The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-05-18

companies the Presidents message, is en- elaborate
and voIuninous review OF tho entire history or the
controversy and OF the proceedings connected with
it, settlement. Secretary Evaris the course OF his
statement concerning the proceedings at HALIFAX,
says:-
In looking back upon the conduct OF the case OF
the United States before the Commission am not
abe 10 discover any failure OF alb my or attention
our part IN any matter calculated Just and
satisfactory determination oy tho Commi ssioners Of
the matter submitted TO them II that dcer
as announced by the Commissioners. shall iall 10
satisfy our sense OF rignt as disposition Of the mat
ter IN contention before The Commission, the disap-
pointment cannot be charged 10 any fault OMISSION
on the part OF our agent ana counsel In the presenta
tion OF our case
COMPETENCY or
Amer setting forth official protest OF the Amcri-
can Comm ssioncr calling In question tho competency
Of the Board 10 mako an award uudcr the Treaty
except with the unanimous consent OF lis members,
and after quoting also the opno edoriay expressed
by the London Times OF July O. 1877. that on every
y lint coming before The Comm sson the decision
must, by tho terms OF the Treaty be unanimou Sec
Rotary Evarts proceeds
"in this country no pubic discussion on this
point seems 10 have arisen until since the conclu-
zion OF tho iabors OF tho Commission. II Will be
gate competent tor CDngress In considering an
Appropriation 10 meet the proper Obligations OF tho
government under the treaty waive insist upon
this ool tiou to Tho validity 0. the award OF tho
Commission non. conformity to tho requirements
oil the treaty. In the absence OF dec Arati0n by
Congress to the validity OF Inc award 1t viii
not be tho duty OF the Exccu TO raise discus
SION with the British government upon this point II.
Oh the other hand Congress. should CON many tho
appropriation with expression OF opinion mat tho
attention OF the British governments shocid DO drawn
10 The subject, tho actual payment OF tho award
might, 20 lar TINS point Is concerned, well DO made
70 depend upon the WOW which mat government
should maintain AS TO tho meaning OF the treaty IN
TINS reg RI, think II may be assumed that mother
the people OF thiA country nor any branch OF this
government Will dcslrc 10 seek exemption from a
money pay mcnt npon any judgment Of rs own upon
point OF ,his nature under this benencent treaty
unless u may DO SO wc founded as TO secure tho con-
currence OF the otner nign ntraciing party.
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.
Secretary Evarts thcn discusses the question
whether the award OF tho Commission is In conformity
with tho submission" thereto or IN other words.
whether the Commission In this award exceeded Its
jurisdiction and powers In tho OF this discus
he says
"As the result OF tho pscuniary problem submitted
by tue treaty to This Commission, Commissioners
Dcliossc and Gait havo gwen the sum S. 500 900
the superior value Of Tho enjoyment for twclvc
by inc United states Of the under Article
% over The enjoyment for the by British
interests OF the CONCESSIONS under Articles 10 81
Commissioner Kellogg on tho otter hand, ands Jhst
the advantages accruing 10 Great Britain creator
than the advantages con TERED tho United states
by said treaty and could concur, therefore, in no
Article o.
Tho first impression comparing this award OF
two mssioners with the OF tho subject
IN contention bew the governments by the 10 NJ
High Commissioners and the Treaty t'submsstOnu OF
aslngie point IN thar contention not nnaliy disposed
OF by the Treaty ITSELF OF almost irresistible
that the pecuniary measure announcoo by tho two
Commissioners Is wholly inappica6lc 10 tho very
limited subject submitted TO tho commission for ad-
measurement.
II tho High Commissioners on the part OF tho
United States considered $1,000, 900 rs liberal sum
Tor tho purchase IN perpctuiy Of the whole privilege
Of tho inshorc fishery. without any further advan-
tageous concessions IN exchange therefor, and Il
High commissioners on tho part Of Great Britain
considered tho exemption OF the products Of tho
this country SO valuable that such concession
part could not be dispensed with element
Tho negotiations, II seems difficult TO believe
that these en- neut persons could hav0 had
| IN mind in tho submission" OF article 70 OF tho
treaty the same subject OF valuation which, In tho
minds OF the two Fishery Commissioners. formed
basis Of Tho valuation IN the award The allowance
d IS, 500 900 tor twelve years. enjoyment OF what
less than 600 600 10 perpe.uty and this over and
above the privilege Of free Importation, which the
for as indispensable 10 lis interests. is nos easily
reconcilable with that essential identity between tho
on ns IN. and the mater o. Tho
Commissioner Kellogg seem. auss conform.
apparent result This object ana this apparent re-
leave but tho narrowcs. margin Of debate as 10 The
accuracy Of tho adjustment 70 BE- the province and
Giving tho largest range for divergent conflicting
evidence. where evidence rests on opinion, and a..
|
sion Of article IS and the smallest measure Of value 10
our sot-ors OF articles 10 and q, tn
Incompatible with tho required identity between tue
matter OF submission ana tho matter Of tho award
| THE VALUE TO THE UNITED
1t happened that before tho ssi0n HALIFAX
had concluded It's labors i've fishing seasons OF the
treaty period had already elapsed, and the
ts,ics OF the privileges rccpr ocaly conceded
hand to replace conJcctural estimates Nv natural rc-
| suits OF tho enjoyment on the ono hand and tho
other OF reciprocal concessions Upon lhese STA
tstcs IL was disclosed that the whole maokerc catch
OF the United states Tor these i've Cult
miles no, wos I67, e45 barrels the Canadian est,.
matos claimed that threc-quarters OF this
catch was within tho three mile line, aud SO
TO DO credited 10 the privilege conceded by article IS
The United States estimate placed tho proportion At
less than a quarter Allowing even the CAnaaian
eros would BIO l25,96l barrels II was established
upon Canadian testimony that the price which mack-
crcl bore IN the provinces was 50 IS per barrel TINS
would give us the vauc, cured and packed, OF tho
American catch under the privilege oil article No. IS,
S Sp1a .nofe ''' but in sss xsas
are included tho barrel. the salt tho ex-
psns' Of ea'ss co curing ing ana packing
measures the value Of the fishery privilege reached.
| Upon The evidence n donr n barrel would be T.
cessivc estimate oil such proht. This would givc .
profit TO the United States from tho enjoyment for
these nve OF the fishery privilege conceded
under article No. % OF but 1915, 900 u year. The
statistics OF importation OF the product OF the Cana
dian fisheries under tho privilege oil article No. II
that the duty exaciod prior 10 this concession,
| that privilege, would have produced revenue OF
about 5000. 900 por annum upon mscksrol alone, and
OF $780, 900 upon all kinds Of nsh mackcrei ded,
ana fsh OIL.
lie suggests, as another criterion for testing tho
competency Of the two commissioner award, the
history Of the fishery privilege during years
tervening between the repeal OF the reciprocity
treaty and the negotiation Of the Treaty Of Washing.
| ton whom tho license system was enforced. Tho ex-
perenco OF the system showed that under an sxac
1 roc.
took licenses; that when the les rased 81
per ton the number OF licenses fell on about one-ha
and when Ice OF So per ton was cxacted but few
licenses were taken out. SIR. Evarts SAYS
Tho result, however OF my examination OF tho case
SATISFIES me that the two commissioners must have
tasea into account some very indefinite aud quito ~
Iusory elements OF calculation, wholly outside OF the
narrow submission OF the treaty, IN order to bring
the wcighty balance OF advantage 10 tbc United states
| which their award expresses As the commissioner,
have gwen no information as 10 the steps hods
nj rulrn tatta gfpn nj hAr thA