terms OF the Treaty of Washington while the award
given by majority of the commissioners in the
very terms confirmed in article - the treaty In
the despatch which has been communicated TO Her
Maiestys government, Mr.. Eyarts seeks to
invalidate the award which is the root Of this
exhaustive investigation upon the ground that in es
tinatng the claims of Great Britain the Commission
must be assumed to have taken into considera-
had not referred to them There is nothing upon the
Face of the award which gives countenance to the
suppostion that the travelled beyond
the limits assigned to them by the treaty Mr.
Evsrts argument in favor of this contention is en-
tirely denced from what he considers 70 be the
nitude of the awarded. 1t is. he contends so
far in OF what the United States government
believe to be the true solution OF the problem sub
mtted by the treaty that some factor
which the treaty has not recognized must
necessarily, in his opinion have been imported into
the calculation. Mr. Evarts proceeds to give in de-
1rdu fha
result arrived at should be tested He gives his
for believing that mackerel is the only fish to
whose capture in the waters opened by Great Britain
any value should be assigned and that no account is
to be taken herring. halibnt, cod, lake pollock or
bait fish. He computes the number Of Inackerel
which the United States fishermen have canght within
a three mile line from the shore during the years of
the treaty period which have expired and nfers from
IL the number which they are likely TO catch within
the same during the interval that remains and
concludes this branch OF his argument by estimating
on various hypothesis the profit which the United
states fisherman is likely to have made from the
erel which he has probably caught On the other side,
he estimates 1t high value the profit which the
British fishermen have derived from the opening OF
the markets of the United States and concludes that
the sum fxed by the award Is so much larger than
these considerations would have justified that the
United States government only explain its magni-
tude the assumption that the Commission has mis-
taken the question that was referred TO it, That Mr.
Eyarts' reasoning Is powerful IT Is not neces-
sary for me to say, nor. on the other maud.
will be be surprised to hear that Her Majesty govern
nent still retain the belief that IL Is capable OF refu-
tton. but in their opinion they would not be justi-
fed in following nm into the details OF his argument
These very matters were examined at great length
and with conscientious minutsneas by the Commits
sioners whose award is under discussion.
APrEAL Prom THE COMMISSION.
The decision of the majority given after full
hearing OF all the considerations that either side
able TO advance and that decision within the limits
Of the matter submitted 10 them. is under the treaty
without appeal. The arguments Of Mr. Evarts amount
review of their award upon the question or fact
and pecuniary computation referred 10 them Ne con-
tends that the awarded s excessive, and that,
therefore. the award must have been arrived at by
illegitmate process. but 20 argue against the
validity award solely ON the ground that the
conclusion arrived at by the arbtrators on the very
point referred to them erroneous. is in effect the
same thing to dispute the Judgment which they
had formed upon the evidence. Her Msjestys gov
eminent do not feel that IL is their duty TO
put forward any opinion adverse or favorable
to the decision which the majority OF the
Commissioners have passed upon the at
adayits and depositions which they have
had 10 consider. Her Maicsty's government could
not 10 without undertaking the aborious in
yestigaton that which was performed by the COM
mission task for which the interval which has been
left between October 10, the day which Mr.. Evarts
despatch WAS delivered To- me. and November z3 the
day on which the payment awarded j. to be made.
would certainly suffice; but they are precinded
from passing in review the Judgment of the confns-
sion by a far more serious disqualification. They
cannot be judges OF appeal in this because they
have been ltgan,s. A. ligants they have expressed
the view upon the facts which they have felt bound
in that capacity to maintain. Their computations
have been totally different ia method and result from
those which the American counsel sustained and
which. part Mr. Eyarts reiieratcs in his despatch.
Ine interpretation NHhH tHes nave piNtu W uaih
laid before the tribunal has been III complete am
taconism his. They lave been OF opinion. and
have insisted with all the force Of argument tnat
their agents could command that xl5,Ou.Uv was the
legitimate compensation which under the treaty was
their due. The majority of the Commissioners have
decided reduce that claim by nearly two-thirdr.
Having formally engaged 70 submit the matter To
this arbitration they do not think that II is open
to them 10 inquire how il was that the
commission came TO form an opinion upon
their claims widely different from their own.
SIN less can they admit that either sde i entitled 70
treat this difference ground for assuming that the
arbrators nave impaired into their Judgment cons.
crations which tbe treaty did not authorize them to
entertain. Her Majesty government can only accept
now A. on similar OCCASIONS they have accepted be-
FORE the decision of the tribunal 90 which they have
solcnnly and voluntarily submitted
TIT QUESTION uSASfN1ry.
At the close Of his despatch Mr. Ivarts refers 10
consideration which ought not 10 pass over without
observation though he does not place IL In the hrst
rank among the objections which he raises against
the award. he calls attention tO the fact that
the award Of the commission was not itnani-
NOUS and that In the Treaty 81 Washington