Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1878-03-15
THE FISHING AWARD.

Jurisprudence OF the New York Tribune.
Washington, March S.-A disposition i.
beginning TO be manifest in Washington to
question the validity Of The award Of the
HALIFAX commission which considered the
fisheries question.
The objection is not % much to the sum
awarded or on account Of the appointment
OF MI. De!afosse to be one of the commiss-
loners. The doctrine of law IL said to be
thoroughly established that in the absence
OF stipulatlons to the contrary arbritratsrs
must be unanimous. Such is the familiar
law TO be found in all the books in England
and the United States. 1t is the fact th.t
no such reservation Is contained in The
treaty Of Washington in respect TO the award
OF the fisheries commission; and on thia
ground it is confidently maintained bv some
that the award of the Halifax Commission is
void for want of unanimity.
That this conclusion is founded upon the
general rules Of law is fully confirmed by
comparison With other provisions of the
treaty: The treaty expressly provides a to
the arbitration at Geneva that "all questions
considered by the tribunal including the
ina! award, shall be decided BY majority
OF the arbirators." So as to the assessors. In
article \. it is expressly provided that "a
majority of all assessors in each case shall
be sufficient for decision" So as 10 The
claims commission under article XIII. It
is expressly provided that "a majority Of
the commissioners shall be sufficient for an
award in each case" But there is no such
saving clause as TO the fisheries commission,
the treaty speaking only of their award
Now it is argued that it is incredible that in
the same instrument the power to decide by
q majority should be carefully gwen to three
Of the four boards of arbitration. and With.
held from the fourth unless with deliberst,
intention, and that intention to leave tn,
general rules Of law to operate 80 as to exac
unanimity in this case. The analogy of or
dinary courts ofjustice, in England aud th,
United States, where majority decides, ha
nothing to do with the question, which i
proved BY the fact that the treaty stipulate
for bare majority in three of the case,
which 1t would have had no occasion to d,
II any general la~ made a majority sufi
cient.
Tbe high joint commissioners consistinl
partly OF eminent lawyers on both sides
we'll knew that IN arbi,rations as distir
gu!shed from ordinary courts, bare major
ity, if intended. must be stipulated for il
the instrument of arbitration. Hence, Il
the present case it is maintained that q
award by two is Just as void as would hav
been an award by one alone.
1t is maintained that the United State
should not hesitate to deny the bindin
effect Of this pretended award. Englan
should hesitate to set up as an award tbs
which she sees is not an award such 4
the contracting parties contemplated in cor
cluding the treaty and in this view of til
subject it is asserted that this is plainly th
case Of an arbitration lapsed for want of e,
ecution, and requiring to be settled BY flu
ther negotiation between the two govern
ments.
DR.. Loring has received memorial frol
committee of Gloucester fisherman in r,
gard to the Halifax award. The committa
declares that the provincial fisheries q
, much more prosperous than those of Il
United States; that the treaty OF Washin
ton has greatly injured than benefited II
latter; and thet the award of 100000
unwarranted and unjust. At the san
time, the committee desires ttat the go
vernment shall fulfill all moral Obligation
and preserve the nations honor, and Il
object of their memorial is mainly to pla'
8 on record their protest, rather than to q
. wise resistance to payment.