The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-11-20
The Diplomacy OF Evarts.

"suifercd violent injuries at the hands OF
the Newfoundland fishing population, at
Fortune Bay, in January Of this year"
Mr.. EvARTs took an opportune moment, on
the eve of the election, to give out his views
dated September %, addressed to our slave
trading Minister at London, In answer TO
Lord SALIsBURYs reply to the representa-
lions Of the Department Of State on this
subject. OF course he had an object in
selecting that particular time to tell his
story, and to make credulous people think
perhaps, there was energy in his ponderous
phrases.
The award Of the Halifax Commission Is
due on the oath OF this month, and Congress.
at the last session, appropriated the money
10 pay It, with sort OF reservation that
before payment was actually made a case
should be presented TO Great Britain, show
ing it to have been exorbitant, and leaving
the ultimate decision OF payment or nom
payment, after this correspondence, in the
hands Of the Executive Mr.. EvARTs sought
u utilize this discretion by raising an issue
on the award itself, with view Of post
poning the payment and OF exciting ma
tional feeling to operate ON the then pend
ing elections.
llolu CAlslSBN ~ uUN u 81 IfIllfu 10 All
EvARTs, and, initiating his example. has pub
lished the note, so that both sides are before
the world in an official form. Lord SAILS
BURY had previously admitted, what could
not well be disputed, that any act Of the
local Legislature Of Newfoundland, though
professedly made TO execute the treaty OF
Washington. could not impair the effect Of
the treaty itself in regard to our fishery
-
bitration, which is now the only one in dis
pute between the two Governments, the
argument is with Lord SALISBURY. Arbi-
traitors, like courts, are ruled by majority.
The reason for this is too plain for discus
eion, for without such a rule 1t would be as
difficult to reach decision in one case as n
judgment in the other. All recent practice
favors this principle
The treaty Of Washington expressly pro-
vided in Article II. that all questions con-
sidered by the tribunal the arbitrators at
Geneva, including the final award, shall bc
decided by a majority Of all the arbitrators.'
Again, Article y. Of the same treaty de-
clared In case a sum was not awarded in.
gross that "a board OF assessors shall be
appointed to ascertain and determine what
claims are valid, and what amounts shall be
paid by Great Britain TO the United States
- majority Of the assessors in each case
shall be sufficient for a decision" It is true
that in Article XXI. Of the same treaty, re-
ferrlng TO the fisheries, the condition Of a
majority was not prescribed in the follow
Ing words
ANY sum Of money which the sad Commissioners
may award shall be- pnd by the United States Govern.
hent in gross sum. within twelve months after such
award shall have been gwen"
But the principle had been laid down en-
Ihatically that "A majority was to decide the
great controversy which necessarily APP
piled to the lesser dispute included in the
same treaty. 1t is possible to make a dis
tinction between the two. and TO telegraph
notes across the ocean; but that is n species
Of diplomacy which, though in fashion,
Is not creditable since it looks like a
tneaking way Of escaping an obligation
imposed by the imbecility or worse Of the
late Administration. The award Of the Hal
flax Commission cannot be defended on any
principle OF justice, and can be proved to
be a gross eXtortion upon the case as made
up on the British side. But we submit
tod 10 an arbitration-that charming sys-
TEN Of diplomacy invented by Gen. GRANT
and Mr.. HAMILTON FIsH-and we lost.
Having lost the game, we are bound for
debt Of honor and there is no escape
from It, Sharp practice to evade this
duty will only add to the aggrayation Of
false position, especially as there now
lies in the Treasury some eight or nine
millions Of the Geneva award, for which
we preferred claims against Great Britain,
but which claims we have not admitted our
selves. after receiving the money to pay
them
Who Is responsible for the monstrous
Halifax award A great deal Of indigna-
ton has been expended on Mr.. DELFossE,
the Belgian Minister, who gave the casting
vote against the United States. lie is not
TO blame at all for fayoring the interests
Of the nation that may be said TO have
called Belgium into existence, and that has
always stood before the world as her avowed
protector. Nobody disputes his personal in
tegrity, and it was but natural his leaning
should be with England.
Gen. GRANT was fcasted and battered in
England on account OF his boosted part in
the treaty OF Washington. That treaty
gave up some Of the most cherished Ameri-
can doctrines. II requires the United States
10 mount guard over British interests on
our own soil Gen. GRANT and Mr.
FISH are directly auswerable for tho Hall
fax award First, the treaty Of Washing
ton stipulated, in case her Britannia Maj
esty and the President of the United States
conformity shall not have named third
Commissioner within three months from the
date when this article shall take effect then
the third Commissioners shall be named by the
representative at London OF his Majesty the
Emperor Of Austria aud King Of Hungary"
That Is 10 say, GRANT and FISH virtually
put the arbitration in the hands OF England
from the start, by surrenderlng the selection
OF the third Commissioner to diplomatic
agent educated in strong prejudice against
the United States from former disputes and
directly under the social and political IN
huence OF our adversary, with whom he was
In daily contact.
The second step was still worse. Great
Britain named Mr.. DELFossE as her arbi-
traitor, and Mr., FISH resisted than appoint
ment for n long time, and with seeming
determination in no event to accept him.