National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-01-13
The Halifax Award.

which may be hanging on line in our
back yard we are not to suppose that he
acted under instructions from his en-
ployer. The neighbor is not to be con-
victed upon any such mere appearance.
But if he should defend the conduct of
the thief, and should himself appropriate
the stolen articles, then there would be
cause for quarrel. Professor Youle Hind,
compiler of the analytical index OF the
Halifax Commission, declares that the
award by that commission OF $5,50000O
against the United States was the result
of lying statistics manufactured for the
occasion by those who represented the
English government. He makes strong
1rima facie case He has solemnly de-
clared that he distinctly informed Sir A.
r. Gait, the British member of the COM
mission, of certain errors, supposing the
errors to be unintentional. He declares
that the British agent, Ford (who was
an attaehe of the English portion of the
Joint High Commission in this city IN
1874 wasa party to the swindle. Mr.. HIND,
Will q hiOt7S NOAAo@~A
sive ease, corresponded with Il. Delfosse,
whose vote had decided the award. That
gentleman asserted in reply that he had
not acted on the British showing as made
in their case" but upon the testimony
produced before the commission. Hind
then successively presented the matter to
Sir A. T. Gait. the British commissioner,
and to the British foreign office at London.
No heed was given to this proof. He
failed to penetrate the sang .froid of our
own much contented, easily-satistied and
sily-to-be-disturbed Premier, who
took the British view that the decision
ended the matter. Finally, it has been
brought before Congress by Representa-
tive Newberry, of Michigan.
Whatever toploftical ideas may prevail
in diplomatic circles as to the impropriety
Of mentioning so inconsequential a fact
as the picking of ones pocket, it will be
difficult to conyincc the average Ameri-
can that a coarse and vulgar swindle,
when discovered, cannot be rectified.
We know of no agreement, decree, award,
or treaty that is not dissolved into thin
air when found to be tainted with fraud.
We know of no rule of international cour-
tesy which should prevent our Govern
ment from needing satisfactory proof that
it had been corruptiy overreached in
supposed honorable and amicable adjust
ment with another government. If Eng
land is so insensible to this matter as not
to deem it worthy of consideration, this
very conduct may naturally raise the
presumption that the full considera-
ton and examination of it would
be detrimental to that side of the ques-
tion If there is no truth in Mr.. Kinds
statement, why does not the British for
eign Office put him to shame and vindi-
cate it's own government? The award has
always been regarded with suspicion be-
cause of its amount. Its payment was a
matter of honor with the American Gov
ernment, which felt that, though it had
been wronged, it must submit When
charges are boldly made and sustained
by documentary evidence, calling in
question the common honesty of English
officials; when we appear to have been
greatly cheated, it is amazing that the
English government consents to rest un-
der the imputation. 1t is still more
amazing that our velvety and most gra-
cious Secretary of State should smile and
- 1-:---o'"r--- <a------>->AAr>+- ont of cnurt
when the miserable business is brought
to his attention. But the Michigan mem
Der rings out clear charge, and, if he
does no more, he has made record
against John Bull which, unexplained,
will warn us against future negotiations
with him bv arbitration.