The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-04-02
THE FISHERIES AWARD.

CRITICISM OF MR.. FIsH's ACTION IN THE AP-
PoINTMENT OF THE THIRD COMMISSIONED
WHAT THE Ex-sEcRETAnY DID AND WHAT
HE LIFT UNDoNE-o OUR DUTY TO MR. DEL
FossE AND OUR OPPONENT.
WASHINGTON March 80, 1878.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD:-
Your Washington correspondents publication on
last Thursday concerning Mr.. Dclfosse. while 1t evil
IDENTITY surprised you and the general pubic, was, as
he wrote you new any who enjoys the IN
umacy Of the diplomatic family here. But 1t was
fortunately, but partial view OF tho whole 1t
certainly did tardy justice to gentleman long
known and highly esteemed here, In showing that Mr..
Delfosse no, the creature Of the British govern
ment, but, on the contrary, induced TO us
arbitrator against his will only by the jolnt entreales
OF Mr. Fish and Sir Edward Thornton but IL failed 10
discuss the question on that broader ground which
think both lull justice to Mr. DeIlosse anu proper
understanding OF the question demand. | think the
time has come TO do this, ana offer you the follow
ing asking the pardon OF your special correspondent
matter out OF hands,
Mr.. risH's ACTION
First-Mr Fish, IN q published conversation drawn
out by the statements OF your special pondent,
here remarks that he finally induced nix upon
Mr. Defosse 'sby the belief that 1t possible tuat.
unless the Two governments reached an understand
ing. Count Beust surrounded by BRUSH p1uences.
might appoint Canadian or some preudiced person.
or one more under British influence" As an Ameri-
confess that this very lame afterthoughI of Mr..
Fish strikes me disagreeably. II he thought Count
Beust. who is very eminent public man, likely TO
act partially or unjusty under British influence why
did he consent to tho very singular provision
in the Treaty OF Washington which devoived
upon the Austrian Minister ut the Court Of ST.
james this work Of selecting arbitrator
In case tho two governments could not agree? 1
call TINS very singular provision. surely it SO.
The natural course-that which mas IN its
favor-would have been that tho treaty ynou re.
quest some European other sovereign to al point
arbitrator. In fact this was zone In The OF
Geneva Commission. where the three commission
a-bitrators uamed the treaty provided,
by the King Italy, the President Of the Swiss Con.
federation and tho Emperor Brazil. In the
the "Mixed Claims Commission" so called, under
tho same treaty, the arrangement was made that If
the governments could not agree upon the third
commissioner hc should be selected by the Spanish
Minister At Washington, AS IN tue fisheries
was 10 be CHOSEN by the Austrian Ambassador al
London. Mr.. Fash consented these provisions. His
name lands at the head Of tho signatures To the
treaty surely he deoarrcd from casting suspicion
upon the pubiic man upon wnom ne nimseii imposed
has trust But when ne does so ne cannot complaia
II others point out that II was singular method Of
u
that mpof ant person snoulu be selected, by
independent s0yeretgn but BY AN am bassador
sizing the court oil an opponent, and who. Mr. Fish
might Reasonably have objected wuen he was
gotating the treaty IN 1871 was likely, not only out OF
consideration hts own personal comfort, but out OF
regard loo the interests oil his master with the
Bitish Iours TO select, at least no one dsagreeabe
10 our opponent
Fortunately Tor Count Bcust he did not select Mr..
Deliossc. Mr. Fish took that out OF has hands. But
venture to say that II Mr. F.sa mad gwen to Count
Bcust last February the reason Tor doing this which hc
Ambassador
have refused pcrempofy 10 act at all In the matter.
even IN tue merely formal ami perfunclory way
wnicn was permitted him. aud would nave refused
thereafter To receive any communication IRON air.
FiSn, unless ~ were at apology.
WHAT NIX. FISH SHOULD HAVE DONE
Secona-But, uncIvii as MIR. Fisn Is toward Count
Beus,, surrey ms conduct toward Mr. Dsiossc Is stii
less cxcusab la bis letter 10 SIR Edward ihornon,
aatcu August II, 1875, Mr. FISH uade tho British
Minister singular revelation. lie wroe:-
When the joint iish Comm ssion Ia session in WASH
heads OF states. Earl ne Grey while
BECAUSE OF tne relations Of na Power 10 TREAT BRITAIN
wnicn hc supposed snt maAe IL Unacceptable 70 tAc
United states There dissent expressed
by either Of the Jeint ia n very
IN the suggestion slate in tLat connection on
the part OF tie American We eii the deeaey
conclusion aud he prory and business % the
assigned am not aware mat the relations 70 which
Lord do Grey referred have been materially changed
al. Fish gave this as reason Tor rejecting Mr..
DelOsse. believe ii the OF tnat cvnl, cnce
were published IL would be seen that the question
ol the selection oI arbitrator Tor tue fisheries
al tue Mixed Cia4lns Commission, Ugt tho
selection OF The arDitraiors Tor lne Geneva Commis-
SION. Observe you please, tnat tue discussion was,
hr. Fisn writes, "conccrniag proposed reference
to more nelds vi iorolgn S,ates," whca evi-
aenly points the question, Which OF these sover.
cigns snoula be asaeu 70 name arOi rtors Tor tho
Geneva Conmisa0nf because no heads OF foreign
states TO name arbraiors Tor either Of the
commissions. Leaving tlis ASIDE, however, tho
publish correspondence aud the recent ut.erancts
ol Mr. Flsa left the imprc ssion tho public
mind that the secretary oil state fought
persstenty, but valniy, against british scneme
secure Mr. Dcli0sso the third Com oncr, aud
that at last. worn OF by SIR Edward rhorntons per-
Iiuacious adLcf ence 10 Nj Dellossc he Ia busy mo
meni. consented But everybody must that Mr.
fsn could nave defeated any sucn plot oil Sir Edward
aud tue Brush government at any moment without
moving out OF hls chair lie had only as Mr. Deg
LOSSES attendance al the state Department aud re-
quest nm 10 read over the minutes OF the Discussion
10 winch nc refers, containing Earl DE Grcy's words
better YET his despatch, above quoled, 10 SIR
Edward Thornton Tnal wouu have settled the ql,s-
tion Tor. no matter what KIND ~ man Mr.. Deiossc
m3ht be-and Air. FISH admits III " DO a Gentleman
and a man OF honor-he would nave refused abso-
lutcy IRON that moment to serve, and. indeed, his
government would never have permitted him TO 10 SO.
Thtrd-So lar AS to AR. Fisns ability 10 protect
himself against tue suggested plot 10 iorce poor Dci-
Iosse upon nim But tnis Is hot all nor the worst.
pr. Fisn is gentleman. How could he urge or con-
sent 70 Doiosse scrvings How could he write hun
on February IL, 1877 :--.I aiu very glad that you
have kindly consented 10 assume the position com
missioner aud Il knew he tine Brush Minister
would represent 70 you my wsncs Tor your assent 70
our requcstY" How could he wrise nm on the second
Jay OF March ioiIowing:-"fray accept my warnest
congratuationss ~ How could ne DO tins without
having previously informed MI Dcnossc how aud
wuy ne Lad objected TO him bciorcr There appears
10 me and 10 many others something cod bioodcd
10 me no. without blame Ia this matter, consHerns
that he had knowledge oil the reasons upon wnch Mr.
FIsn had objected 20 Mr. Deiiosse IL would GER
fanny have been generous act IA MIN 20 hpve gwen
Deliosse hint Of those reasons Dut ~ was inexcu-
sable IN Mr.. Fisu not to nave done 20.
i rScoMrArIBLE wira THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
/ Fourfa-- HAVING, however, persuaded Mr. Delfosse
to servo arbitrator certainly all that preceded
l ought ~ have been blot,ea out Il wAs not "com.