New-York tribune., 1878-03-29
THE H1LIF1X IWiRD.


In bringing the Halifax award to the atten.
ton of the Senate, Mr.. Blaine made two
important statements first that our Govern
ment would in the end probably pay IT. and
secondly that if the British Government were
in our place they would refuse to pay. and
base their refusal both on the law and on the
eauitv OF the case. Judging from the
expressions of English and Canadian Opin-
ions quoted by Mr.. Blaine, it must be
confessed that he had good grounds for his
declaration as TO the probable course OF the
British Government in the supposed reversal
of positions. Since Mr.. Blaine's reference to
the opinions of The London Times. we have
turned to n file Of that paper, and find its po-
siton in July last singulary the reverse of
that which 1t has taken since the award. We
quote the following from carefully prepared
editorial in The Times of July 6:
The long promised Commission for the settlement OF
the Canadian and United States fisheries question has
been now and has commenced proceedings In
earnest It's first sittngs held Halifax on tho
18Th Of last month"; and a statement Of the Canadian
case was handed in. Tho reply the part OF tho United
States is due at the end OF the present week It
IL a little provoking at this distance Of time to find
fresh proofs OF the carelessness with which the
Treaty OF Washington was drawn. upon our side. with
one most important branch Of the fisheries question
the Conm ssion seems, has been given no power to
interfere directly while on every point that comes
before for decision the unanimous consent OF all It's
members s by the Of the treaty. necessary before
an authoritative verdict can he given Or the three COM
missioners one Is an Engslma one is citizen OF tho
United States and the third is Belgian. Supposing
two OF these were TO assess the sum payable
by the United States at something like the
~ Ina Alahnua Claims Ia IL likely that tne
third would consent and Is 1t not possible that tho
United States Government would repudiate as IL has
strict right TO do the decision OF mere MAJORITY lhe
liability OF the United States IA not thus easily to he
sccnred. We shall have first to convince the United
States Commissioner. and he possibly bc little
deaf to arguments which clear enough to the 9TH
ers.
In the samo issue Tile Times publishes q
carefully prepared letter from its correspondent
at Halifax, and the editor especially calls
attention to what the correspondent says We
quote from the correspondent:
When dealing with tho Alabama claims the WASH
ngton Treaty expressly declared ARTICLE III "tha all
questions considered by the Tribunal including the final
award shall be decided by majority OF the arbitrators
By strange oversight In dealing with the fisheries ques
ton the treaty makes such provision but simply pro-
ydes ARTICLE XXID for the appointment OF three com
mlssioners, who to determine the sum to be pad
under Article XIII. II the Commissioners to adj
here therefore, to the letter Of the treaty. point
decided by only majority need be binding
1t seems that neither the high legal authority,
speaking through the columns of The London
Times, nor its correspondent, writing from the
very midst of the lawyers who represented the
English and Canadian case at Halifax, ever for
moment thought that the arbitration was to
proceed according to the can0ns of civil law.
By this rule the majority of the arbitratOrs
must decide. But the English authorities lay
down distinctly different rule as prevailing
under the common law, and it seems that
cotemporaneous interpretations, both in Eng
land and Canada. fully maintain the
legal postion assumed by Mr. Blame. One
of the most eminent Of American pubicists
denies the assertion that the civil law should
govern in international controversies between
two nations entirely under the dominion of
the common law, and both entire stran-
gers to the civil law. When the Presi-
dent laws the award before Congress, we
shall take occasion to submit some views
urging It's payment, but upon considera-
tions wholly apart and distinct from the
grounds we have been discussing. 1t must be
paid, but not because the letter of the law
requires il. or because the award, viewed
simply as q verdict on the case submitted,
represents in any sense the quantum meruit
Meantime it must be frankly admitted that
the letter of Mr.. Fish to NJ. Delfosse, just
published in the interest Of the latter, sheds a
new light upon the final appointment. 1t GER
tainly seems to relieve the British Govern
ment from some of the criticism its steady
adherence to M. DelfOsse has provoked, and
very clearly makes it desirable that something