New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-04-23

VIII pINtA'N o'iHN li' J''N'4NN'' A''N'- - - '''
coming when the worl, Of Democracy will be
considered as a whole, and then we shall see
how the people like it.
THE H4LIFAX CONNTS>ION ONCE MORE.
The Hamilton (Ont) Spectator questions the
accuracy Of our statement chat the Canadian
Ministry had taken the same ground, assumed
in advance by The LOEdoa Times. that unan-
unity in the Fisheries Commission was essen
tial to an authoritative verdict. In reply we
have to state that a declaration to that effect
by Mr.. Blake. Minister of Justice in the Cana
dian Government has been quoted, rcqu0-cd,
and quoted again, both in the American and
Dominion Press, without the slightest contra
diction so far as we have seen. The dcclara-
ton was made early in 1873, after the failure
Of negotiations for Il Reciprocity Treaty, and
it was made in stronger language and more
at length than we have thus far repeated;
for Mr. Blake said, or Is reported TO have said,
" that the amount awarded to Canada would,
after all, depend on what the Commissioners
would he willing 10 COuccdc thus pushing
the law Of unanimity TO It's utmost verge.
And so long as the Canadian Press have re-
viycd the discussion Of this subject, it may bc
well TO remark that there has been a very
general undcrstlndng-or belief, if you choose
jim Washington. that the design of so sud-
denly aud earnestly opening negotiations for
n Reciprocity Treaty in 1S73-'74, was to avoid
the settlement Of the fishery question before
n commission where unlnimIty WAS held To
bc essential to "A valid award. The British
Ministry and the Canadian Ministry had care
fully examined the Treaty OF Washington, and
found to their amazcmcntth that, differing iromthc
Geneva Tribunal and the Washington Claims
Commission, the Halifax Arbitration required
unanimity for verdict. Our belief to tins
effect may be erroneous, but still it Is belief,
and it is well borne out by the severe tone
OF reflection in which The LoRd0R Times refers
TO the careless work of Lord RIpOn and his
associate commissioners in framing the Treaty
Of Washington. Aud thus the plan of inter-
posing negotiations for a Reciprocity Treaty
was rcsorted to- and an accomplished agent OF
the British Government Mr.. Ii. {. Rothery,
was sent hitler in the Autumn of 1873, just
after the fishery clause had taken effect II
was on the failure of these efforts, eighteen
months later that Minister Blake was reported
TO have made the statement 50 often quoted.
And still further, we may say that the lately
reportcd decision of the English authorities on
the appealed case between two Canadian
Provinces, involving the law of arbitration, is
believed to have been influenced by the desire,
if not the design, to establish precedent that
would fit the Halifax case. Certain it is that
the uniform law of English arbitration re-
ouires unanlmity for valid award, unless it
be expressly stipulated that a majority may
decide. President Woulsey, in referring to the
Halifax case, gives the weight of his authori-
tative name that between nations arbitratIons
are governed by the Roman law, which
empowers a majority to decide. But
this could hardly be pleaded as bind
ing between two subordinate Provinces
of the British Empire, and hence there
must be some influential and controlling rea-
son on the part of the English Government
for reversing its own uniform law. And not
withstanding the high authority of President
Woosey, we have been disposed to question
the applicability of his doctrine to the case
where both nations are governed by the com
mon law. Between England or America and
Continental Power in Europe we can well
see the fitness. and, perhaps, the necessity of
the Roman Rule-but not between two nations
t. both Of which the civil law is alien and
unknown. AS well, we think, might President
Woolsey claim that because treaty stpulations
between England and Continental Powers are
always written in French or Latin, there
fore the United States and England should
frame their treaties ID French or Latin.
We are not to be drawn into an argument
against paying the Halifax award; but we
shall not be driven from the task, and in
deed the duty, Oflproving that that incOmpre-
hensible verdict was obtained against us UNI
der circumstances which we hope never to see
repeated, and which cannot be repeated indeed
without shocking public faith in the fairness
of international arbitration. Injurious criti-
cism has been freely launched against every
one in America who has ventured to discuss
or in any way to question the justice of the Hal
flax verdict, and invidious comparison has been
attempted by calling attention to the fact that
England paid the Geneva award without
cavil and without delay. While this statement
is not indeed strictly true as to the mode of
England's submission and payment, we beg
leave to interpOse the plea that no parallelism
whatever exists between the cases. There
never was the slightest doubt expressed-nor
was there room for dOubt-that o majority of
the Geneva Tribunal were fully empowered to