Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-11-18
Mr.. EySrfS' RIEntIar.

The full text of Lord Sasbur5's reply to
Mr.. Evarts' dispatch concerning tho Halifax
fishery award has baen given ont by tho State
Department. 1t reviews the history Of the
fishery controversies. holds that under the
treaty thcro can be no appeal from the award
of the tribunal, and that the proposition ad-
vancod that the award should b, unanimous 10
order to be binding is not sustained by the
treaty, and is contrary 10 the nature OF an
arbitration.
Lord Salisbury recalls tho circumstances
which led to the organization, OF the Halifax
commission, the manner of its organization, &c.,
and says that 81 witnesses were examined 10
behalf of her msjesty's government and IS IN
behalf Of the government OF the United States.
Three hundred and nineteen afhdaVlts
were produced iusupport 81 the case
eli tho British government and $50 10
support Of that Of the United States. Lord
Salisbury then quotes tho language Of tho
award, together with the protest Of IL. II. kel-
logg, the American commissioner, and says
there is nothing upon the lace OF the award
which gives any counteDaDco 10 the Sopposl
ton that tho commissioners travelled beyond
the limits assigned to them by the treaty. 10
regard to Mr.. Evarts' assertion that tho award
is excessive Lord Salisbury says it was made
By a majority Of the commission after a
thorough examination. 10 the brief space Of
tine which must tlapso before the award is 10
be paid (23d inst.) her majestys government
c3ud not undertake laborious Investigate, IN
into the character oil the award. The udg
| ment OF the commission ought to be conclusive.
Ia regard to Mr. Evarts objection, to the effect
that the decision Of tho commission was not
unanimous, Lord Salisbury says the question
is one on which her msesty's government are
unable to concur. 1t is not difficult to produce
from text books, even of recent date, authority
for the doctrine that in International arbtrstiOns
the ms iorty OF the arbirators binds the ma DOR.
ty,unless the contrary is expressed. After quot.
ing from Hallcck's International law iu favor
of the majority rule, Lord Salisbury says: Il
am not aware Of any authorities who, in respect
to international arbitTatIons, could be quoted
in the contrary sense, and it would not be DIFF
ticult to show by reference to cases in tho
American as we'll as 10 the Eoglish courts that
the same rule has always been udlcay applied
10 the case of arbi!rationS Of public nature
Tho language and sslpulatlonS OF the treaty IT.
self SO far as they arc explicit upon the sub
jsct point to similar conclusion. The franz"
ers Of the Washington treaty adopted 40 ar
/
similar in effect They laid down that the de-
cisiops should be valid so long as they were
adopted by number not less than the major
ity of tho whole body" Lord Salisbury ar
CUES at some length that unapimity was
not essential, ard Instances the High Joint
Commission, where a majority governed
all decisions. IN ordinary phrascology,"
says Lord Salisbury, 1.-THE decision Of q
body of members means a decision come to by
msjority of voices. In the common use and I'm.
Outstanding of language, this is the interprets.
ton which suggc7ts itself to every reader when
it is stated that number Of men have expressed
an opinion or arrived at determination. The
requirement Of unaninity is tho exception, and,
therefore, can only be conveyed by an explicit
statement. There are, Of course, well.known
EXCEPTIONS as in the case Of trial by jury, but IN
such cases the constitution Of the deciding body
is dramatically opposed to tn at adopted in the
CAGE of the fishery commission.
ReciprocRting cordially the courteous and
friendly sentiments by which Mr.. Evsrts' Ian
guage inspired, her Maiesty's government feel
confident that the United States Government
will not upon reflection SEQ in the considerations
which have been advanced any sufficient reason
for treating as nullity the decision to which
the majority of tho commission have arrived.
Drowned.