Year: 1878




Mr.. Evarts against the validity of the award
rendered by the Halifax Commissioners.
1t is much longer than his reply on the
other subject tofcontroversy-th disturbance
of our fishermen under color of the local
laws Of fNewfoundland-and, unlike that, 1t
is not q virtual retraction. The British
government declines to discuss the main
position Of Mr.. Evarts that the award is ex-
cessive, and refuses to reopen the question.
We suppose nobody expected different re-
suit, and it is for the President 10 decide
within the present week whether he will pay
the award or withhold it. 1t falls due on Sat-
urday, the 23d inst No time is left for
further dispute or parley, and President
Hayes must now exercise tho discretion
with which Congress has clothed him and
discharge the responsibility which devolves
upon him as the guardian Of the national
interests and honor. AS the true interest
of nation can never be inconsistent with
its honor we expect the award to be paid
in spite Of the opinion of our government
that it is excessive and even exorbitant.
There is no honorable retreat from the COM
pact we made to surrender our own Judg-
ment in this case and accept that of a
tribunal Of arbitration. 1t may have been
on imprudent engagement, but it is never
theless an engagement which we voluntar-
lily made in the most solemn form in which
governmentcan pledge its faith In the pro-
ceedings before the Commissioners we had
equal advantages, or at least equal oppor-
tunities of advantage. with the other
party to the controversy; and if we
failed to make the most Of our op-
portunities by putting the management
of our side into competent hands we must
take the consequences Of our neglect This
is the plain common sense of the matter.
and the plain sense Of gentlemen is always
to be respected in questions involving good
faith and honor.


We do not see that Lord Salisbury
strengthens his position by his long his
torical recital Of the origin and proceedings
of the tribunal. We suppose that this is
intended for the information of the British
public who have heretofore taken but
little interest in the question and are
probably quite ignorant Of its history.
1t has, however, but a slight bearing
on the merits Of the controversy, except in
single point. Lord Salisbury's detailed
statement Of the length of time occupied
by the Commissioners, OF the number of
their sittings. Of the great multitude of wit
nesses examined and the greater multitude
Of depositions given in on both sides, and
Of the length Of time occupied by the argu-
ments Of the respective counsel, is calcu-
lated to convey an impression of the cum
difficulty of reaching o decision. If SO pro-
tracted and operose an examination was
necessary for reaching the merits OF the case
it seems reasonable inference that the
question cannot be summarily decided at
this late day on arguments which can be
compressed into SO small compass as a
diplomatic correspondence begun a few
weeks before the date fixed for paying the
award If so much Investigation was really
necessary no time is left for going over the
whole extensive ground again.


The British government refuses to enter
lAto ally iCSPSSsihS AAS SquAty Va
the award for two reasons, set forth in
Lord SalIsbury's despatch. The first Of
these reasons is the impossibility of ex-
amining so extensive subject in the
brief time that remains. The second reason
given for declining to reopen that question
is the fact that the British government is
party in interest, and therefore unit to act
as a tribunal Of appeal or review. There
is an implication that both ofthese reasons,
and especially the latter, apply with equal
force to the United States. Lord Salisbury
thinks it would i'll become the British gov
tion of S15, 100000 and having sirenu-
ously supported that claim before the
Commissioners, to acknowledge that
the award Of $500 900 is excessive.
Whatever may be thought Of the
wild enormity Of such o claim, it cannot
very well be disputed that the British gov
ernment would put itself in an awkward
position if it should now admit that the
actual award is so far in excess Of justice as
to warrant the two governments in nullify-
ing the work of the commission. 1t was
not TO have been expected that Lord Sails
bury would make so notifying an ac-
knswledgment, and nobody can be disap-
pointed at the tenor Of his reply. A sup
position that If the question of payment
was submitted to the decision of the British
government it would waive its claim
TO the money would have been the extreme
of noIitical yer0ancy The very able arou-
ments Of Mr.. Evarts should have been sub
mitted to the tribunal itself by the counsel
employed by the United States. If they
were submitted and made no impression on
50 impartial a referee rs Mr.. Delfosse they
could not be expected TO influence the
British government; but il these cogent ar
guments were not submitted to the COM
mission our government merely suffers the
consequence Of its failure to employ able