The New York herald., 1878-11-11

reasons already stated could not be worthily
tanned upon either side element of the pecunary
of the privileges to be accorded. In these
conferences il s not less apparent that Her Majesty
High Commissioners recognized the possession OF
market for the product of the provincial fisheries
the thing essential 10 the prosperity of those
fisheries which could not be dispensed with re-
placed by any money purchase. This commercial all
vantage of course both practically and suitably
to the dignity of the negotiation, measurable in
money. 1t seemed to our High Commissioners TO er-
ceed in value TO the provinces it unquestionably
did in loss to u.s. any reasonable estimate of the
value of the privilege our fishermen to az
quire. This basis, however, of freedom of the FISH
ing grounds 10 our fishermen and the freedom of
our market to the fishermen of the provinces, in
yantaaes which might we'll have disnepscJ with any
nice calculation of comparative pecuniary values in
the exchange Her Majesty's High Commissioners.
however thought that this exchange of privileges,
with thes added concession part. OF
throwing open to the provincial fishermen unre-
stricted participation in the valuable nshore
ninth parallel. left still claim for pecu-
mary make-weight in favor of the provinces
in the nature of owety Of partition, This led to the
constitution of the Halifax Commission TO consider
and decide the single question whether. and how
privilege opened to the United States fishermen
ceeded the pecuniary measure OF the fishing
the possession of market free of duty for all the
products of the provincial fisheries This difference
between the two pecnniary valuations was. in the
nature OF the problem, less than by the terms OF
the treaty, to be expressed and paid in money.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION.
Upon the conclusion of the labors of the Halifax
ring Judgment of the two Commissioners. awarding
the of S. 900 the amount to be paid by the
United States under the fishery articles Of the treaty
and the judgment of the dissenting Commissioner
that no sum whatever was payable by the United
States under those articles, it became the
duty of this government to compare this re-
suit with the authority. impaired to the commits
sion by treaty, and to determine whether it COM
ported with or transcended such authority 1t will
mot inE he nne nv Her Maia "
ment that upon the proofs and arguments. in what
form submitted by the two governments to the
the United states under article 1s of the treaty.
simply free and equal right to take part in the
s''th the three-miie e @ line. instead Of being ex-
vsntion Of 1878. Nor DO anticipate that You
win and any dissent on the part Of Lord Salisbury
from the proposition that the proofs fully show that
the fishery thus opened to was the mackerel hsh-
cry within that line. While both governments must
regret that the footing for of views
between them, which might have been furnished by
careful system of protocols the conferences of the
commission il wanting, yet the proofs on both sides
leave this proposition in doubt Indeed, since the
publication by Parliament Of the Correspondence
has disclosed the advices given. from time
to time TO Her Majesty government by Mr.. Ford,
attendance upon the commission of tho develop
Of the real subject for valuation, there seems
room for any difference OF views between the two
governments this point. Thus, in his despatch Of
September TO- 1877 presenting the position upon the
completion Of the British evidence and before the
opening Of the proofs on the part of the United
States Mr.. Ford says:-
The maekerel fishery being that most extensively pur
sued by Americans in British waters the branch Of in
In giving too in the same despatch the general
suits OF any pecuniary measure of benefit to the
United States fishermen from the concession of arti-
Gle l8 of the treaty, which the completed British
proofs had presented rs q basis for an award Mr..
Ford makes it very apparent that the sckere catch
within the three mile line was the only item Of ap
preciabe importance. He
According the evidence sdduesd the British side it
doubt ss s- . sss S the
caught within the three mile limit while owing probably
ho1s the eseh Of this .n in United State. nor
the thirty ninth parallel Of north a.itude is principally.
Mr. Ford also, upon the mere British proofs, no
less distinctly excludes the cod fishery element
of the computation Of the value to US OF the conces
sion of article Is. He says-
United states ashernen within British Janitorial waters
and this probably the with hake hsddock, pollock
And again
The evidence somewhat vague to the prcpo,on Of
not probably amount 10 anything considerable except on
certain portions Of the north shore Of the Calf Of St. Law
II
Mr. Ford's despatch, upon . survey of the counter
proofs Of the United States which had just been com
pleted under date Of October 80 1877 presents the
contention between the parties, and recognized by
both sides in the same light. He says:-
@ % in al s.s. been s examined ] and
the the British sss the main part q j. has been
The Banks outside & The limit and .s ,hs
eoneiasion Of the Treaty Of Washington.
one regards results the Of
ves.s ma.s Sf statistics has S been n PIT IN sydnee % with
dian nshors fisheries hardly be pursued by United
shore yield prospect Of remnnorative results
g. That the remission Of duties Canadian fish great
mackerel is the United States.
In the same despatch Mr. Ford in certain observe
lions Of his upon the countervang force of the
proofs of the United States, whole against the
British proofs shows that the valuation of the nshore
mackerel fishery Of the Gulf Of st. Lawrence opened
to our fishermen was the whole matter Of contention
before the Commission in respect Of the concession Of
article ls Of the treaty. He remarks
British side that certain portion Of the
ere taken by the United states vessels in the Gulf Of 81
be diheul,y producing considerable number Of nsh
a s. ae"s na ass ~, m
Brit.h territorial Jurisdiction The main fact, however
Z would be %po'ss for the genera, ess,es; e
BE- With
1t seems to this government quito certain.
then. that upon correct exposition Of the
submission OF the treaty, and the concurring
sction of the two governments, in the pro,
dncuon and application OF what they deemed ap-
propriste proofs. what the pecmnary value Of our
Gulf OF ST. Lawrence was fairly estimsble at.
consolidated the extreme limit Of any possi-
BILE pecuniary award by the Halifax Commits
sion against the United states. II upon any
rational view Of the crtoria of this value
before the commission the award OF the two concur
ring Com mmissionerS OF So 100000 twelve years
purchase Of the privilege be maintained, il may
be fairly conceded that the mputation of nvalidity
TO the award for trsnscendng the submission of the
treaty will fail Of adequste demonstration IT, the
other hand. the candid exploration Of the evidence
shall show that there exists no rational proportion
between this award and the unqnestionable limits of
value which any view Of the testimony must assign
20 the subject submitted Tor valuation by the
treaty, correctly Interpreted than, by the very
statement OF the proposition IL Is demonstrated that
the concurrnR Commissioners have passed their
Judgment of valuation upon some other subject than
that defined ia article 15 of the treaty, and have
transcended the submission to their decision. In
such the antecedent authority impaired to the
commission by the two governments fails to justify
the award and the subject OF the fisheries remains at
the arbitrament Of the two governments. uncon-
strained, though perhaps enlightened. by the deber
ations Of the Halifax Commission.