New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-03-09
IS THE HALIFAX AWARD BINDINGi
THE AWARD not UNANIMOUS AND THE TREATY ST.
LENT on THE SUBJECT OF MAJORITY VOTE.

THE AWARD not UNANIMOUS AND THE TREATY ST.
LENT on THE SUBJECT OF MAJORITY VOTE.
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TmBUSE.l
WASHINGTON, March S.-A disposition is begin
ming 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 so much TO the awarded,
or on account of the appointment Of Nr. Delafosse
60 be one Of the Commissioners. The doctrine of
Law is said TO be thoroughly established that in the
absence OF stpuiat0ns to the contrary arbitrator
must be unanimous. Such is the familiar law to be
found in all the books in England and in the United
States. II is the fact that no such reservation is
contained in the Treaty Of Washington in respect
10 the award OF the Fisheries Commission and
this ground it is confidently maintained by some
that the award of the Halifax Commission is void
for want of unanimty.
That this conclusion is founded upon the general
rules Of law is fully confirmed by comparison with
other provisions of the treaty. The treaty ex-
pressy provides as to the arbitration at Geneva
that all questions considered by the tribunal, IN
GLIDING the final award, shall be decided by ma
iority of the arbltrators" So to the assessors.
In Article X it is expressly provided that a ma
oTty Of all assessors in each shall be sufficient
for decislOn.D So az TO the Claims Commission,
under Article Kill 1t is expressly provided that
"a majority of tie Commissioners shall be
sufficient for an award in each case.
But there is no such saving clause as
10 the Fisheries Commission, TIE treaty, speaking
only of their award. Now it is argued that it is in
credible that in the same instrument tie power to
decide by a majority should be carefn.ly given to
three of the four boards of arbitration, and with
held from the fourth unless with deliberate inten
tiOn and that intention to leave the general rules
OF law 20 operate so as to exact unanmity in tins
la al Of ri;
England and the United States, where a majority
decides, has nothing to do with the question, which
proved by the fact that tie treaty stipulates for
bare majority IN three of the cases, which it would
have had no occasion to do If any general law made
majority sufficient.
The Joint High Commissioners. consisting partly
of eminent lawyers on both SIDES well knew that in
affiliations as distinguished from ordinary courts
bare majority if intended, must BIO stipulated for
in the instrument of arbitration. Hence in the
present csse il is maintained that award by two
ID Just as void as would have been an award by one
alone.
II is maintained that the United States should not
hesitate to deny the binding effect of this pretended
award. England should hesitate to set up as an
award that which she sees Is not an award such as
,he contracting parties contemplated ~ c4nftGae
serted that this is plainly the OF All arbitration
iapsed for want of execution and requiring TO be
settled by further negotiation between the two
governments.
DIR. Loring has received mem orial from com
nittee Of Gloucester fishermen in regard TO the Hal
pax award. The committee declares that the
PROVINCIAL fisheries are much more prosperous than
nose OF the United States that the Treaty of WASH
,.hgton has greatly injured rather than benefited
thelstter; and that the award OF $5.O0OOO0 IS un-
warranted and unjust. At The same time, the COM
mttee desires that the Government shall fulfill all
moral obligations and preserve the Nations honor,