New-York tribune., 1878-11-11

majority of the Assessors iu each case shall Dc SUI
| fcienf TO u decsiOa." ,s
reciprocal clsims between the two c0nn.es ne, ns
during the civil Article Aiit pfvylaes that @ n
jorfty OF the Commissioners shall bc Sufficient Ior an
Fourth The Halifax Commission. composed OF three
ascripton of umrage either and with no provision
| in any form for an award BY less than the
awards, signed by the assrntlng ArbtraOrs Asses
sors mmssioners under the other articles, Willie
In the case of the Halifax Gomission this provision
takes the place OF such acceptance fhe case on etner
side shall be closed within period OF SIX as th
Commissioners shall be requested to give their awsru as
pos, ,ibe ther after" - MI.
The argument from this comparison is obvious Inc
Hgn Contracting Parties possessed common system % o.
jurisprudence. according 70 when reference 10 afDi
traitors ex Iermni required The award to be the act
OF the arbtrStor, that Is OF all OF then Toe rtes 20 an
arbra on public or ryate ms1t accord to any lesser
number tne power OF award but express s ulatiOns III
tie alone could carry that authority Acting
In full view of tins rule, to which desired exoepun
needed expressed in three cases Ia tue same de
liberate and solnn instrument, the High Contracting
Par ies impaired the authority TO majority py caIeu
and soeitos provisions that end. In the case OF the
Halifax Commission last in the order Of the rsaty ana
with previous arrangements IN fhs regard IA theH
minds and under their eJ es, ihs powers WItbhehi
u is impossible, because II Is plainly irrational, 10 sY
that tr,aty provision containing power 10 in9orly
bind and treaty provision expressing no sucI au-
thorty mean one and the same thinS Inc ISn C91 p
tractRg Parties have excluded any sueh coneusoh Dy
the sedulous discrimination which the text OF tDe treaiy
fo the countervaiing digestion that this vari-
aIion from tine system OF the treaiy IN lhe ease is
Of
accounted by nadvertcnee the part Of the High
joint COMMISSIONER he answer Is obvious IL ether VI
the High Contracting Parties should SO alegc. Whi u
ceftaniy would not do much delberatiOn. the
suggestion would not affect the argument as 10 the
meaning OF L. 1Tcaty ms 1t Stood bnt would De IL Ine
nature OF an appeal 10 the other High Contracting Party
waive ihr jrciios and reform the Treaty No aonDt
exis, Ahere such appeals should be frahky
TesJOuded 10, though against Interest 49,, ,,
But vii say 10 Lpr salisbury that the suggestion
OF inadverence in the neg JatOns never to ce hghty
innugrd in ovriooks adequate aud, prtsulnptlVey
the real reasoa l'f tie feq o i ~ s m %
pressy waived the Otarr suUmssions of the treaty.
Ia The OF computation submitted IN the several
ngushed IL IN from that submitted to tie award ol
the Halifax Commission First. they were Wholly mat
egs Uf dtterunte PfOOfan apprdiSement ot the sips
and stroyed by the Ala1aina ana her cnhsols
an estimation OF danses 10 persons OF plopelg Gu en
zcns, for which reIarptinns should be lnaue-
tacse matters Oi deilaiuye Affirmative proof
IN pounds dollars, b,iUic any award cOulu
ne askcd and subject 10 correction Dy
equally definite opposing proofs before any aT"rd could
ure.nent OF any sti-subssiin. interests between the
iIgh contracting Parties whica would survive he pay
nrt oI the several awards. IL WAS then, qlte suitable
these references tO accept thc Judgment OF m.JOhS
ud dispense with the concurrence OF both parties, a.
represented Ia the comm ssOns, IL the result OF the con
tentions before them
The matter submitted the Halifax Commission was
different IN ure and in ie relations OF Tie gh Con-
tracing Parties 10 the subject OF contention. BON
In traits AZ thus dispute cOn=pired 10 ur-e upon inc
lhgh Contracting PirLcs iAe need Ot every possible
guarantee against unrUs uabe or is9ry csti. Ves on
tie par ~ thr commission. 10 the PR Judlcc OF one party
the other BrsiucS, ills computation toucAeu Dla-
ter IN wic1 large classes aHd interests OF cfer com
muny felt concern ana II was essehtia tnat
faction with results suOud bC aicYaiCd by cOhnuthce
in the Judgment. 50 vague subject Of valuation as the
twelve years prospective catch or mBckcrel within
miles OF the shore, on the coasts Oi the Uh!teu
States aud Of PrUyt.cyS, dih,e problem IS the
di.ribtou oi The burd-us u duties oetWeau producer
aud consumer gave large range Tor hOJiing ecu
uni anchored o soDer sense by the require
Of uuanmIty. Ine permanent impoi aHce OF tAeae
valuations, IN the future negotiations OF thc TWO cOu
re IO bade their submission 10 any COMMISSION nhcoh
IOed by The necessary concurrence ul !hc feihtschtd
OF both countries in any award Toe interests ana
feelings Of the large populations, oD one sdT anu lc
Other pcnaent Tor prosperity II not for livelihood ON
tlcsc sDees, made the two governments careful 10 Sc
cure them, IN any result against sense OF iJHstlct, as
well of dl,appUinLment Uy this CONSERVATIVE require
meut OF unauImity.
THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY.
In submitting Her Maiesy Government the failure
the Commiss to come 10 the agreement which
IN this Interpretation Of the Treaty Is requisite to the
validity Of the award this Government wishes to lay no
undue upon this objection. II Her Maestys Gov
ernment concurs in this construction OF the authority
conferred upon the Halifax Commission, this agreement
between the governments VIII enable them, presently
10 make more complete as well as satisfactory. ar
raugements the reciprocal interests OF the industry
and commerce OF the Provinces and OF the United states
than at present exist w. on the other band' htr MAJ
csty's Government shall mnnounee 10 tns 1oItIncn'
renee Of "A majority OF the Commissioner warrants
valid award Notwithstanding the declared dissent Oh tne
third mmisOner this Government VIII not refuse 20
accord that opinion thus expressed all the weight
which e. desires for its own views.
You wi therefore, 10 Lord salisbury. that, upon
such declared disagreement upon the true nterpreta
nn OF the Treaty respect OF unanmity OF the Com
miNsoners, this GoyeruWeat WI VIII rtsiu sil0 man a. M
nance Of the entire good fath ana mutual re- nect III Az
icalug under the bene1cent Treaty OF Nashln2ton 1S
Of paramount concern ana Viii not asSuic 10 4,s ''s
deliberate Interpretation OF her Malestys Govern
Ynu viii prompiiy communicate these views 10 her
aIsty's Government by delivering copy OF this dis