The Portland daily press., 1878-11-18
THE HALIFAX AWARD:
saIisbury's Reply to Secretary Eyarts,


saiisbnry's Reply to Secretary Ev arfs,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17.-Lord Salisbury. re-
plying To ur Ev4rts' despatch about the Hall
tax award, after stating Mr.. Evarts' PROPOSE
tions, says:
That Mr.. Evarts' reasoning is powerful it is
pot necessary for nae to say, nor on the other
band will be be surprised to hear that Her
Majesty's government still retains the belief
that it is capable Of REPUTATION. But in their
opinion they would not be justified in following
him into the details of his argument These
very matters we're examined at great length
with conscientious minuteness by the comms-
siouers whose award is under discussion, and
the decision of the msJority given after full
bearing Of all the Considerations that eitoer
side was able to advance, and that decision
with the limits of the matter submitted to
them is under the treaty, without appeal The
argument OF Mr.. Evarts amounts to review
OF their award upoo question OF fact and Pc
cunisry compensation referred to them. He
contends that the sum awarded is excessive,
and therefore the award must have been ar
rived at by SOM illegtim ate process; bat to ar
CUE az ainst the validity of an award solely on the
ground that the conclusion arrived at by the al
bitrators on the very point referred to them is
erroneous, is in effect the same thing as to dis.
pute the judgment which they have formed
upon evidence. Her Msjesty's government do
DOT feel that il Is their duty TO put forward any
opinion adverse or favorable to the decision
which majority of the commissioners have
passed upon sffidavts aud deposItons which
they have had to consider. Her Majssty's gov
-rnment could not do so without undertaking
the same laborious investigation as that which
was performed by the COMMISSIONS task for
waicn an interval Left between Oct
10Th, the day on which MIR. Evarts' despatch
was handed to me, and Nov. 23i, the day on
which the payment of the award is to be made.
would certainly not suffice-but they are pre-
cluded from passing in review the Judgment of
the commission by q far more serious disquai-
fcatioD. They cannot be judges OF appeals in
TINS case because they have been ltiga0ts, and
as litigan they have expressed the vie W upon
the facts which they have have felt bonHd in
that capacity TO maintain. Their computations
have bsen totally different in method and re-
suit from those which the American counsel
sustained and which in part Mr.. Evarts reiter-
ates in his despatch. The Interpretation which
they have given to data laid before the tribunal
has been in complete antagonsm to his. They
nave been of the opinion, and have insisted With
all the force Of argument that their agents
could com mand, that S15, 900 was leg It'll
mate compensation which uUder the treaty was
Cheir due. THE majority of the comm ssiou
has decided to reduce that claim nearly two
thirds.
Having formally engaged to submit the mat
ter To this arbitration they do not think it is
open to them to enquire how it is that the
com mission came to form an opinion upon
their claims SO widely different from their
own, still less can they adm that either side
IS entitled to treat this difference as ground
for assuming that the arbitrators have import
ed into their judgment considerations which
the treaty d'd not authorize them to entertain
der MaJesty's government can only accept
now, as on similar occasions they have accept
ed before, the decision of the tribunal to which
they have soemnly and voluntarily sub United
At the close of his despatch Mr. Eyarts re-
fers to consideration which l ought not to
pass over without observation, though he does
not place it in the first rank among the objec-
tions which he raises against the award. He
calls attention to the fact toat the award of the
commission was not unanimous aid that in
the Treaty of Washington no stipulation is in
this case made that the decision of a majority
is to be binding. The opinion that according
to the Treaty of Washington the Fishery
Commission was incapable of pronouucing any
decision unless Its members we're unanimous
Is one in which Her Msjssty's government are
unable to concur. I am not aware of any au-
thorlties who in respect to International arbi.
trat'ons could be quoted in the contrary sense
and 1t would not be difficult to show by refer
ence to cases in American as well as In EGG
llsh courts that the same rule has always b sen
judlcaly applied in the case of arbitrations of
public nature. The language and stipula-
IONS of the treaty ITSELF so far as they are ex-
pliclt upon the subject. point to q similar Con-
cusion. The suggestion that the trainers of
the treaty meant by their silence to prescribe a
mode of proceeding which before tribunal
thus constituted is unexampled, can only be
accepted on the hypothesis that they were de-
Eberately preparing an insOluble controversy
for those by whom the treaty was to be exc.
cuted.
Lord Salisbury argues at length in support of
these conclusions. He concludes as follows:
Had 1T been known five years ago that an
award would be prevented by the dissent Of one
OF the members of an arbitration constituted on
the same principle (though do not venture to
conjecture what the course of the United States
government woald have been) feel confident
that England would have declined to enter up-
on 60 unequal litigation. Her Majasty's
government may appeal TO a cogent proof that
in accepting this arbitration they did not con-
template that he award was likely to be affect
ed BY the requirement of unanlmity, believing
in the agreement with msjority Of the COM
mission that they were to be heavy losers by the
exchange OF concessions contained in articles
10, 10 and q of the treaty. Thev
nevertheless have for five years al owed those
concessions to come into force, trusting to the
compensation which the com mission would
give them. and that they have done so is snffi-
Gent proof that they did not anticipate Con-
structl0n OF the treaty which would make the
delivery of the award almost possible. A
valuable property has actually passed into the
etJoy ment of Others and Cannot be recalled
The price to be paid for it was to be determined
later by tribunal agreed upon between the
parties. Is 10 conceivable that they should
have deliberately constituted a tribunal for
this purpose in which a decision could b,
wholly prevented by the dissent Of memoer
nominated by the party which had possessed
this property.
Her Msjasty's government feel confident that
the United States government will not upon
reflection see in the considerations which have
been advanced any sufficient reason f,r treat
ing as nulltY the DECISION at which the ma
iorlty OF the commission h ave arrived.
A Canadian Opinion of MIR. Evzrts,
Letter.
OTTAWA, Nov 16.-Mr Bandwell, member
of the Dominion House of Commons
says Mr. Es arts dispatches have the appear
ance of very dIscredi able attempt to escape
the payment of the Halifax award, an d that q
desire to repudiate has been evinced by many