New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-11-14
TILE HALIEAY PAYNENT

THE HALIFAX PAYMENT.
There seems to be 10 reason to doubt that
the amount of the Halifax award will be paid
in n few days, according to the terms OF the
agreement. The country will regard this dis
position of the Case with almost unmIxed sat
isfaction. That the award was mOnstrouS and
unjustiiablc all of us who have given the
least study to the subject sincerely believe !:
but, as Mr.. Evarts we'll said III his dispatch
of the 9th of September, the United States
regards "the maintenance of entire good
faith and mutual respect in all dealings
20 under the bencfcent Treaty of Washington as
"of paramount concern" and has no wish
TO avoid the payment even of preposterous
claim, unless it can do so with honor untarnished
and unassaied. The plea that the verdict
might he set aside because the judges were
not unanimous-a plea first intcrposed by the
Canadians themselves at time when they
feared a decision in favor of the United
States-was never regarded with any favor in
this country, and Secretary Evarts has Tor
mally waived it in manner which will greatly
rebound 10 the credit of the Government.
The question of the right of the local
authorities of Newfoundland to limit by their
police regulations the enjoyment OF privileges
secured to us by treaty, appears TO have been
settled without much difficulty. The case was
too PLAIN to be made the matter of diplo-
matte controversy, and that Lord Salisbury
should promptly assent to the views OF the
American Government on this branch OF the
subject was plainly to be anticipated. II Lord
Salisbury has not been equally impressed by
the reasoning of our State Department re-
specting the validity of the award. that, too,
is a result which we might have fOreseen, al
though we must regret it. Great Britain
claimed a tremendous sum, as damages and
compensation under the Fishery clauses,
and the arbitrator to whom the case
was referred awarded her only fraction of
the original claim. If she should now refuse
to accept payment on the ground that 1T was
more than she deserved, she would display a
severe and magnanimous sense of justice
which is unfortunately not common in trans
actions between nations. We have very
properly and courteously submitted our
reasons for thinking that the arbitrators trans
cended their powers, jand Great Britain, In re-
plying that the trial being over and the judg-
ment rendered there is really no way of con-
tinuing the discussion, does no more than MIR.
Evarts must have expected her to do.
The recent correspondence, however, opened
in compliance with conditions attached by
Congress to the appropriation for the payment
of the award, has not been fruitiess. The
Halifax Judgment did not settle the dispute
over the fisheries, but merely postponed It,
We get nothing for our five and half mil
lions in cash and two millions III duties re-
mitted except the right to take fish in certain
waters for certain term of years, and III
1884, or thereabOuts, we shall be obliged
either to renew the lease or to make some
other and more satisfactory arrangement. 1t
is highly important that our interests should
not be prejudiced, in the discussion then TO
take place, by any presidents drawn from
this Halifax award. The protest with which Mr..
Evarts accompanies the payment leaves Us in a
satisfactory position for renewal of the debate,
while the estimate which the British Govern
ment has now adopted of the value of free
market for the products of the provincial
fisheries will prove no slight embarrassment
to the British negotiatOrs six years hence.
For more than quarter of a century Eng
land has made "free fish " an Indispensable
condition to the conclusion with us OF any
fishery arrangement whatever. Now. after six
years trial. she virtually declares that the re-
mission of the duty is of no pecuniary value
to the Provinces but on the contrary great
advantage to us. With what grace can she
ever again dempnd of us the surrender of
our own markets.