Daily Kennebec journal., 1878-04-15
From an Occasional C Correspondent.
WASHING Toy C0RRESP0NDkNCk.

W a iSHINO LOh CON r. SfO~f DE " { r.
WASHINGTON, April 9, 1873.
The fishery award presents several interesting
questions. Among the strongest arguments az aims,
it payment the following the British Gov
ernmeut virtually compelled the United States to
accept Mr.. Deliosse as the third commissioner by
pulposed delay; the decision is not binding be
cause IT was not unanimous; the damages are ex-
cessiye.
From the published correspondence relating to
the appointment of the third commissioner 1t is
clear that England was in no hurry, but was per-
fectly willing TO leave the choice TO the Austrian
Minister at London. Mr.. Fish says in relation to
his taking the initiative IN the suggestion of the
name OF MIR. DelfJsse that he did 1t knowing that
we would get no better man and fearing that
worse cho zee might be made. The inference is
that England out-witted us. Having been beaten
in game Of diplomacy, we shall not plead the
baby act. As well known democratic politician
said in reference to the Electoral Commission.
"You beat in the trade and that is all there il
of it."
Before the Commission met the leading papers
in Great Britain and Canada advanced the opin-
ion that the decision to be binding should be unan
imous. This would seem to be the true doctrine
by strict reading OF the treaty, inasmueh as he
section under which the Commission acted does
not say that a majority shall determine the award
although the treaty specially mentions msiorite,
in other sections. Again the Two nations are gov
erned by the principles of the common law, which
would require unanimity in the decision of the
Commission. In reply 10 these points II is argued
that international law is founded upon the civil
law and we, although unused to civil law in our
domestic transactions, must be governed by il in
our foreign dealings.
The third argument is a matter for grievance,
but is no valid objection to the award. If the
award is binding at all, II is binding indepe ndent
of the amount 1t is a final decision from which
there lies no appeal.
The disposal of the Geneva award money also
presents some interesting questions After pay
ing the claims of those whose ships were destroyed
by the rebel cruisers the United States has large
sum remaining The award was based upon al
estimate OF the property desti Dyed; it not ex-
emplsry, and, therefore, should be applied only to
the payment of claims arising from that destruc-
ton. On this ground the insurance companies
make their claims. They say that they, standing
behind the ships aud suffering the losses which the
owners would otherwise have suffered, should also
share in whatever indemnity those owners would
have received. Those who would reject their
claims say that, having on the whole profted by
the war, the insurance companies have no interest
in an award of which their claims formed no part.
do not how the fact either that thes business
Of the insurance companies was profitable or that
it was not profitable, affects the question; the
companies surely lost in these particular transac
tons. Their claims may not have been consd-
cred by the commission, but the losses which they
had suffered were.
The United States has refused to pay the ship
owners whose property WAS insured. A consider
able part of the award covers such property Ii
ii is decided that the insurance companies are no
entitled to the money there is nothing to which il,
can be applied. The only honorable course for the
United States to take is to return the surplus to
England, as an honest man when overpaid prompt
ly returns the money to which he is not entitled
If we retain the surplus. how can we with good
grace complain of the award of the Canadian
Commission