IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/.t

o 4^

£-<

1.0

I.I

■ii|21 |2.5
2.0

118
Ui

11:26 i u

1.6

^y.

fliotograpiiic

Sciences
Corporalion

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER N.Y. 14SS0

(716) S73-4S03

«-

'1.^

IS I

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historicai l^^icroreproductions / institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommag6e

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

Coloured inl< (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Relid avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re Mure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une Image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

D
D
D
□
D
Q
D

D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages da couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdus

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Qualit^ in6gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire

Only edition available/
Seula Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelura,
etc., ont 6ti filmdes A nouveau de fa^on A
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

12X

16X

20X

26X

30X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Legislative Library
Victoria

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la
g6n4rosit6 de:

Legislative Library
Victoria

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont filmds en commengant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont fiimds en commengant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning !n the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diffirents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite.
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

, 1

J ■

jv 2 ■

'-■}

'' I

A REVIEW

<>i I UK

Halifax Fishery Award.

MOW IT STRIKLS A I'RFVA'IK CITIZEN.

liV

ALEXANDER BLISS.

(A puition of the matter herein contained has appeare.l in the Xrw York Ifrrahi
in Us issue of < ktolier 21, 1S7S.)

,83 .

WASHINGTON:

K. HKRESldKl), I'KINTKK, [^23 M'.VKNTII STKI |;i.

1S7S.

<^':feri

t «

', :• V

ui ^

^ 1

THE HALIFAX AWARD.

The annoiiiicement in November last of the award of tlie
Fishery Commission was received with genuine and uni-
versal surprise throughout the United States. Many no
doubt then tirst learned that a Commission had been sitting
at Halifax, having the subject under consideration; others
were aware that some points left undetermined by the treaty
of Washington of 1871 had, as stipulated by that treaty, been
referred to arbitration, but had no idea of their possible
magnitude; while even the best informed, including the very
negotiators of the treaty of 1871, and those most nearly con-
nected with the Commission itself, were, it seems, wholly
unprepared for the result — an award of ^5,500,000 against
the United States.

While the public prints teemed with denunciations of the
chief arbitrator and virtual umpire, and of the fact and man-
ner of his selection, it was astonishing how little curiosity
they expressed to learn the grounds upon which a decision
so unexpected was based, a!id how little was said to satisfy
the curiosity the public might naturally feel on the subject.
Nor was tlie mystery any better understood when Mr.
Blaine, in two speeches during the winter, communicated to
the Senate statistics showing the very slight actual yield to
the United States of the Canadian in-shore fisheries of late
years, and on the other hand exhibited the loss incurred by
the United States through the relinquishment under the
treaty of the duties hitherto accruing from imports of fish and

' vicro.,,,.. tv J..

fisli oil tV()ii» Caiijula, and the correriponditig gain to Cana-
dians. Not oven diti the a<lniiral)le letter of Mr. Kvarts, of
May 1«J, 1878, transmitted by tlie President to Coni^ress the
followinj' (hiv — wiiile showing nianv reasons why such an
award should not have been made — at all make apparent by
what process it had been arrived at. Hut the letter alhuled
to (h)cuments transmitted with it, and these, it might be
lioped, would at last furnish some light.

THE DOCUMENTS.

These documents were so voluminous tliat it was not un-
til the middle of duly that their iirinting could be completed,
and that they were issued a.^ Ex. Doc, Xo. 89, of tlic House
of Representatives. They form altogether three ponderous
octavo volumes of over one thousand i»ages eacli, or 3,405
pages in all. They consist of the "C^ase" of Great Britain,
the "Answer" of the United States, and the "Kei>ly"' of
Great Britain, of a great mass of oral testimony taken before
the Commission, of atH(hivits, exhibits and other evidence
offered on either side, of the arguments of counsel, and then
a momentous half page, whereupon, without i\ word of an-
tecedent explanation or calculation, are inscribed, over the
sigmitures of two of the Comiiiissioners, " Five million, five
hundred thousand dollars in gold to be pai«l by the Govern-
mt.'Ut of the United States to the Government of Her Britan-
nic Majesty," and over the 8ignatur(U)f the remaining Com-
missioner is inscribed less than nothing to be paid by the
same to the same.

Let us see, now that all is before us which was before the
Commission, whether we can at all till u[> satisfactorily to
ourselves this hiatus between the closed case and the find-
ing, and whether we confirm the award arrived at by a ma-
ioritv of the Commissioners.

THE liRITISJl CASE.

And first we turn to the ''Case" of Great Britain. This
is the statement of her claim bv herself. As such it niust

eml)rii('0 all that she intends to demand, or oxi»oct>! to
j)rove. And, indeed, no exception, it would seem, eonld be
made to it by reason of insnlKcieiun'. WhetluT we consider
tlu' variety of the grounds of claim stated, or the amount
finally set njs it must be admitted that Great Britain lias not
failed to do herself full justice. We shall reverse the order
followed by the Case, and state first, as the most interestiuif
item, the amount claimed. This is, "in respect to the
Dominion of Camida," $12,000,000; "in respect to Xew-
foundland," !*2,880,000; or a ojross total of SU,8SO,000 is
what (Ireat Britain claims "over and above the value of any
advantaajes conferred on British subjects under the Fishery
Articles of the Treaty of Washington."

The groun<ls of claim cover thirty pages. The gist of it
is summarized in the following sentence (page 9<!):

"It has been stated in the [)revious portions of this chapter
that an average number of at least one thousand Tnited States
vessels annually frequent British-Canadian waters. The gross
catch of each vessel per trip has been estimated at ^"),(J0O, u
considerable portion of which is net profit resulting from
the ju'ivileges conferred by tlu' treaty."

From a statement furthei- on in the case of Newfoundland
(page 108) it ajipears that the net profit is reckoned at twenty
percent, which would give -SI. 120 as the net profit of each ves-
sel. Xow, although (ireat !>ritain (L^es not state what propor-
tion of this alleged net jtrofit she would think it proper to
charge for the privilege of fishing in her waters, it is cleai- that
it could not l>e the whole of it. For if the whole of the net
profit of the operation were to be absorbed in paying her for
the bare privilege of fishing, who would engage in it? It is
not Great liritain that furnishes the ca}>ital invested in the
vessel and its outfit, nor who pays the wages of the crew, or
the running expenses, or the wear and tear, or the inten-st
on the outlay, nor does she incur, what is, perhaps, more
than all, the great risk of the loss of all tliese. Xor does
rjreat Britain even deliver or guarantee to the fisherman a
certain ([uantity offish : all that she su[>plies is the privilege
of catching, if he can, some tish within a certain limit.

4f>470

WHAT WOULD IJE FAIR.

Xovv, what proportion of the profits should (ireat Mritjiiii
roceivo in view ofwliat slie t'urnishos, and of what tho other
party furnishes? Looking at it as a oonmu'roial transaction,
wViat proportion eouhl the other party afford to pay lier?
"Wouhl any British or Cainidian merchant undertake to
guarantee to pay for the privilet^e in (piestion, in view of
liis outhiy and his risks, a sum e([ual to one-fourth part of
the net profits, as ahove calculated?

But let us assume that Great Britain shall receive one-
fourth part of the ni-t profits at her own calculation of them.
This would he §280 per vessel. That this sum is far beyond
the estimate placed h}' Great Britain herself upon the priv-
ilege is shown by the fact that, when a few years since that
Government adopted the system of issuing licenses to
American fishermen, the prices fixed by it for these licenses
were as follows:

Fn the first year (1866) the license fee was fifty cents per

toi 'he average toniuige of fishing vessels, as appears

])y flicial British return of licenses issued (pp. 197-218)

does not certainly exceed sixty tons. Thus the price fixed

by Great Britain herself for the privilege in <]uestion that

year was §30 for each vessel. Four hundred and fifty-four

vessels took out licenses that year. In 1867 the fee was

raised to $1, or say $60 per vessel; 295 vessels received

licenses in that year. The next year the fee was raised to

$2 [»er ton, or say |120 per vessel, the highest price attained.

In that year oidy sixty-one licenses were taken out; in the

next, thirty-one, and the system was then abandoned. On

page 82 of the Britisli case occurs the following })assage :

" This St/stem (that of issuing licenses,) affcr heiru/ main-
tained for four years, was discontinued owing to the lU'qket of
American jisher men to provide thenisckes with licen!<es"

The rate charged, had it been paid, was evidently satis-
factory to Great Britain. If 1,000 vessels, the number whicli
Great Britain claims avail themselves of her privilege, had
paid at and from that time §120 a year apiece, the Fishery

Comtuissioii, we tiuiy i)re8iiiiu;, would not have been culled
into existence. Tw(t hundred and eiirhty dollars per vessel
is then more than twice as much as (Jreat Britain herself
asked for this privilei,^' before she eiime to bring in her bill
before this Commission. Two hundred and eighty dollars
apiece for 1,000 vessels is ,S2H0,000 a year, which for twelve
years is ^:},360,000.

This, then, so far as any iiositive showing of figures goes,
is the extreme statement of Great Britain's ease. With the
exception of fixing the proportion to which she would con-
sider lierself entitled of the net profits of the business — a
point which she leaves indefinite — it is her own statement.
In the case of Newfoundland, further on, (page 108,) she
claims one-tenth only of the net profits. The other data —
the number of vessels, the amount of their profits, are her
own.

But we have seen that the total of her claim for the
Dominion of Canada alone, and that, too, over and above
the value of the concessions made under the treaty by the
United States to Canada, is 812,000,000. How is this very
great difference of many millions accounted for? On what
does this enormous balance of the claim rest? The follow-
ing sentences, (piotcd from the summary of the "Case," ex-
hibit in her own words her method of swelling $3,360,000
to >i;i2,000,000 :

INDIRECT AltVANTACEf* TO AMERICA.

"These privileges profitably employ men and materials
representing in industrial capital several millions of dollars;
the industries, to the advancement of whicli they conduce,
support domestic trade and foreign commerce of great ex-
tent and increasing value.''

We were told a few years ago, upon occasion of another
international Commission c; lied to assess damages, how
monstrous a thing it was to include in a claim for damages
any demand whatsoever for indirect damages. But when it
is a question of paying for advantages, other laws, it seems,

govern, uiul tlu' 'iitlirril tnlraiifai/cs arc to he trat-ed to tlio
utiiioHt oxtoiit that inyt'iiuity cuii dcvis*-. and tlicir valiK' cal-
oulati'd and includi'd '.n tin- prict'.

A Ni:\V TIIKUHV OF I'KHES.

" Tlii-y (tlicsf priviU'iros) also servo to n\ake a ne('e>sary
and lit-altliful article ol" I'ood plentitul and eluap for tlie
American nation I '"

The Aifciit ot'(»reat Hritain here announci's a new princi-
ple in political economy — one which, if admitted, will hrini;
joy, indee<l, to all venders. l>ut sorrow to unlucky consumers.
Ateordins; to this new tlu'orv, vour haker should hy no
means l»c content to chai'ire you for a loaf of hread its mere
market value — /. '., the cost ot its production with a fair
commercial protit. Ho must follow his loaf into all its ef-
fects upon your houselic' * If he shall find that it proves "a
necessary and healthful 'U'ticle of food, plentiful and clieap
for" voui" family, he is to make that the aground for an ad-
ditional chui-ffe. If the hloom of In'alth numtles in vonr
daughter's cheek : if your •<on wins laurels at school or at l»ase
hall after jtartakiu": of it : if you, strentrthenecl hy it, trans-
act successfully your husiness, it is clear that your hakiT is
entitled to a percentage on the blessings and earnings (»t'the
day. In short, the loaf, for which iie lias tliought liimself
amply remuneratetl at ten cents, is evidently cheap to you
at a dollar, and must he paid for accordingly.

"'It is not merely the value of' raw material ' in fish taken
out of British-Canadian waters whicli constitutes a fair basis
of com[>ensation."'

I [ear. all ye producers of wheat, of cotton, ye owners of
coal I Think, before you sell, nf all the kneading troughs,
the ovens you will call into activity, of the wheels of industry
you will set in motioii, of the happy hearths you will brighten,
and reckon all these in your price I

" In addition to the advantages above recited, the attention
of the Commissioners is respectfully drawn to the great im-
portance attaching to the beneficial consequences to the
United States of honorabh' acquiring for their fishermen full

tVcedoiii to |inrsiif their iulvonturous caHiiiij witliodt 'nuur-
rint; i-onstaiit i-isks, itiid i-xposiui;- tlu-mst'lvcs and tlii'ir tMlow
(•(Mintryiiifii to tin- incvitalilc rt|iroarli (»t' uillully tri'spussitig'
on the I'iii'litt'ul domain of tVit'n<lly nciirldiors.""

lii'im-inlttT, \i' iii'iidont lioiisdiolders. wluit endless law-
suits witli otlier dealers you may l)eavoidin<r l»y patroni/inu'
tiiis excellent haki'i- — what doi-tor's hills iiii<j:ht ensue upon
less wholesome t'ocid I

"Paramount, however, to this eoiisidi>ration is tiie avoid-
ance of ii-ritatinu" disputes, calculated t() disipTu-t the pul»lie
mind <»l a -^itiritiMJ and eiiterprisinij peoj»le, and liahh' always
to heconie a <'ause of mutual anxi«'t_\ and eiid)arrassment.''

Surely our dear Tnele Sam will think no nrice too exor-
bitant whirh will seeure to ins enterprising,' nephews of
(Jloueester and I'rovincetown such serene re*;u!ts 'i For what
a direful thin«r it would he: what tremors would shake his
fojul avuncular heart, if, while he were complacently con-
ternpiatinjj; their piscatory enjoyment, the l>riti>h lion should
chance to roar I

TO J3E SEKIOLS.

But let us not for a moment be understcnxl as seekin-;- to
throw ridicule u))on tiie considerations themselves thus so
ably set forth in the British case, and last above cited. On
the contrary, tliey are most important, and such as we
should hope wonlt^ aninuite every sound American states-
man. Tliat they were thouLfht to be of jiriiuary in\portance
by the ,\meriean ne<;otiators ot' the treaty of 1871 cannot be
better shown than by rpiotiiiiT the very next sentence of the
British case : —

"It was repeatedly stated by the American members of
the Joint Uii2:h Commission at Washington, in discussiiiir
jtroposals reuardinii; the Canadian fisheries, 'that the United
States desired to secure their enjoyment, not for their com-
mercial or intrinsic value, biit for the purpose of removing
a source of irritation.' "'

liut the American neii:otiators did not exi>ect that tliey
should be asked to pay on each account separately — twice
over lOr the same thing. The aJjsurdity of tlie [U'esent claim

lies in the fact that after fixing upon the article to be sokl
its full price, at the hisjliest vahiation, it is sought to add
thereto v charjjre of more than double tlie amount for the
inconvenience it wouhl l)e to us if we did not possess it I If
we pay to avoid international irritation, the sum determined
upon includes, of course, the vahie of the fish caught, for
otherwise why shouhl we trouble the British waters at
all? If, on tlie other hand, we pay for the fish caught at
their full valuation, that is the whole of it— the beginning
and the end — the one includes the other.

INDIRECT ADVANTAUES NEVER COMPENSABLE.

We compared just now indirect advantages to indirect
damages, but there is in reality no parallelism between the
two. Indirect advantages are far less justly entitled to com-
pensation than indirect danuiges; for if, on principle, indirect
damages may not be allowed, yet, in fact, they are often as
palpable and as demonstrable as direct damages; nor are
they covered by the compensation made for direct danuiges,
since they may often be wholly distinct both in their sub-
ject, and in the persons who suffer them.

But the indirect advantages, which nuiy spring incidentally
from a commercial transaction, are included in and closed
by it. The seller receives his sure price for the article as
it is. He cannot be a loser; nor is he entitled to be a sharer
in the fiture gain; all such is the affair of the buyer only.
The seedsman sells his seed as seed, at the price of seed.
He does not count the number or the size of the possible
cabbages which your cultivation may develop.

ADVANTAGES TO GREAT BRITAIN.

We have thus seen that the British case, which ie their
own statement of their claim, and must include all they can
claim, only makes up, by actual show of figures, $3,360,000,
and this by conceding to them their own data, and by taking
no account of the deductions to be made by reason of the
advantages accruing to Canada under the treaty. And what

• be sold
t to add
for the
is it ! If
eriiiiiiod
ight, for
aters at
light at
ffiniiiiiif

indirect
een the
to coni-
n direct
)ften as
lor are
mages,
ir sub-

entally
closed
icle as
sharer
r only.
f seed,
issible

i their
iy can
0,000,
akiiig
<f the
what

are these? Here we are able to leave tlie uncertain domain
of estimate and calculation, and present the actual statistics
of the amount of duties upon fish and tish oil imported from
C'anada, lost to the United States Treasury under the opera-
tion of the treaty for twelve years, with the corresponding
gain to Canadians. The duties upon actual importations
for the years 1874, 1875, atid 187(! (see page 3,352, iv,) were,
had they been collected, respectively, S335,181, ^355,200,
and 8332,421. Applying the average of these amounts, viz.:
$340,934 to the twelve years of the treaty we have §4,091,208
as the total of duties lost to the United States. Deducting
this sum from !!^3, 300,000 liow much is left?

Or, if we concede to (Treat Britain one full half share of
the net ju'otits as estimated by her, instead of one-quarter —
i. (,'., 10,720,000— and deduct "therefrom the above ^4,091,208
of duties lost, we shall still have, as the amount of any sub-
stantial claim, but .§2,628,792. All the balance of the $12,-
000,000 is 1. ade up only by charging over and over again for
the same thing, as looked at from different points of view.

A UROSS INCONSISTKNCY.

No account is here taken of deductions to be made from
the amount to be awarded to (Jreat Britain by reason of the
a<lvantages accruing to the Canadian i*rovinces from the
corresponding privileges accorded to them, under the treaty,
of tishinsT in our waters. It is true Great Britain de-
nies that this privilege is valuable to them. But America
asserts that it is; that the macjkerel in some seasons seek in
l»reference our shores, and that menhaden, the best bait for
them, are to be caught exclusively off oi .oast. Whatever
the intrinsic value of our fisheries, (^reat Britain contends,
however, that to her sul)jects of the Provinces they are of no
use, beciiuse they have plenty of fishing nearer home. But
when, on page 104 of the case. Great Britain is arguing that
America siiould pay for the use of the Newfoundland inshore
fisheries, although confessedly never resorted to by us, her
view sudcleidy changes, for we find the following sentence : —

"It is Jisserter., oil the part of Her Majesty's Government,
that tlie actual use wliich may be made of this j)rivilege at
tlie j>resent moment is not so much in question as the actual
value of it to those who may, if they will, use it."

Oross as this inconsistency is, it is evident from the
result that it prevailed in the award, that a majority of the
Commission were persuaded to allow America nothini!; for
her fisheries l)ecause not used by Canadians, while compen-
sating Great Britain for all of hers whether used or not by
Americans.

Nor do we make any account of the £100,000 saved to
Great Britain annually, as it appeared in evidence, by her
beini!;" relieved by the treaty from the necessity of o;uarding
the coasts of her provinces against American tishermen, an
expense which, for twelve years, amounts to the sum of
$6,000,000.

ARE HER FIGURES CORRECT ?

We have hitherto assumed tliat the British case was cor-
rect in assuming that the number of American vessels an-
nually visiting the British waters was 1,000, and that the
value of the gross catch of each was S5,H00. Xow, it is to
be remembered that in those 1,000 vessels Great Britain in-
cludes all American vessels, those resorting to the deep seas
for the codtishery — o[)en to all the world — as well as the
mackerelers, who may pursue their prey near the shore.
But it is well understood that the encroachments upon British
waters liy American fishermen complained of are almost
exclusively confined to the mackerelers. [t is they only
who can be said to catch British fish. Xow the number of
mackerelers alone does not appear in evidence to exceed
300 in one year. la 1(S78 the number was, l)y British count,
25!; in 1874 there were noted 164 (pp. 222-229). It is
only as to this class of fishermen that Great Britain can
claim a compensation based upon their profits. " The gross
I'atch," the case states, " of each vessel per trip has been es-
timated at -1^5, ()00 jier vessel." But an examination of tlie
exhibits laid before the Commission, as to the value of the

g1
sel

sel

ail

venimeiit^
rivilege ut
the actual

from the-
it.v of the
)tliiri<r for
i coin I (011-
i)r not by

saved to
e, by Iter
g'liartling'
rrnon, an
' sum of

was coi'-
ssels aii-

that the
', it is to
itain in-
eep seas
I as the
3 shore.
I British
i almost
ley only
mber of

exceed
I count,
. ]t is
ain can
e gross
een es-

of tlie
! of the

gross catch, and taking the average of so many as 1,000 ves-
sels, by no means bears out so high an estimate. Thus we
see that the data by which even the sum of §3,360,000 was
arrived at must be much pared down to get at the real facts.

"IN RESPECT TO NEWFOUNDLAND."

As to the $2,880,000 charged separately "in respect to the
Province of Newfoundland,"' thus swelling the whole gran<l
claim to )!i;i4,880,000, it really seems hardly worth wliilo to
say much. ICvidently the command had gone forth to those
liaving the matter in liand to bring in a big bill. As the
tisheries of Newfoundland are deep sea tisheries, free to all,
ingenuity was considerably taxed to devise grounds for a
charge as to these. But by dint of searching some grounds
were at last hit upon :

First. It was remembered that besides the deep sea tish-
eries, which Americans do use, there is also along the entire
coast, as happily along all coasts, an in-shore fishery, wliich
it is admitted Americans do not at all use. But then they
might!

Second. The privilege is accorded to Americans res(»rting
to the deep sea tisheries of buying bait and supplies in the
harbors of Newfoundland. It is true they pay for these at
tlie prices asked, and the traffic affords employment and
profit to a large class of the population of the island destitute
of other means of livelihood, and who suffered at its with-
drawal in the interval between the two treaties, t^till, this
"privilege," too, must be compensated.

Thin/. Xewfoundland being near by to the deep sea fish-
eries, serves as " a basis of operations" — a place to put into
in distress, to refit, &c. And though these incidents bring
to the people of this seagirt island money and occupation
and intercourse with the world, they also form clearly good
ground for a further cliai'ge. In view of all these " jirivi-
leo-es " Great ]>ritain thinks that over and above the !?12.-
000,000 claimed for Canada, she is entitled to ask, "in re-
spect to the Province of Newfoundland," the further sum of

$2,880,000 — and so by an easy sum in addition we liave

$14,880,000.

ANOTHER "PRIVILEME" ALMOST OVERLOOKED.

It seems, however, that, notwitiistandin<j^the ingenuity and
indet'atigahility of the British agent and the five counsel, one
from each I'rovince, who aided him in getting up the case,
one important item was, after all, forgotten. But though
omitted in the case, it did not fail to appear in evidence.
Witnesses were exami?ied, and schedules exhibited, to show
the cost of construction and maintenance of all the light-
houses, fog whistles, and buoys along the coasts of the Prov-
inces! It was not stated whether the whole sum or what
proportion of it was thought to be chargeable to the United
States, nor whether the amount was included in the $14,-
000,000 or additional thereto, but it was thrown in as a part
of the British claim! Ridiculed by the American counsel,
it was not insisted upon. But who can say that even such
evidence did not have its effect upon the result? The " im-
partial arbitrator" might very well imagine that he could
not go very far amiss by splitting the difference between the
extreme demand of the one party, and the total denial of the
other. Whatever, therefore, swelled the claim swelled the
award. And so we get a glimpse at the manner in which
the ^'ery surprising award of $5,500,000 was arrived at.

Such is tlie British case. To sift and digest the mass of
evidence offered in support of it, or that which the United
States introduced on its behalf, would weary the reader;
nor could we, within a brief compass, do Justice to the able
answer of the Agent of the United States, or the admirable
arguments of the counsel on both sides. Suffice it to say,
that however the majority of the Commission reached the
decision they made, it cannot be seen to be due to any de-
ficieticy in the presertment of the case of the United States
by its Agent and Counsel.

we have

nulty and
msel, one
the case,
; though
evidence.
, to show
he light-
he Prov-
or what
i United
he 114,-
as a part
counsel,
'en such
he " im-
e could
i^een the
il of the
lied the
I which
at.

mass of
United
feader ;
he able
nirable
to say,
led the
my de-
States

TTiE COMMON SENSE VIEW.

But the Commission which was duly constituted accord-
ing to a previous treaty, have made their award. There is
iio\ppciil to us, the public. We cannot reverse it. But
we can, as individuals, have our opinion about it, and in
order to satisfy ourselves what that opinion should be let us
look at the question as one still open.

WHAT DID GREAT BRITAIN CONCEDE?

Admitting that it be necessary, or equitable, or politic to
make to Great Britain compensation for the possible en-
croachment by Americans upon iishing territory claimed to
be hers, by what method can we best arrive at a fair esti-
n\ate of what that compensation should be ? What is there
in history or in business that offers the most nearly parallel
precedent or criterion, by which to determine the nature of
that to be compensated for, and to measure the degree of
the compensation? To answer this question we have first
to make clear .to ourselves what it is that Great Britain gives
us. Not tish, certainly, either barreled or salted, or even
fresh, for we must catch them ourselves. Xor can Great
Britain claim to own even the tish we may catch, for if the
same tish chanced to be some distance further from the liore,
she could make no claim to them. All that Great Britain
claims to own is the right to exclude outsiders from coming
to fish within a certain limit— three miles from the shore.
And this right it is, which by the treaty she waives as
to Americanos; nothing more. Now, what is this conces-
sion ? " I do not know," says Mr. Dana, in his argument
^or the United Statos, " what to liken it to. It certaiidy is
not to be compared at all to a lease, because the lessor fur-
nishes everything that the lease requires." But with this
grant there goes nothing visible, or tangible, or ponderable.
It is a right' in the air— or rather in the water. " What,"
continues Mr. Dana, " is it like? Is it like the value of a
privilege to practice law ? Not quite, because there always

Avill be lawsuits, but it is not sure that there will always be
mackerel. Suitors, irritated men, may l)e meshed within
the seine which the privileged lawyer may cast out ; but it
does not follow that the mackerel can be. On the contrary,
they are so shrewd and so sharp that our fishermen tell us
that they cannot use a seine within their sight; that they
will escape from it. But the lawyer is so confident in the
eagerness of the client for a lawsuit that, instead of conceal-
ing himself a!id taking him unawares, he advertises himself,
and has a sign of his place of business.'' — (Argument of
Hon. K. H. Dana, Jr., p. 1,690-1.)

WHAT IS THE FAIREST MEASURE OF ITS VALUE?

Now, whether it be to practice law or for whatever else,
is it not clearly a license that the privilege granted by Great
Britain to the United States under the treaty of 1871 more
nearly resembles than anything else? A license is the per-
mission granted by one in authority to do a certain act or
thina: which it is claimed bv such authoritv cannot be done
without permission. J)oes it not follow that the compensa-
tion to be nuule for this privilege would naturally be of the
character and degree pertaining to licenses, i e., in the form
of a license fee payable by the person who enjoys the priv-
ilesre? But since in this ease the authoritv ffrantinar the
license is of one nation, and those to whom it is granted of
another, it seems wise that the Government of the latter
should step in, and, to avoid complications which might
arise out of such a relation between individuals and a foreign
power, offer to assume, on behalf of its citizens, the payment
of what should be found to be the sum of the license fees pa^-a-
ble by them. And because the Government thus assumes
to pay the gross amount, instead of its being individually
collected, is certainly no reason why the total compensation
should be greater than if separately collected, but ratlier if
anvthing the reverse. Now we have seen that (irreat
Britain claims that 1,000 American vessels avail themselves
of her privilege. We have seen that when that (iovornment

lts|
it
til
vt.|

v»|
wi

always be
ed witliiii
ut; hut it
contrary,
en tell us
tliat they
lit in the
f'conceal-
< himself,
unient of

jver else,
l)y Great
i71 more
the per-
n act or
he done
mpensa-
e of the
he form
he priv-
iug the
in ted of
e latter

might
foreign
flymen t
?s paya-
f*8umes
idually
isation
ither if

(^roat
I selves
nmeut

itself adopted the policy of compensating itself l»y Tui-nses,
it voluntarily fixed as the maximum price of such license
the sum of 82 i)er ton; that tiie average tonmige of the 1.000
vessels would certaiidy not exceed sixty tons: that the aver-
age license fee, therefore, would he 8120, which for 1.000
ves.;els would yield annually 8120,000, and for twelve years
would yield 81,440,000.

Could we more nearly approximate to what we ai"e seek-
ing — a just compensation to (ireat Britain for the ]tarticii>a-
tion l»y Americans in her fishing privileges for the period of
twelve years, than is thus arrived at?

THE DEUUI-'TIONS To UK MA UK.

But againstthisamountof 81,440,000 we have to set down,
on the side of America, the sum of the duties relimiuished
by her for twelve years upon fish imports from Canada, a
suui which we liave seen to exceed 84,00O,OO(» and there is
also to be set <lown the value', whatever it may hi', of the
Hshing ]»rivilege conce<led l)y America to Canada.

After nudsiuir these deductions there will remain the sum,
which the C'ommission at Halifax was instituted to as<'ertaiii,
if it existed, as due from the Cnited States to (Jreat Britain,
and which the British ('omnnssioner an<l the I'mjiire found
to be |r),r)0O,0O0.

TllK OONSHUUKNCES oF THIS A\VAK1>.

While Americanuiy well regret the loss of so large a sum
of money, the saddest result, perhaps, of this award will be
the shaken eontidence of the American mind in the efKcacy
of arbitration as a remedy in international disputes.

UlSTORY OF TlIK CO.MMISSION.

Already the correspondence, as subse»|Uently disclosed,
which passed between the two (governments resi)eeting the
constitution of the Halifax Commission produced, an un-
favorable impression, and argued ill for a sjitisfactory
result. It seemed as if one of the parties at least was ani-

iMuti'd, not so much by the coiuiiR'tuhihlt' desire to secure
ill! impiirtial arhitrator, as to make surc! of oiu' who initrht
be ho|>e(l to In' partial. The persistence of (xreat Britain in
urifiuii' the choice of Mr. l^elfosse, when it was from a
Britisli ('Omniissioner that the suti;gestion had tirst come of
the manifest ineliiijibility of a Beljfian, did not U)ok well.
Her obstinate adlioreiu'c to his nomination as the only one
she would listen to, and her refusal to entertain the suifji'estion
of any of the numerous and widely various names proposed
by America are to be ex[)lained oidy by her early determina-
tion to fall back upon the alteriuitive clause of the treaty,
so that the selection should be left to the Austrian Ambas-
sador at her own court I

And what is to be said of the double inconsistency of her
declarinii;, while nursiiiij this purpose, that she would not
accept for the office any foreign representative accredited at
Washitigton, and yet insisting upon Mr. Delfosse. who has
for years been accredited at Washington as the representa-
tive of Belgium? Why shouhl (ireat Britain be so confident
that the Belgian minister alone would be exempt from the
pre-iK)ssessions whi<th she lield sufHcient to disfpialify all his
colleagues?

AUSTRIA TO CIIOOSK THE UMPIRE.

Tlu' insertion in the Treaty of Washington of a clause
admitting the possibility, in any contingency, of the selection
of the umpire for the Fishery Commission being left to the
Aifsfrian ministei' at fjoii'fon was of itself a source of ]»ainful
surprise to AnuM-icans. Of all the Powers, Austria is prob-
ably the last that the An\erican people would naturally or
voluntarily select for such an office. Her traditions, her in-
stitutions, and her tendencies arc all at direct variance with
our own. As far removed from each other in sentiment as by
longitude, we have never been brought into contact except
by a difference. There is much, on the other lumd, in their
past associations, as well as in their present interest, to unite
her with England.

to socnr*!
t'lio niiijrlit
Britain in
18 from a
9t come of
look well.
.' only one
iUi(i>:e.stion

proposed
k'toriiiina-
lie treaty,
n Anil>a8-

icv of her
muhl not
redited at
. wlio has
spresenta-
contident
from the
ifvall his

a clause
selection
eft to the
f i)ainful
I is |»rob-
u rally or
s, her in-
nce with
eiitas by
3t excef)t
, in their
, to unite

l?ut it was not to an Austrian merely nor oidy to an Aus-
trian Premier — the successor of Mcttcrnicli — l)nt to an Aus-
trian representative accreditt'«l at Loth/on, that the selection
was to be left. Nor is this all. If, on <;"eneral principles,
an Austrian noblenum would not have l)een the tirst choice
of American Republicans, as an arl»iter over an important
national interest, yet they niiiriit feel a Just confidence that
tlie very ilisjtarity of institutions would ju'cunpt a true
Austrian to rise above any supposed [trejudice of class or
nation, and do us exact justice. I>ut,uidiappily, Count Beust,
the Austrian And)assad(U- at London, is not even an Aus-
trian, or, ratiier, he is more Austrian than ttie Austrians — for
he is a convert — an Austrian, not by birth, but by his own
choice. Had the American High Commissioners, if not
aware of the fact themselves, l)ut turned to the nearest Bio-
grapiiical Dictiomiry, they would have fouiul tliat C'ount
Beust is, bv birth, a Saxoti, that he id^xndoned his native
country in the hour of her troultle, just after the Austro-
German war, and went over to Austria to enlist in the ser-
vice of the House of Hapsburg. He was rewarded by being
made Premier, but a few years later he retired from the
Ministry to become Ambassador of Austria at London.
Such was the man, an Austrian in ]>olicy, a resident of
London, and a soldier of fortune, whom the American
negotiators suffered to be selected, out of all the population
of the Globe, as the person who should designate the um-
pire, to whom was to be referred a ([uestion toucliing
America, and one so contested, that the Joint Higii Com-
mission itself had been umdile to settle it I

THE MISCHIEF THAT CLAUSE WORKED.

How such a clause came to l)e inserted in the Treaty, we
have yet to learn. Was it from ignorance? or was it from
ncirligeuce ? or was it })urposely suffered to be slip[)ed in as
a make-weight, perhaps, to some supposed concession from
the otherside, and in the hope that it would prove harm-
less. It is true that, owing to a most unforeseen circum-

HtiiiK't', licrciiiiirit'r rcrt'iTt'd to, this ulfcniativi' claiist' of tlio
treaty hccainc only iioiniiially operative. When the two < Jov-
ernJiieiits at issiio, came at last to aii;ree ot" theniselvi's upon
till' uiiipii'e, the Austrian Anihussa<hn-, with tf feat courtesy,
carried out their united wish. I>ut tlie existi'uce of the
clause in the treaty had had it^s t'dll ett'ect. Tt had hampered
America in her I'tlort to secure an umpire, who miijht he
supposi'd to 1k' unhiasi'd. It had eticouraifed Enirhuid to
refuse all ot" the numerous personaiijes of so various nation-
ality, whom America suiji^ested, and i'nal>led her to force

u[ton tis lier own cnoiei".

But, while Kn<;land was unreasonahly |U'essiniy Mr. Dol-
fosse, we were chet-red to see the ij^ood tisjfht nuule aijainst
him, (not personally, of course, for the inteii'rity and liiijli
sense of honor of Mr. Delfosso have never Ikh-ii (juestioiied
by those who know him, hut on tliose ijeneral grounds
wliich i^overn sueli selections,) on bidialf of America. What,
then, was our consternation t" behold the extraordinary
somersault, so ime.\'[tectedly executed by our, then. Secretary'
of State, Mr. Fish, in the closiui^ scene of liis Last Appear-
aiu;e, landing; him on his knees, at the feet of Mr. Del-
fosse, to beseech him to do us this service! Truly here was
a feiit, which, for the moment, tairlv took avvav tiie breath

7 7 ■ *. t

of us simple spectators, and it must have been scarcely
less sur[>rising to the performers themselves. But it serves
to show what rich resources of unimagined agility, a su{tple
and dexterous diplomacy holds at the disposal of a Master
in the Art!

THE WHOLE EFFECT.

Take it altogether, looking at the whole history of the
Fishery Commission, from its iiu'eption in the Treaty of
Washington, through tlie discouraging circumstances which
attended its constitution, to the award fiiuillv reiristered at
Halifax on the 23d of Xovember, 1877, it may well be
doubted, whether, should Great Britain decide to pocket the

'list.' of flK!

letwo (lov-
iclvos llpOII
t (MMU'tc'SV,
1*V of tllC

Mlijrllt 1)1'

Iiii^limd to
US li;iti(»il-
I" to Co !■(•('

Mr. f)ol-
1"' iiyaiiist
iind liiyh
iiestioutMl

grounds
. WHiat,
ordiiiarv
■^ocrotury

Appoar-
Mr. Del-
Iiore was
e breatJi

scarcely
t .serves
u supple
I Master

' of the
'eaty of
s which
ered at
^'ell he
■ket the

§;'),.")()(>, (»()(), the Auicrican pcoph- will be soon attain disposi-d,
in thr chieri^eucy of another international dispute, to sul)-
niit any vital interest to the hazards of arbitration as at
present understood and |)ractieed.

INTKHNATIUXAI, roUKTS IN TIIK I'UTUKH.

Are we Justified in witldK.ldin.ii: from these Int«'riniti<)iKtl
Courts, as now ori^ani/ed, that eonti<h'iU'e in the jtistice of
their decisions which can alone iu(hice us to continue to re-
sort to them?

A Tribunal to which ai'e referred interests which concern
nations, and of sucli magnituth- that they cannot themselves
agree u|»on them, shoidd, it would seem, be surrouiKU'd
with guarantees and safeguards, at least equal to those which
attend ordinary courts of justice. International Connnis-
sioners are now vested ai)S()|iitely with the combined jtowers
of Jury and of Judge. But while unlike ujury, in that no
restraint seems to Ix; exercised upon the evidence to be ad-
mitted before them, n(» nnitter how irrelevant or delusive,
on the other hand they are not necessarily selected with a
view to the c.xi.erience and special attainments which
qualify a Judge.

AliU TJliOV JURYMEN OR .(UD(iES?

If the members of these (Commissions may be assumed to
be, as umhnibtedly they are, superior to the ordinary grade of
local Jurymen, they are after all still but mortals, and not
utterly exempt from the impulses and frailties which per-
tain to humainty. Yet their verdicts, which are deprived
of the guidance and counterp(jise ordinarily imparted from
the Bench, are final and without appeal.

If in enlightenment and dignity they are thought rather
to pai'take of the character of tlie Judge than of the Jury, the
result of their labors should be announced, not like the find-
ing of the Jury, in a bare monosyllable, or in figures unac-
counted for; but rather, after the manner of the Judge's de-
cision, should I»e preceded by a review of the evidence, and

a lirit't'tvcitul of tlir nuisoiis wliicli liiivc K'd to tlMH-oiiclusioii.
A judiciul (kioisioii which is iiimtH'oiiniaMied hy iitiy ^'Xposi-
tioii of tilt' steps hy which it is arrivi'd Jit, ivscmiilt's lathor
the senteiiee of an liniuisitioii, or the arliitrary decree of a
Star (Mianiher, than tiie delihorate judgment of a respected
Trihiinul of .luntice.

A (JHKAT OMISSION.

Had the Commissioners in this instance not ruthlessly
knocked away the scaffold ini^, by which they themselves
attained to so hiii^h a pinnacle, hut had permitted an interested
public to mount with them, stop by step, in the steep ascent,
the same broad view, vouchsafed to them, might have been
unfolded to us all, an<l this writer and these readers had been
spared their presc^nt pains.

But this defect in the reconl of the Halifax Commission,
while great, is not irremediable. It is still competent, we
presume, for the majority of the Conmiissioners, with the con-
sent of the parties, which assuredly would not be withheld,
to gratify the panlonable curiosity of a nation, mulcted in
so large a sum, while at the same time thev iustifv therii-
selves, by making public the process by which their result
was reached.

The British claim was S14,880,000. America denied
that, after allowing for the value of the coticessions she
made, anything at all was due. tn fixing upon the sum of
$5,500,000, which portions of the British claim were thrown
out? What allowance, if any, was made for America's
concessions? After charging us for the fish themselves,
what amount did they set down against us, because " they
serve to make a necessary and healthful article of food,
plentiful and cheap, for the American luition?" The jtro-
duction of the simple sum in arithmetic — it must have been,
it would seem, in addition and multiplication only — per-
formed by these gentlemen in the interval l)etween the
closed case and the finding, would fill up a now painful
void, and at once establish a connection between the two.

Htl

or
Bl
V

thi

dij

foi

thi

jnied
she
|m of
[•own
hca's
lives,
Ithey

|O0(l,

Ipro-
leon,
jper-
the
tiful

AMENItMI.NT Ol" I'HK UK<'URI».

The puhlisht'd Pi-occcdiiiifs iiichide a Protocol tor each
day. The Protocol of VVechii'sday, Novetidier 21st, 1H77,
Htates that on that diiy the case was closed. The Protocol
of Friday, Novemhcr 2.*5d conraiiis the award as rendered.
Hut there is no Protocol ijfivcn for Thursday, Xovi'nd)er '22.
Yet this day can l>v no means he lu'ld to he a 'Ins non in
the calendar. For America, iit least, it was hit; with secular
importance. Will not the majority of the Commissioners
direct the Secretary of tlu' (\»mmissi(>n, who was furnished
for the occasion hy the British Foreign Otttce, to supply
this deficiency ?

Or, are we to assume that the cipherin<^ of that memora-
hle day was done in perishahle chalk? or on the treach-
erous slate? and that it is no Ioniser letjihle? Was a com-
putation, which involved millions, suhmitted to accountants
(oneon either side) whoshould control and verify its accuracy?

Even one other pair of eyes might, perhajis, have discov-
ered some slight hut pregnant error — a <le(nnuil })oint mis-
pla(!ed, or too many ciphers l)rought down. The Immhlest
dehtor is entitled in a free counti-y to he furnished with the
items of his liability. Kven iha school hoy nmst show his
ciphering as well as his result.

The mere siglit of the actual Hgures would at once calm
the puhlic imagination, now left to its own unhridled fancy
to discover, as it can, hy" what charms, what conjuration,
RTid what mighty magic" the result, which has been an-
nounced to ua, was reached.

THE PAYMENT.

^ The day is rapidly approacdiing — it is the 23d day of
November, 1878 — on or before which the American Govern-
ment, in fulfillment of her treaty obligation, is to pay over to
the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (imless, in the
short interval which remains, that Government shall yet
signify a contrary expectation) the amount of the award,
which, under the circumstances we have seen, was rendered

•24

'^iirinM,ai.i,r()pnMUHl I,v ('.,i,o-,,.ss. '

rt'tlic rcvcre.l relativ,., wlio with ,,n„|..„t tlirifi u-.t I

1>1<H„I„| t,„ Ins „i,„„.rou. i;„uily, i;,r ll„. ui.rvi.hv.i l.-n,,
(acconlM.g to the iaU«t tliuun- „f |,n,,.s, ,.|„,,,,- ' '

4'
1*

1»

fH'i