Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1878-11-18
THEFISHERIES TROUBLE.
SAlisBURrs REPLY TO SECRETARY
EE sevARTS. s- s
He Thinks Our Secretay's Reasoning is
Powerful, but Does Not Wantto
Follow Him in His Ar
guments.

WASHINGTON, November T.-LOri
Salisbury in reply to Secretary Evarts
dispatch concerning the Halifax Fish
cry Award after recalling at consider
able length the circumstances which led
to the organization Of Commission, and
the grating ofthe decision given by a ma
jority OF the Commissioners, says sit was
not without most thorough and labOri-
ousinvestigation Of the question submit
ted to their appreciation, that majority
of the Commissioners arrived at the de-
cision quoted, and it must be observed,
the whole proceedings were held in
strict conformity with the terms of the
treaty of Washington. whilst the
award wasgiven BY majority ofthe Com
missi0ners in the very terms contained
in article 90 OF the treaty. In the dis
patch communicated to Her Majesty's
Government, Mr. Evarts seeks to inval-
idate the award which is at the root OF
this exhaustive Investigation, upon the
ground that in estimating the claims OF
Great Britain, the Commissioners must
be assumed to have taken into consid-
Grafton circumstances which the treaty
OF Washington had not referred to them.
There is nothing on the face Of the
award which gives any countenance to
the supposition that the Commissioners
Travelled beyond the limits assigned
them by the treaty.
Mr.. Evarts' argument in favor OF this
contention is entirely deducted from
what he considers TO De the magnl-.
tude OF the sum awarded. 1t
is, he contends, so lar in excess of what
the United States government believes
to be the true solution of the problem
submitted by the treaty, that some
factor which the treaty has not recog-
nized, must necessarily, in his opinion,
have been impaired to the calculation.
MIR. Evarts proceeds To give, in detail,
the consideration by which, in his
Judgment, the result arrived at should
be tested. He gives his reasons for be-
lieying that mackerel il the onlytish to
whose capture, in the waters opened by
Great Dreat Britain, any value shoull
to be taken of herring, halibut, cod,
lake, pollock or bait fish. He computes
the number OF mackerel which the
United States fishermen have caught
within the three mile line during tho
wears OF the treaty period which have
expired, and infers from it the number
which they are likely TO catch within
the same area during the interval that
remains, and concludes this branch Of
his argument by estimating on various
hypothesis, the profit which the United
States fishermen are likely to have made
from the mackeral which they have
probably caught. On the other side, he
estimates ut q high value the profit
which the British fishermen have de-
rived from opening the markets Of the
United States and concludes that the
sum fixed by the award is so much
larger than these considerations would
have justified, that the United States
government can only explain its magnl-
tude on the assumption that the com
mission has mistaken the question that
was referred to it; that Mr.. Evart's rea-
soniny is powerful it is not necessary
for me to say nor on the other
hand will he be surprised 10 hear that
Her Majesty's government still retain
the belief that it is capable OF refuta.
ton, but in their opinion they would
not BIZ Justified in following him into
the details OF his arguments. These
very matters were examined at great
len 9TH and with conscientious scrutiny
bv Commissioners whose award is un-
der discussion. 4 decision Of the ma
jor.ty was given after full hearing OF
all considerations that either side was
able to advance, and that the decision
within limits of the matter submitted
to them ia, uuder the treaty, without
appeal. The argument OF Mr.
Evarts contends that the sum awardediS
excessive, and therefore the award
must have been arrived at by some ille-
gitimate process, but to argue against
the validity of the award solely on the
ground that the conclusion arrived at
by the arbitrators on the very point re-
ierred to is erroneous, is in effect the
same thing rs to dispute the judgment
which they have found on evidence. Her
majrsty's government do not feel that
it is their duty to put forward any opin-
ion adverse or favorable to the decision
which majority of the commissioners
have passed upon the atfidavits and
dispositions which they have had to con-
slider. Her Majesty's government could
not DO so without at least the same
laborious investigation asI that which
was performed by the commission IA
task for which the interval which has
been left between October 10th, the day
on which Mr.. Evarts' dispatch was de
liyered To us, and November 23d, the
day on which the payment awarded is
to be made, would certainly not suffice,
but they are precluded from passing in