Year: 1878

| Since the award of the Halifax Commits
sion was rendered great diversity of opin-
| ion as to the action our Government should
take in the matter has been developed.
Many insist that the decision shall be at once


repadated. Others are ready to accept it
without question. Still others are satisfied
with protesting that the award is an unjust
one, while holding that we are bound in
honor to pay it.


Very few believe that the award is just.
The persons Immediately concerned agree
that the privilege of the Canadian fisheries
does not begin to be worth the price set upon
it by the Commission, and that we shall be
paying an enormous sums for thing of little
value. The decision reached was entirely
against the evidence in the case, and the
American Commissioner was fully justified in
refusing to assent to it. But it does not fol-
low that we can honorably reject the decision.


The proposition for arbitration was one


eagerly accepted if not proposed by US, and
we ought not to demur because the case has
gone against us. The third Commissioner


may have been chosen by trick, though the


proverbial stupidity of English diplomacy


for many years past tends to throw doubt on


that statement. Even if he were selected


by trick we very readily accepted the selec-


tion and did not protest at the time. 1t is
rather late now to make an objection on that
score. At the time Of the appointment of
Mr.. Delfosse, Secretary Evarts wrote to him,
saying: 81 have great pleasure in assuring
you of the satisfaction with which this Gov
ernment has learned of your nomination in
that capacity" This official declaration of
satisfaction would seem to bar all questions
regarding the selection which may come rp
at this late day.


On the question as to unanimous de-
csion we have better case. The Treaty of
Washington expressly stated that in three of
the four tribunals constituted by it majority
should make the award. In the fourth case,
the Fishery Commission, no such provision
was made. The inference may fairly be
drawn that in this case only unanimous
award could be binding upon the parties.
This view is sustained by English law and
practice. Yet it is not to be denied that the
general impression entertained at the time OF
the formation of the Commission was that
majority decision would be valid. So strong
vas this impression that it may justly be
called an understanding, implied though not
expressed. To reject the award now would
look like taking advantage of technicality.
We can better afford to pay the money than
to rest under the imputation of bal faith.
The appeal to English law and practice will
not avail us. England may have done many
mean things, but we should not follow her
bad example. We have too every reason to
believe that in this case England would have
readily submitted to the award had it been
against her. We cannot afford to do other
wise. 1t is better to pay this money, and
then take good care not to be caught in this
predicament again. In the long run Canada
will suffer far worse than we on account OF
the unjust award. 1t would be very unbe-
coming for us after all we have SAID in praise
of the beauties of arbitration to turn about
now and refuse to accept the first decision
made against us by an arbitration commits
sion.