Year: 1878




Let the Halifax Award BE Paid.
The amount of the award is about twelve
cents per copfo for each inhabitant of the
United States. ! he number of our citi-
zens is small indeed who would not prefer
to pay their share than TO witness u pro-
tracted diplomatic higgling over a subject
which touches the national honor. Our
government having fully set forth it's views
we trust it will not pursue the controversy.
Weare sorry that Congress rendered it neces-
sary for the Secretary of State to make any
representations at all. When we agreed to
refer the question to arbitration'we virtually
bound ourselves TO abide by the decision,
whatever it might be. We cannot honor
ably take refuge behind any of the argu-
ments SO skilfully set forth by the Secretary
of State; much less are we entitled to take
advantage of our own imprudcnce or want
OF foresight. Our government now contends
that the award is not binding because it was
not unaninous This is weak plea. Ii
unanimity was requisite our government
was at fault in not causing q provis-
ion to that effect to be inserted in
the treaty. Having neglected to do SO
it is now too late to raise the question.
But the idea of unaniinity is absurd on
its face. 1t implies that each OF the two
within its own control as it would have
done in a direct negotiation What was
the advantage Of an arbitration if both par
ties retained the same full power to reject
every basis Of settlement which it would
have possessed in an ordinary diplomatic
arran cement? 1t enters into the very idea
of m arbitration that the parties to it sur
render their right to be their own judges
An arbitration in which this right is re-
tanned is an absurdity in terms-a self-con-
tradlction.


We do not assent to the dictum that the
payment Of this award would be waiver Of
our rights in future negotiations There is
on the subject. In the interval between
the termination Of the Reciprocity Treaty
and the negotiation Of the Treaty of Wash
ington we got on very we'll without any in
toYnational arrangement respecting the in
shore fisheries. We were better off then
than we are under the present treaty.
Our vessels were admitted to the
inshore fisheries by the payment Of
a tonnage duty; and we shall doubtless
have the same advantage after the present
treaty expires The Canadians can sell
their mackerel only in our markets, and
when they are shut out Of them by o duty
on fish the only way in which they can
utilize their fisheries is by q tonnage duty
on our vessels. We do not see that there
is much to be gained by any other arrange.
ment. At any rate, we are not justified in
repudiating distinct bargain because the
keeping of it might interfere with the nego-
tiation of future treaty. bargain is bar
gain. It concerns our honor to stand by
bargain which we have deliberately made,
however imprudent it may prove to have
been. Even an imprudent bet is paid by
the loser unless he is willing to forfeit his
estimation among gentlemen. In the
Geneva award we received from Great
Britain great deal more money than we
have rs yet been able to distribute among
tuo suuereIS, Dus tneIo AhS Ueeu no uu-
manly whining over the subject by the
British government. But Great Britain
might with as much propriety ask us to
return the excess of the Geneva award
as for us to ask her to relinquish
any part of the Halifax award
on the ground that we deem 1t excessive.
In consenting to the arbitration we took
our chances, and if, by the unskilful man
agement Of our case, we are disappointed in
the result, it is more honorable to pay 'lke
a gentleman" than to get up an unseemly
controversy over the question whether we
are really bound by . bargain of our own
making.