Year: 1878

The Fisheries Dispute.


1t is supposed that the State Department
has received communication from Lord
Salisbury, the British Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, in reply to the two dispatches of
Mr.. Evarss to our Minister in Lonaon-one
complaining OF the Fortune Bay outrage,
and the other protesting against the Halifax
award. The Secretary of State on being in
quired of yesterday declined to say whether
such a reply has been received or not, and
of course he discloses nothing of its con-
tents. 1t is more likely to be first published
in London than in this country. 1t is
document which will be awaited with lively
interest, especially as Lord Salisbury has
shown on some other occasions that he
wields trenchant pen


The country does not understand the
delay of our government in opening this
correspondence. The Halifax Commits
sioners declared their award Novem-
ber 80, 1877, nearly year ago, and
but little time was needed for discover
ing all the reasons which are officially
stated for impugning its justice and valid
ity 1t may, indeed, be said that this was
rather a question for Congress than for the
Executive. inasmuch as the award could
not be paid without legislative appropri-
atior. This is, no doubt, sound view
but it does not account for the long delay
after Congress had appropriated the money.
To reserve the discussion until the near
approach OF the day fixed for the payment
was not the most obvious way for aHording
the British government q full oppor-
tunity to inquire into the subject
and prepare its reply. If Mr.. Evarts
had decided not to 60 into protracted dis
cussion, and TO make no rejoinder to Lord
saiisbury's reply, the delay is Of no con-
sequence; but il he should find it necessary
to make rsjoinder the British Foreign
Secretary will hardly have time for prepar-
ing an answer to the new arguments. The
Interpretation which we would prefer to
put upon Mr.. Evarts' delay is that he sent
his able protest as matter Of form in pur-
suance of the suggestion of Congress, and
that it has been all along the intention ofthe
President to pay the award if the British
government should not voluntarily release
our own from the obligation, and this quite
irrespective of the strength or weakness Of
the British reasons for insisting on its pay
ment. We sincerely hope that this is the
view and purpose OF the President, for it is
not consistent with the national honor for
our government to engage in . long diplo-
matte dispute on the question whether it
will stand to bargain which it deliberately
made.


The long delay in complaining of the
Fortune Bay outrages seems quite mex
plicable on any reasonable grounds. Ihe
violation of the rights Of our fishermen by
local mob, or even by the local authori-
ties of Newfoundland, has no proper bear
ing on the question of the award. To make
that the excuse, or any part Of the excuse,
for repudisting the award is what our gov
ernment surely cannot intend, and hence it
was impolitic to reserve complaint on that
subject and make it the immediate pioneer
Of . long argument against the award. The
two things being distinct in substance
should have been kept separate in the dis
cussion. which tho public can hardly deem
them to be when they are presented at
nearly the same time, although in different
dispatches. The Fortune Bay affair should
have been brought at once to the attention
of the British government as soon as the
facts could be ascertained and verified, and
not have been held in reserve to reinforce
an argument against the award. If the
a &. -
confident that there will be no difficulty in
securing justice on the other head Of CON-
plant.