Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-11-27
The Fishery Award.

Despite all the apprehensons created by
the recent official correspondence between
our government and that of Great Britain,
it is well understood that there will be no
hesitation in paying over the fishery award,
exorbtant as it is; and doubtless the pres
ent week will see Great Britain in posses
sion of her full "pound of flesh, blood and
ALL" This is well, for the payment could
not honorably be avoided. We agreed with
England to submit the questions in dispute
touching the fisheries to arbitration, and we
must abide the judgment. That the award
is hagrantly excessive in amount and unjust
in principle is palpable to any fair mind that
examines the subject. But we referred the
matter to arbitration and must accept the
consequences. Honor and good faith are
worth more than any sum Of money.
1t is not the payment of the award which
Mr.. Evarts has contested in his elaborate
and able correspondence, but the principles
upon which it was made. While unhesita-
tingly submitting to the judgment so far as
it binds this country to any action, our gov
eminent declines to recognize by silence its
business or to acquiesce in its basis as gov
erning any future relations. The arbitra-
ton does not settle the fishery question. 1t
only settles that the United States must pay
a very large sum for very small privilege
for limited period. When that period ex-
pires, our government will be very sure not
to renew the bargain on the same terms,
and it very properly takes pains to let this
be clearly understood now.
The waters within three miles of the Ca.
madam shore are under British control.
The question submitted to the Halifax
Commission was what amount should be
paid by the United States for the privilege
of fishing in these waters during a term of
twelve years. Five of the twelve preceded
the session of the Commission and furnished
guide. During those five years the total
value OF the fish caught was 100000, with
profit of about $4,000 year. At this
rate for the whole period of twelve years, it
would aggregate 100000. Even on the
different system of calculation adopted by
the Commission, it would amount only to
Sl,500,000. Yet the Commission made an
award OF S5,500,000l More than that the
United States were required to remit the
duty on fish and oil sent here by Canadians,
amounting to nearly two millions more.
The only explanation of an award so ut
terly disproportioned to the value of the
franchise would seem to be that the Com
mission included within their consideration
questions outside of the three mile limit
which were settled by old treaties. For
this reason our government, while paying
the award, protests that the Commission
transcribed their powers and rejects the
principles upon which they acted.
Other questions are involved in the con-
troversy Our fishermen have been sub.
jected to wrong under the color of Cana
dian law, and Mr., Evarts insists that the
engagements of the Washington treaty are
superior to all local legislation. To this
doctrine Lord Salisbury virtually assents,
and an amicable adjustment of this phase
of the difficulty seems easy.