The New York herald., 1878-03-13
The Halifax Award.

English journals for some time to come, il
may not be out of place to explain the
nature Of the question so far rs may be
necessary for enabling readers to follow the
discussion understandingly. Most of the
requisite information lies in a narrow COM
pass but the documents, though recent.
are not easily accessible to the general
public.
| We will begin by repeating what we
have already repeatedly said-that the
history of Mr.. Delfosse's appointment
is subordinate matter. Had the
award been reasonable this topic would
not have been brought into discussion.
| Still we cannot regard its introduction by
Mr.. Blaine as irrelevant. Before Congress
passes an appropriation for paying the
award it is right for it to inquire into all
| parts of the transaction. Since questions
may be raised as to the honor of our govern
ment if it should refuse to pay the exorbtant
award it is proper to inquire whether
the complaining party, If there should
be complaining party, will come into
the court Of international honor with clean
hands. 1t is at least singular that a gentle
man to whom our government peremptorlly
and persistently objected, but in whose
selection the British government steadily
insisted until the expiration of the
three months, was afterward appointed
by the Austrian Ambassador at London.
The Ambassador probably did not know of
the difference of the two governments re-
specting Mr.. Dellosse for had he been ac-
| quainted with it his sense of impartiality
would not have permitted him to make
such selection 1t is legitimate inference
from the facts, as they'now appear, that the
Austrian Minister was hoodwinked and un-
duly Influenced by the British government,
to which he was accredited. But as our
government made no protest and even ex-
pressed it's official acquiescence in terms of
high compliment to Mr. Delfosse it is pre-
cluded from making his appointment
ground of objection to the award. If he
was an unfit umpire our government
should have protested at once, and have
refused to go further unless the govern
ment Of Great Britain would join it in re-
questiug the Austrian Ambassador to make
different selection. If the commission
was improperly constituted our govern
ment should have refused to submit its
case to such n tribunal. But, although the
only o historical interest, the call for infor-
nation on that subject is entirely proper.
The question Of paying the award must
be decided on other grounds. Unless the
award is monstrous violation of equity
it ought to be paid. Perhaps in q large
view it may be expedient to pay
it, although monstrous but that is
o question to be determined after proper
deliberation. Even if om government
shall conclude that it is wiser, on the
whole, to submit to the extortion, the
treaty allows twelve months after the
declaration Of the award for its payment !;
and we violate no obligation by availing
ourselves of what remains of this period
for discussing the question before deciding
it. Weentered into no treaty obligation to
ego it blind" If we finally conclude to
submit to manifest and monstrous extor-
ton in obedience to a scrupulous sense Of
honor our national character will not suffer
by having it made known to the world that
we look upon the award as fragrant viola
ton of justice. II from merely punctilous
scruples we consent to pay five and a half
millions for privilege worth nothing we
are, at least entitled to have it known that
our sense of justice revolts against the un-
due advantage which has been taken of u.s.
Our government is on record, in the Ian
guage of the treaty itself, as holding that
no compensation is really due, and that the
privileges we granted are as valuable as
those we received. The twenty-second
article begins in these words :-"Inasmuch
as it is asserted by the government Of Her
Britannia Majesty that the privileges ac-
corded to the citizens of the United States
under article XVIII. of this treaty are of
greater value than those accorded by ar-
tcles XIX. and XXI. of this treaty to
the subjects of Her Britannia Majesty,
and this assertion is not admitted
by the government of the United States,
it is further agreed that commissioners
shall be appointed to determine" &c. This
significant part of the treaty cannot be ig-
nored in the present discussion. In the
very act Of making the treaty, in the very
language Of the treaty, We denied that any
compensation was fairly due to Canada, and
the consent of the British negotiators to
have this denial inserted was virtual con.
cession on their part that the compensation,
if any, ought to be moderate. This part Of
the treaty cannot be left out of view in any
reasonable estimate of the justice of the
award.
Other parts of the treaty have quite as
close bearing ON the question Of
our obligations. The treaty provided
for submitting three separate ques-
tions to arbitration the great