Year: 1878

to Mr.. Welsh, setting forth, tor commun'ca-
tion to Lord Salisbury, the reasons why our
government deems the Halifax award ex-
orbitant and invalid. The despatch is
dated September 81 1t has been with
ton, and in order to avoid the impro-
priety of giving it to the public before 1t
had been communicated to the British For
eign Secretary. Although it is document
of great ability and force of reasoning We
regret that there was a necessity for Its
preparation. But Congress in the act
making the appropriation and putting it at
the disposal OF the President seemed to re-
quire of him the duty OF making protest.
This duty could not be escaped, and since
it was unavoidable we are glad that it has
been discharged with as much calmness of
tone as force of argument.


If the treaty of 1871 ended the
question of the fisheries and put it
out of the field Of international contro-
versy, Mr.. Evarts intimates that the award,
exorbitant as it is, might have been paid
without remonstrance. But the question is
certain to come back upon us at the expira-
ton of the twelve years. Our government
refuses to assent by its silence to the JUS
tice Of an award which may be brought up
as a criterion of the value of the fisheries
in future negotiations. 1t is desirable to
have the question settled for all time, but
it can be permanently settled only on
basis OF equity. We have been discussing
wit Rrito vt
occasionally getting rid of it Tor short pc.
riods by temporary makeshifts. 1t is un-
fortunate that the treaty of 1871 merely
postponed the question without settling it.
and since it must inevitably come up again
it is desirable finally to dispose OF it now
rather than five or six years hence. Mr..
Evarts offers to the British government an
opportunity to settle it in perpetuity now
and avoid the irritation and sense Of injury
which may obstruct negotiations at the end
of the twelve years if this country pays
from a sense of pride an award which it
deems neither just in amount nor binding
in law. If the British government insists
We shall of course pay, and when our honor
is released and the subject comes up again
this country will be likely to place itself
on the extreme boundary of its rights. Mr..
Evarts' protest puts US in a position which
forestalls the effect of present concessions
upon future negotiations. The British
government will no doubt insist on the
award, and will thereby render the ques-
tion Of the fisheries a difficult and
very likely dangerous one when
it comes up again few years hence. 1t is
unfortunate to be sowing the seeds Of fu-
ture irritation instead of cementing friend
ship by full and final settlement of a long
standing controversy.


Mr.. Evarts maintains that the funda-
mental error OF the two Halifax Commits
sioners who made the award consisted in
computing it on a false basis. We had
fishery rights under the treaty of 1918, and
those acquired in 1871 were additional.
The value of our rights under the
treaty Of 1918 was not submitted
to the Commission, but only the
value Of the new rights acquired under the
later treaty. There is still another ques-
ton which was not submitted to the Com
mission. The British and the American
governments have never agreed in their in
depreciation Of the extent of the privileges
acquired by the treaty Of 1918, but we
surely never intended to pay for the rights
which We have always claimed under that
treaty. But the award Of the two Halifax
Commissioners seems to have been based
on an estimate OF the total value of tho priv
ileges which we hold under both treaties,
instead of an estimate Of the privileges we
acquired by the treaty Of 1871, which alone
was submitted for their decision. Mr..
Evarts contends that when arbitrators thus
misinterpret and exceed their authority
their decision is not binding.


1t is shown by quotations from the re-
ports of the intelligent British agent at
Halifax to his own government that by the
concurrent testimony of nearly all the wit
nesses examined the only thing Of real
value acq uired by the American fishermen
was the inshore mackerel fishery. Mr..
Evarts maintains that the award should have
been founded on true valuation Of the in
shore mackerel fishery, after making the
proper set-ofs for the privileges in our
waters and markets conferred on the Cana
dans. The award is greater than the whole
value Of the fish after they are caught and
cured and salted and barreled and de-
lvered. The computation is very simple
and we will repeat its points. For the first
five years of the operation of the treaty the
whole catch Of mackerel in those waters
was 167, ,945 barrels, and assuming that
three-fourths were taken inshore, there
were 125,9Gl barrels caught in the
first five years under the treaty. The
average price was S3 % per barrel, making
the whole value Of fish taken inshore in
the FIVE years S472, 353; but this includes
the cost Of the barrels the salt, the expense
Of catching, curing and packing What