Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1878-03-22
The International Agard.


persons agreed upon, by two or more
governments, to decide some matters
of dispute between them. OF course,
the force and extent of submission
must depend upon its terms, and the
effect which the jaw gives it.
Now, the first question which arises
jim the great fishery award, is, when a
submission is made to three, must the
award be unanimous? Now to apply
a rule to this case, which Te WQuld
apply to an award between two Of
our neighbors in this state, might he
very erroneous, because ir The latter
case, the award might, and probably
would be governed by local rules. Our
statutes for example, provide in sub
stance, that where authority is given
to three to do and act, the concur
renee Of two Of the three is sufficient.
The agreement of two selectmen to do
and act, or two Of threJ appraisers,
on the appraisal of real estate to be
set off in satisfaction of an execution,
is sufficient. If we could apply this
rule to the national award, of course
it would settle the question in favor
of the award. But, of course, nations
are not governed by local laws, and
they are of no authority on this SUBJ
ject, except so far as they go to make
up the custom. They are q part OF
common sentiment of the world, and
are authority SO far as they go. Now
it must be conceded that there are
many authorities, that take the ground
that az award must be unanimous,
unless otherwise stipulated in the
submission. Treating that therefore
as an open question, is it no. more
just that the intent of the parties
should settle the question? The fact
that there were three implies that
there might be a disagreement, AMI
that it was SO numbered, that two
could settle it. The objection to one
of the arbitrators, upon the ground
that he was the recipient Of fayors
from Great Britain, and be might be
placed where lie would control the
whole matter-the fact that each gov
ernmcnt selected one of the arbiSra-
tors from among its citizens, and the
third one from foreign country
with probable necessity of his judg-
ing between the two, who would each
partake in his coQntry's partisan feel
ings in the case, are, with other facts
and circumstances to be considered
1T seems to us that these things taker
into connection with the fact thai
Pc other provision was made for any
othe: disposition of the case in thu
event Of the three disagreeing, show
that it was the intent of the two gov
ernments to submit the whole matte
to the final determination of thost
three men.
Nov, treating the decision US hay
ing all the requisites of an award, w
pass to the next question. Ought i
10 be set aside? The first and pail
objection is, that the damages award
ed are excessive, and that the evidenc
did not warrant the arbitrators il
finding one half the sum awarded
That depends upon what the evidenc
was; and it was agreed that the evi
dencc should be presented to thos
three men, and they should say villa
it tended to show, and, (if our frs
conclusion is correctly such declsio
should be final.
The object of this arbitration is t
prevent litigation or war. Now, is
wise, or tolerable for either party I
lie permitted to judge whether the Dc
cision be correct OF not, and to leav
the performance of it dependant ppQ
the will Or Judgment of either party
Besides, if onr government lqs bee
foremost in recommending qrbitratjo
to prevent war, ought it not within q
reasonable rules to respect such sui
stitute for war! or if II has 20 legf
grounds 70 SGT aside the award, ougl
it not to respect system brought in
to sucl high repute by itself? II
can be legally set aside, demand tha
it be done. If not, lei us pay it Xix
men, and show the world our deyc
tion to this system, by orr sgbmissi9
to its lawful resrlte.
BHt it ~ said that Mr.. DelfQsgf
one af the commission, was aR inf
persoR to sit an the case. or course
the fitness Of q person composing tn
tribunal Is always open to enquiry
aud if this is shown TO have been com
posed Of legally unfit material, th