Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1878-11-18
THE FISHERY AWARD.
Lord Saiisbury's Reply to Secretary Ev.
arts.
His Comments on the Arguments Pre-.
scented.

WASHINGTON, November IL. Lord Salishury.
| IN reply to MIR. Evsrts despatch concerning NE
Halifax award, after Q somewhat lengthy reviev
OF the circumstances under which the comm iesion
was formed and the award made By H. save:
| 1t was sssuredy not without the most thorough
| and lsborious investigation Of the qusstioa sub
mitted to their appreciation, thst majority Of
the commissioners arrived 1t . decision; and is
must be observed that the whole Of the proceed
lngs were in strict conformity with the tsrns Of
the treaty Of Washington. whilst the award was
gwen In the very terms contained in Article ~ Of
the treaty.
In the despatch which has been communicated
to Her Msjesty's government, Mr.. Evarts seeks
to invsdate the award, which 10 the rssult Of this
| exhaustive investigation, upon the ground that
| IN estimating the claims Of Great Britain, the
| commissioners must be assured TO have taken into
consideration circumstances which the treaty Of
Washington had not referred to them.
There Is nothing upon the face Of the award
| which gives any countenance TO the supposition
that the commission travelled beyond the limits
assigned them by the treaty.
MIR. Evarts argument in favor Of this conten E.
tentlon is entirely deduced from what he consid-
| ers the magnitude Of the sum awarded. Il 10, be
contends, 50 far in excess Of what the United
states government believe to be the true solution
Of the problem submitted BY the treaty, shat some
factor which the treaty has not recognized, must
necessarily, 10 his opinion, have been posted into
the calculation.
Mr. EvArts proceeds to give in detail the Coz
arrived at should be tested. Tie gives his reason
for believing that mackerel 10 The oaly fsh 70
whose capture in the waters opened By Great
Britain, any value should be assigned, aad that
no account Is to be taken Of herring, halibut. cod.
| bake, pollock, or bait fish. He computes the num-
| Der Of nackercl which United States fshermsn
have caught within three mile line from Shore
during years OF treaty period, which have expired,
and infers from it the number which they are k o
y to catch within the same ares, during the inter-
n ia
gument BY estimating on various hypothesis profit
which U. s. fishermen are likely to have made
from msckerel which be has probably caught. On
the other side he estimates 1t svsry high. valss
| the profit which British fishermen derived fron
the opening of the markets Of the United States,
| and concludes that the sum fixed by tie award 10
| 80 much larger than these confederation would
| have justified, that the United States governmsnt
can only explain its mag nitude the assumption
| that the commission has mistaken the question ~
fened to il. ts-7~s
That Mr.. Evsrts reasoning ID powerful L 10 mot
necessary for me to say, nor on the other hand,
| will he be surprised to hear that Her Majesty's
government still retain the belief thst s b capa-
bic refutalion, but in their opinion they would not
be justified in following him into details Of his Or.
gument.
These very matters we're examined Of great
length with conscientious minstsnsss. By Tie COM
| missoDers whose award 10 under diseaGsioa. The
decision of the majority given after fall hearing
OF all considerations that either side was able to
advance, and that decision within the limits Of
matter submitted 70 them, under the treaty with.
cut appeal.
The argument of Mr.. Evarts amounts - 4 N.
view OF their award upon the question Of net and
pecuniary computation referred - then. He
contends that the sum awarded 10 excessive spd
therefore the award must have been arrived ct by
some illegtimate process but to argue against
the validity of award solely on the ground that
the conclusion arrived at BY arbitratioa, on the
very point referred to them, 10 srreasoas-is in
effect the same thing as to dispute Judgment which
they have formed upon evidence.
Her Majesty government do not feel that 1t ID
their duty to put forward any opinion sdverss OF
favorable to the decision which . majority Of the
commissioners have passed upon af6dayits and de-
positions which they have had to consider.