The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-03-13

| very peculiar circumstances under which the
| decslon against Us was reached. Whether wa
| sneuld pay 1t is very important question in
| All Its bearings, and one that should bs most
| Carefully Considered and determined Tbe
| awatd was signed ouly by Sir Alexander Gait
| Di1su commissioner, and BY Mr. Dslfosse,
| aue Ametican commissioner, Mr. Kellogg, re-
| ,n,;.; W slgn y, and affirmed his dissent in
Wrie'ng, declaring it his deliberate opinion that
Tue advantages accruing to Great Britain nm.
eer Tue treaty were greater than those con-
Ierred on the United tates:' and hs fnrtbar
ueciareu mat he deemed it his duty to state
that ''it is questionable whether IL is comnatant
Tor tue board to make award under the trsatv
except with the unanimous consent of all the
aroitrators." Dwight Foster, the agent of our
government, stated that he had no instruc-
tlons as to what be should do under the CIR
cumstances, but he could not keep silent
aud give ground for the inference that
our government would consider the award
Valid one. mention these facts to
STOW tnat the objections to the validity of the
AWARD were not the result of afterthought, but
were incorporated as part of the proceedinos
before the arbitrators. The ground on which
Kellogg questioned the competency of two of
tns o. sroitrstors to make the award is found in
sll legal authorities on arbitration. The arti-
cles 10 the treaty of Washington creating the
halifax board OF arbitration gave no authority
10 the ajorty OF the board to make the award.
nor is the third Com missioner empe wered to
sct'as an umpire. Both 10 the tribunal at
he
ingtoD it was expressly stipulated that m aior-
lty OF the arbitration shoud decide In the
dslifax commission no such stipulatiops were
made and the Inference the rfore is strong, n
not irresistible, that their award shouli be
made according to the general law of srbitra-
ton What that law i, upon English authori.
", may Do briefly stated. 'Redmau on Arbi-
tration aud Awards" considered Que of the
h'e hest authorities in England, says:-
'On reference to several arbitrators with
no provision that less than all shall make an
award, each must act, and all must act tozeth.
er, and every stage of the proceeding must be
signed at the same time"
Francis Russell, another Eoglsh authority
OF emiDeDce, says
F "Oa reference to several arbitrators togeth-
er, when there Is no clause providing iOr an
award made, by less than all being valid each
OF them must act personally in the performances
OF the duties of his Office as if he were the sole
arbitrator, for, as the Office is Joint if one re-
tuse or omit to act the others can make no valid
award"
Aud Stewart Kyd, an earlier but not less
authoritative writer, ,euforces the same doctrine
AfGer abiding to the Roman law aud to its per-
mission for the majority of arbitrators to decide
Mr.. kyd makes the following statement: "In
THIS respect the law of England is some what
different; for unless IL be expressly provided in
the submission that less number than all the
aroltrators named may make the award, the
Concurrence of all is necessary" If these emf
quite apparent that the Halifax award has no
binding ELECT in law whatever; as to the equity
OF the CASE have already given the undeniable
facts that govern it
am not now discussing, much less presum-
ing TO define the action which our government
shoulf ultimately take in regard to the award
Ii We should follow what believe would De an
Inevitable course OF Great Britain under SINH
Iar clrcu distances, We should utterly refuse to
pay single penny, and ground our own refus-
al ootn 10 law and equity Of the case. The
treaty as it stands, is a mocking of justice and
Will work certain destruction of great Ameri-
can interest. It's 10 fact, nothing else than
asking us to pay 81 600 900 per annum to Great
Britain for destroying the great fishery
Interest OF America, and still further
ceppling and weakening rs as a COM
mercial power For the utter sbrogstion of
the treaty. should be willing to nav the amman
Indemnity for the years we have used the IN
snore hsheres daring which years the Cana
0iaus nave oad free access to the market of
forty- miii ons; or would be wiliiDg TO pay
double tue award to get rid of the treaty. We
might oy this Course, anticipate by period of
seven years, return TO that policy which alone
can insure prosperity or even save the life of q
great and important trade. Indissolnbiy asso-
ciated with our commercial development and
absolutely essential TO our success and prestige
as naval power, aud paying thus even an un-
far price for the in-shOre fisheries as long as
we shall have used them, we remove all poss-
Die ground for imputstion even By the igBorant
and hostile, upon the honor of our government
aud the good faith end fair dealing of our peo-
pie. When we were poor and wesA as = ma
ton We so highly esteemed the value of the
hsheries that we encouraged their development
by rewards and bouutIes Those were aban.
doned years ago but still we preserved to our
fishermen preference in our own markets.
Even that is given away by the provisions Of
the treaty, and now by the Halifax award If we
accept It aud continue the treaty we pay Great
Britain a million dollars per aunum for Destroy
log school OF commerce, which, properly nur-
tured will be her great rival in the future.
Against snch policy enter my emphatic
OF American industry on land and sea should
have the first and best chance in American
markets. l believe the American fshermea
should be preferred by US to the Canadian fish
ermen, and If we must pay him q bounty to en-
courage and sustain him. let US At least, not
pay bounty to Great Britain to destroy MN,