New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-11-18

-, ST. claims az Great Britain the commissioners
must be assumed TO have taken into CON
alteration circumstances which the Treaty OF "HslnE
Ton had not referred to them. There Ia nothpg upon
The face OF the award which gives any oountenanos "
the supposon that the commissioners travelled poN
the limits assigned them ny the treaty MI E''
argumcn an favor Of this contention Is entirely ueuuco"
t bot be considers 60 b. the magnitude of the sum
avared II is he contends far in excess OF what me
J-ni,d sta cs Government believe TO DC the lue sou
non 81 the problem submitted by the tr,aty lht SUN
factor which The treaty has not recognized mst neoeS
sariiy in bis opinion have been importer INTO the c
MrEyarts proceeds 10 give IN dota the cons Ger9ttonS
by which IN his Judgment the rs3,, 2rIlTcu q, rac
eTel l. the only fish 10 whose capture "a the waters
opened by GrCa; Britain any v'ue should I've ag i
Sd haze DoIiocE OF bait fsh computes the number
OF rnacLerel which the United states fishermen my
years 81 tic treaty period which have EXPIRED, an3
iniers nom n the number viii ihcy are k"iy 10 cate
within the me area curing iSc lntIn 80 Ti
and coaCUdcs tUlS urducH OF ms "ILiii, ~, - -,
Tn'tcS STATS dberman - Iiacly TO have made
from The mackcrel which he has probably cauEtl
on the other Tr S5' TS NJ ISc BRUSH shcrmen
have derived from the opening OF lhe MAKES a ei
t nC aT T a. taat the United states Government
can oiy rxngin its ma nudc the assumption that
te commission has mistaken the question that was L.
iegred to it.
THE AWARD VALID AND FINAL.
That Mr. Evars's reasoning powerful II IS NOT ncccs
sarv Tor me TO say nor the other hand Viii Ec be sur
prised t, hear tuat Her Mai"s's Government stu re-
tain heIOelef that 1t is capable OF reutanon; mt III
their opinion they would not De justified III following
hiin nio the tails OF his grum Mt THESE very iD"IS
were examined at great length, and with conscientious
minueuess by the commissioners whose award i under
disrussjau The decision the jOTity gwen at'I
full hearing Of all the considerations that tltL 'lde was
able 10 adya and that decslnn Whh 'liG lts %
the mater submitted 10 them, Is, uuocr Tue Hel!'
without appeal. The argument ~ MI EFafls amounts
toa review OF iaey award upon the question Oh ldct
nd 1ufs ID
tends mat the awarded Is excessive, ann lh"I
tbrTr,re The ara must have been arrived al by some
ilegituatr process nut 10 argue against the Nanay
award soelv on Tie ground ihat thc conclusion
10 them is erroneous I'm ccc. the uinc as 10
dispute the Judgment whcH they had formed upon Inc
Her Msjestvs Government not feel that il is their
duty u put forward any opinion adverse OF
favorable TO the decision which the m0orHH
uf The commissioners have passed upon inc
had 10 consider Her Maicstys Government could not
do without undertaking he saWe aooTouf nNrsuEa-
task which interval which has been icit between
October 10 the day on which MT. Eyar,ss d.sph,cn
the payment awarded is 10 bc made, would certainly
moi suhce; ont they are plg:nieu ron pSSrnS Sc
disqualification They cannot be Judges o. aprta'
in THE cause. because they nave been hhgants.
As litgants they have expressed the view
upon the facts which they have felt b0uDd
in that capacity to maintain: Ihelr computations nave
been totally different method aud result rom thos
which me American counsel snStalLed' ara "hlfn' ID
part, Mr. Eyarts reltcTstes III MS dlspa'Cu ING Iel
probation which they given to the data ld before
the Tribunal mas btcn IN compute auNEohieih ~
toe force that tuelr agents could command
that Sl5,OOO,oOO was the legitimate compensation
which. under the treaty, was lAtI du3, ny IN, g1iS
Of the commissioners has decided 10 reduce thar clam
by nearly twothrds Having formally engaged to sun
NIT the matter TO this arbitration they do not ihint
that It Is open 10 them 10 inquire now II
upon claims widely different from their own.
Sill less can they admit that eilhcr SIDE Is e4neG TO
eIntTatOrs imported into their judgment consld
eraIious itch the treaty aid not authorize them to en.
terain. Her Maesty's Government Can only accept
similar occasions they Rave accepted before,
the decision OF the tribunal TO which they nave sOIemny
and voluntarily submitted
TIE LACK OF UNANIMITY AT HALIFAX.
At the close Of his dispatch Mr. Eyarts refers 20 con-
Alteration ought not 10 over without OBJ
serva ion though he does place tie first rank
among the objections which he against the award
He calls attention to the fact that the award Of the
commission not unanimous, and that in the Treaty
Of Washington stipulation is III this ease made that
the decision Of the majority is 10 be binding
The opinion that according TO the Treaty of WashlnC
ton the Fishery Commission incapable Of prOnOunc
ing any decision unless its members were unanimous Is
one IN which Her Maiestys Government arc unable 10
concur. # difficult 10 produce from textbooks
very date, autAoy for the doctrine that
In international arbtTatlous the majority OF the arb
traitors binds the minority unless the contrary Is ex
pressed. Haleck's International Law, edited by Sir
Hurstoue Baker. 1873, chapter xiv. section g.:
The following rules most derived from the Civil Law
have been applied 10 International arhitrauCnS: Where
not otherwise provided the articles OF reference, II
there De an uneven number, the decision Of ority
Is conclusive" Bluntsch section 493, says: "Ld de-
cslor est PRISE la maorl'G yox.' CalyO j. p, 79l
lays down: "A default dobiiStl IONS Heiemcht Traces
dams acc de conpF0inis les ari'ies pour sdcqhttr Gt
Ieur manat qudent darres les reges traces par e
drOit civl, ans lis dOycht prOcedeF c1DOlnttment'
discutcr ct dellb COulnuu q decidcr la ma
iOre." / not aware OF any authorities who, IN re-
spect International arbtr0tOnS, could DC quoted to
the contrary sense ana II .Ouo no' DC ~ 20 INV
by reference TO cases III American as well as In the
English courts that rue has always been judi
ciay applied lhe case of GrbrauOns u public ma
The language and spulatons OF the treaty itself so
far rs they are explicit upon che subj point TO SINH
nmnemYnf OF unaIlmiy WAS Intended becausC while il
Is dIsclaimed the OF the fishery ngns, II IS
dsclamed in the case Of other arbitrary tribunals
sci up by treaty. IL Is evident that al most this
OMISSION wOud have left The matter IN uncertainty Tne
suggestion that the OF the treaty meu by their
silence 10 prescribe mode OF proceeding when, before
tribunal thus constituted. Is uneXaupled, can only be
accepted Oh tho hypothesis that they were deliberately
preariug an insouble controversy Tor those by whom
the treaty TO be executed appears 10 me thar If
set up by treaty be examined carefully more favor
able solution OF The difficulty may be found
WHAT THE Treaty REQUIRED.
The words used in each somewhat peculiar.
md lend themselves 10 the suppOston that what the
craftsman thinking Of when he employed them was
not the question whether indemnity should or should
not be required but under what circumstances the
tribunal should be held TO be fully constituted for the
purpose OF giving decision. 1t obvious that in
the course OF protracted and manifold inquiry, in
which questions wOuld constantly up for decision,
AZ was a matter Of great practical importance to lay
down whether for each decision the presence OF the
whole tribunal required, or whether any condition
might prescribed under which, in spite OF the alb
Senee OF any member from illness or other cause,
ayad decision might he given. The difficulty OF
constructing on the Tigd Iule heightened IN
curry involving FREQUENT decisions. is matter OF ordi
nary experience A common mode OF escape from II 10
10 tiN number short oil tue enTe complement as
inc Quorum minimum number wulcA must b. pIenenl
10 We Vadty TO DECISION, The trainers Oi tAo wash
iugton Treaty 2dOpted an arranEemtht somewhat diner
sui In form similar IN effect They la!d down lhat