The New York Herald Newspaper, November 11, 1878, Page 4

THE FISHERIES QUESTIONS Views of Our Government on the Halifax Award. SE SECRETARY EVARTS TO MINISTER WELSH. Non-Comformity Between the Award and the Submission. VALUE OF THE RESPECTIVE CONCESSIONS. | Enormity of the Award, As Shown | By Facts and Figures, HINTS FOR FUTURE DIPLOMATISTS. The Question of a Majority De- cision Considered. -———— Wasnineton, D. C., Nov. 10, 1878, The following is Secretary Evarts’ letter of Septem- ber 27 to Minister Welsh; giving the views of the | yovernment on the award of the Halifax Fisheries | Commission. It will be noticed that it preceded by one day Mr. Evarts’ letter on the Fortune Bay fishing iroubles, already published, and with which it should not be confounded :— Ma. EVARTS TOM Dev. s WaAsHINGTON, Sept. 27, 1878. Str—Iam directed by the President to present to the attention of Her Majesty's government the senti- ments of this government respecting the result of the deliberations of the Conu:mission lately sitting at Hali- fax for the determination of the queston submitted to it udder the articles af the Treaty of Washington pees to the fisheries. It is the purpose of the present communication to put you fully im possession of these sentiments, that you may impart them to Lord Salisbury with the same frankness that they are disclosed to yourself. It is a matter of sincere regret to the President that the actual result of the deliberations of this Commis- sion has been such as to require from this govern- ment the course of observation upon the same, which it becomes my duty to submit to the consideration of Her Majesty's government. For reasons of para- mount importance to the interests of the two coun- tries, in their future treatment of the subject of the fisheries, a cundid statement of the views of this gov- ernment, as to the position in which the action of the Commission has placed those interests, is due alike to the British government and ourselves. Nor are these views expressive only of the senti- meuts of the Executive Department of the Government. Upon the papers being laid before Con- gress, for its necessary action, upon the question of making an appropriation from the Treasury to meet what should prove to be the proper obligations of the government under the treaty, Congress, with great | ananimity, concurred with the ecutive in the opinion that the attention of the British government should be invited to the subject of the award, as tooked upon by this government, in advance of the final action of the Executive in reference to its pay- ment. Accordingly, the sum appropriated by Con- gress to meet the award is, by the Appro- riation act, Mme a under the direction of the ‘ident of the United States with which to pay the government of Her Britannic Majesty the smount awarded by the Fisheries Commission, lately assem- bled at Halifax, in pursuance of the Treaty of Wash- ington, if, after correspondence with the British gov- wnment on the subject of the conformity of the | award to the requirements of the treaty, and to the erms of the question thereby submitted to the Com- mission, the ident shall deem it his duty to make the payment without further communication with Congress.” IMPORTANCE OF AN UNDERSTANDING. The occasion for this Se repomaance with the British governineut arises from the great importance | of reaching a complete and explicit understanding be- | yy of tween the two goverements as to the conformi the eward made by the Commission to the terms of the Treaty of Washington, by which its authority and jurisdiction are communicated and defined. If the award in respect of the fisheries had relation only to the sum of the payment involved, cou- siderable as that is, this government might prefer to | waive any disenssion which conld affect no continuing and ancut interest of the two conntries, and id therefore comprehend only such considerations would touch the principles or elements of compu- tation applied by the Commission in arriving at a pucuniary amount, the payment of which carried no consequences. It ix true, even in such case, the in- disputable right of the parties to an arbitration, pub- lic or private, to examine an award in respect of its covering only thi ry matter submitted, should not be too readily relinquished from mere ‘repugnance to question a result which, at least, if undis- turbed, serves the good purpose of closing the con- troversy. If the benevolent method of arbitration between nations is to commend itself as a discreet and practical disposition of international disputes, it must be by a due maintenance of the safety and ‘in- tegrity of the transaction, in the essential point of the awards, observing the limita of the submission. But this government is not at liberty to treat the fisheries award as of this limited interest and operation in the relations of the two countries to the important, | permanent and difficult ‘contention on the subject of the fisheries, which, for sixty years has, at inter- vals, pressed itself upon the attention of the two governments and disquieted their people. The tem- | Porary arrangement of the fisheries by the Treaty of Yashington is terminable, at the pleasure of either party, in less than seven ries award, upon such ears from now. The fish- | ‘rmination of the treaty ar | rangements, will have @ usted = its force | as compensation for a supposed equivalent | and terminated privilege. If this government by silent payment of the award, should seem to have recognized the principle upon’ which it proceeds, as they may then be assuined or asserted by Her Majes- ty’s government, it will at once have preju its own rights, when it shall become necessary to insist ‘upon them, and seem to have concealed or dixsembled its objections to the award, when Great Britain wae entitled to an immediate and open avowal of them. pon these considerations the President and Congress bave required that the sentiments of this government respecting the fisheries award should be set before Her Majesty's government, to the end that a full in- terchange of views, in a friendly spirit between the two governments, should leave no uncertainty ax to the degree of concurrence of of difference in their Tespective estimates of this transaction. It is greatly to be regretted that the protocols of the commission make no record of the steps by which the majority reached the conclusion which they au- nounced as the award of the commission, and the dissenting Commissioner, on the other hand, arrived at so widely different » rosult. Had the record | disclosed the methods of reasoning, or the Processes of calculation respecting vither of | the privile whieh, under the submission of were to be measured and com pared, ich the divergent results of their delibera: » reached, the task of exposing the manner tions and extent in which, in the opinion of the govern- ment, the award transcends the submission of the treaty would be much simpler. Indeed, in the view whieh this government takes of the ‘narrow and | well defined question submitted to the commis- wion by the treaty, and of the indisputable re- | sult of the evidence pertinent thereto, there | seems little reason to doubt that, if the protocols exhibited a trace, even, of the elements of computation by which the two concurring Com- missioners made up their judgment, they would in- evitably disclose the infirmity of the actual award and make any careful demonstration of the same superfiuons. QUESTION BEFORE THF HALIFAX COMMISSION, | I desire that you will first call Lord Sulisbury's at tention to the nature of the question submitted to the | Halifax Commission, ax adjusted through the diplo- matic conferences he Joint High ¢ ission and in the treaty. In the first 7 Btates, in the fishery articles of the Tr ington, did not intend to and did not wai im the least the construction of the fishery and appur- vemant privileges sceorded in the Arat article of the Convention of 181%, a claimed them, and actually eased and — enjoyed by them under «1 m, at and before ‘he negotiation of the 'T Washington. Neither the protocols of the conferences of the Joint High Commissioners nor the text of the treaty negotiated by them indicate any intention of submiting to the in- of the ‘ax Cominiasion the degree of privilege accorded to the United States by the Con- | vention of 1818. On the other hand itis manifestfrom | the instructions to Her Majesty's High Conuniasion- ers, ag well as from the protocols of the conferences, that @ settienment of the disputed interpretation of the Convention of 1915 was contemplated as porsi bie only by the diplomatic deliberations or the Joint igh Commission end such conclusions thereon as they might find it in their power to em- body in the Treaty of Washington. This task, however, they did not undertake, but provided only for = temporary possessory privilege that should \persede, Surine its continuance, any determination of such disputed interpretation. In this disposition of the eubject it would seem quite beyond the seupe of the jurisdiction of the Malitax Commission to in tlude in any measure of the additional Bay eM eorded to the Uvited States by article RVITI. of the ‘Treaty of Wash'\® ton any contribution for the enjoy ment of the pr vi cge accorded to the United States by the Convention o( 1518, a8 claimed and aetnally pos geased by ther st the time of the negotiation of the ‘Treaty of Washi m. A reference to document No. 46, filed with the Commission, in support of | part of their home labor | | | varticles, At the outeet it was apparent that neither the case of Her Britannic Majesty's government, and found at page 238 of the Congressional publication of the proceedings of the Halifax Commission, will sub- stauntiate this proposition. Ido yot regard this point of serious importance in | the exposition of the subject, except that I desire to preclude, in behalf of the United States, any implica- tion or argument hereafter to be drawn from my passing over, without criticism, this possible element in the admeasurement of the award, The United States still maintains its interpretation of the privilege seeured by the Convention of 1814, and protests against any implication from the | magnitude of the award of the Halifax Com- mission, or otherwise from its proceedings under the ‘Treaty of Washington, that the United States have sanctioned, or acquiesced in, or by the payment of that award would sanction or acquiesce in, any lesser measure of the privileges secured to the United States under the Convention of 1818, than, as is well known to Her Majesty’s government, they have always in- sisted upon. In the next place, the United States did not submit to the Halifax Commission, under the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington, avy valuation of any | general economic or political advantages which grow out of access to fishing grounds for the development of a mercantile or naval marine, and which, therefore, it might be argued, would be enhanced by ad the area of the inshore fisheries of the Gulf of St. we rence to the fields for that ente period, open to and ocenpied by the bold and | hardy seamen of this country. Still less did the United States submit to that commission a pecu- niary measurement of the removal of occasions of strife between the fishermen, or misunderstanding between the governments of the two countries b) the temporary obliteration of a restrictive line divid- ing the inshore from the deep sea fisheries on portions of the coast of British North America. Both of these subjects are considerations, governmental in their nature, suitable to be entertained, with many others, in the diplomatic negotiations which ended in the treaty. They are neither of them computable in money. That which relates to the maintenance of | good Sy gh ‘and good neighborhood between the United States and the British North American provinces can, least of all things, be admitted as an estimable element in a pecuniary ‘computation. The importance of such i a aap of good understand. ing and good neighborhood the United States will never undervalue, In this interest large fiscal conces- sions were made by the United States in the adjust- ments of the ‘Treaty of Washington. After such | concessions the ‘ superadded submission to the Halifax Commission of the question of equaliz- ing, by # pecuniary measure, those concessions with supposed equivalent concessious by Her Majesty's government, was entertained and agreed to by the United States, mainly, if not entirely, in the dis > tion to meet any Just interest of the British North Aunerican provinces to be assured of the equality of these intended equivalents. But the ntenance of these ms is of common interest to the two countries, and can never be made the occasion of pecuniary tribute as if of more importance to one than to the other. No such calculation entered into the enlightened and conciliatory motives which animated and shaped the important series of negotiations which produced the Treaty of Washington. In the definition of what- ever unadjusted computation was referred, for pecu- niary settlement to the Halifax Commission, care was taken to indlude nothing which, suitably to the ise, from the earliest: honor of both countries, was not measurable by a scule of industrial and commercial profits. If these lain considerations shall be viewed in this light by ler Majesty's government, it is bea that a concur- rence 0, opinion as to the natnre of the question ac- tually submitted to a pecuniary measure by jhe Hali- fax Commission may be easily reached. ‘THE. FIQHERIES QUESTION IN THE PAST. It cannot be very material to recall Lord Salisbury’s attention to the historical attitude of the two govern- ments toward the subject in contention as to fish- eries by any present exposition of the matter. The sources of knowledge on this subject are common to the public cognizance of the two governments. Our diplomatic intercourse has unfolded the views of suc- cessive Briti3h and American cabinets upon the con- flicting claims of mere right, on the one side and the other, and at the same time evinced on both sides an amicable preference for praczica and peaceful enjoyment of the fisheries, compatibly with acommon interest, rather than a sacrifice of such common interest to a eer of insisting upon extreme right, at a loss, on both sides, of what was to each the advantage sought by the contention. In this disposition the two countries have inclined, more and more, to retire from irreconcilable disputations as to the true intent covered by the somewhat care- less and, certainly, incomplete text of the Con- vention of 1818, and to look at the true elements of profits and prosperity in the fisheries themeelves, which alone, to the one side or the other, made the shares of their respective partici- pation therein worthy of dispute. ‘This sensible and friendly view of the matter in dispute was greatly assisted by the experience of the provincial populations of iod of common en- joyment of the fisheries, without attention to any sea line of demarcation, but with # certain distribution of industrial and economical NEW YORK HERALD, advantages in the prosecution and the product of this common enjoyment. The form of this experience was twotold:—First, for the period of twelve years under the reciprocity arrangement of trade between the United States.and those Provinces; and, second, for a briefer period after the termination of the Reciprocity ‘Treaty, under a aystem of licenses which obliterated the sea line of circumscription to our fishing flect, upon the payment of fees deemed adequate by the provincial governments. THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. In this disposition and with this experience the ne- gotiations of the Treaty of Washington were taken np, and produced the fishery articles of that comprehen- sive treaty. The results of this experience and the influence of this disposition are plainly marked in the pertinent protocols and in the text of the confirmation nor # rectification of the old sea line of exclusion or the adoption of a new one had any place in the counsels or purposes of Her Majesty's government or in the interests or objects of Her Majesty's provincial subjects. It had become thor- oughly understood that the line of the Convention of 1818 had become inapplicable, and, in some respecta, insufferable, to the common interesta. The mackerel, which, always an inshore as well as # deep sea fish off our coasts, at the date of the Convention of 1414, and for twenty years after, as an object of pursuit to our fishermen, was confined to the coast of the United States, and that fishery wus substan- tially unknown, in any commercial sense, in the pro- vineial waters. Either change of habits in the fish oran extension of the enterprise of our fishermen had opened np the mackerel fishery of the Guif of St. Lawrence to our pursuit. The gradual increase of the fishing coast population of the Provinces had supplied the fishermen and excited the local interest for the prosecntion from the shore, as the base of its operations, of the new indus- try of inshore ‘kerel fishing. Upon the concur- re of these circumstantial changes it was natarad enough for the coast population and the public men of the Provinces to conclude that the territorial authority, which, ander the Convention of 1418, gave to the Provinces the monopoly of the inshore mackerel | fishery, only needed to be insisted upon, by a vigorous exclusion of our fishermen, to be fruitful of great local Promperity. These calculations were disap- pointed. It was soon found that the Provinces them- selves were comparatively valucless aes market for | mackerel, and that the quality of the fish, as respects the methods of ita preparation for export, excluded it from the general foreign market which’ was open to the luct of the cod fixheries. The near market of the Umited States was essential to the local pros- perity of the inshore mackerel fishermen of the iness, The political control of that market by the United States quite overreached the provincial Gontrol | of the inshore fishing grounds. Fish that cannot find a market will not long be pursued for gain, ai the fishing coast population, and the statesmen | of the Provinces alike, saw that a participation in the | mackerel market of the United States wae the indis- | pensable condition of prosperity to their inshore | fishery. &&xperience coniirmed the logic of this rea soning. While the reciprocity treaty endured, settle- | tlements throve and weaith increased. When it was | withdrawn, population shrank and wealth declined, | and, but for the hope of its renewal, a deetruction of | this industry seemed imminent. Upon the other hand, the mackerel fishermen of the | United States felt that participation in the inshore fish- erics of the Guif of St. Lawrence was uo equivalent fore surrender of our mackerel market to the participation | of the inshore fishermen of the provinces. They justly reasoned that this arrangement, in respect of the mackerel catch within the line, instead of placing the provincial fishing industry upon an equal footing with ours, really put us at quite a disadvantage. Ordinarily home | products have a certain measure of advantage over duty free competing imports, in freight, ocean or in- lund, insurance and interest and factorage. But, here, what passes for our home product is acquired upon the very shore of our foreign competitor. Ite pursuit is at the expense of an extended voyage, with | costly outit and large investment, at great risk, | with loug delay, measneed by heavy insnrance and acerning interest. Bringi it to what is called the home market involves the return voyage and the attendant burdens of expen ‘The farmer fishermen of the Provine the furrow and the ha hen the mack- | They cure their catch as o and ship it, at low rates, to | Ga or themselves. our market by bottoms, which make # urning commercial ight. At these odds share of the inshore mackerel fishery of the Gulf of St. Lawrence seemed to our fishermen but a poor addj- tion to their former extentive rights to be purchased by so great @ disadvantage in their general fishing in- dustry, on our own coasts, and in the deep sea as well sa the iushore fisheries of the provincial waters. These views, too, were confirmed by i oieane during the reciprocity arrangement ani ite clowe. Both periods, eneniotaneniy, marked the policy of an open market for the products of the provinciel fisheries as disastrous to our fishing industry. With these opinions and these experiences on the one side and on the other the High Commissioners undertook an adjustment of the opposing interests upon the principle of obliterating the sea line between the fieh- ermen of the two countries and finding such compen- sation for this concession as might seem equal and just. THE JOINT HUGH COMMIBSION. In the conferen of the Joint High Commission it is very apparent that onr High Comminsioners re- garded the obliteration of the sea line as of no great r your fishing induy . Accordingly $1,000,000 for this in the interest of nent did regard, and restoration of the | to the subject submitted for valuation by the | . ev « in the common enjoyment of these fisheries to the ancient footing of the treaty of 17K) as most grateful in sentient and aa® most valuable guarantee against any revewal of strife, Those cousiderations, for reasons already stated, could not be worthily enter- tained upon either side as an element of the pecuniary measure of the privileges to be accorded. In these conferences it is not less apparent that Her Majesty's High Commissioners recognized the possession of our market for the product of the provincial fisheries as the one thing essential to the prosperity of those fisheries, which could not be dis placed by any money purchase. This commercial ad- vantage was, of course, both tically and suitably to the pe of the » measurable in | money. It seemed to our Commissioners to ex- ceed in value to the provinces, as it unquestionably did in loss to us, any reasonable estimate of the value of the privilege our fishermen were to a- | quire, This basis, however, of freedom of the fish- | ing grounds to our fishermen and the freedom of | our mnarket to the fishermen of the provinces, in | simplicity ional equivalency, presented ‘ad- vanteane kth by oe well a inpeaned with any | nice calculation of com) ve pecuniary yalues in the exc! e. Her Majesty "8 igh Commissioners, however, thought that this exchange of privileges, | even with the’ added concession, on our part. of | throwing open to the provincial fishermen unre- | stricted participation in the valuable inshore | fisheries of our own coasts, above the thirty- ninth parallel, left still a claim for a pecu- niary meke-weight in favor of the provinces in the nature of owelty of partition, This led to the constitution of the ifax Commission to consider and decide the single question whether, and how much, the pecuniary measure of the new fishing privilege opened to the United States fishermen ex- | ceeded the pec measure of the new fishing | peivilens opened to the provincial fishermen, and of he ponaenies of our market, free of duty, for all the oducts of the provincial fisheries. This difference valuations was, in the nature of the problem, no less than by the terms of the treaty, to be expressed and paid in money. ‘THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION. Upon the conclusion of the labors of the Halifax Commission and the communication of the concur- ring judgment of the two Commissioners, awarding the sum of $5,500,000 as the amount to be paid by the United States under the fishery articles of the treaty, and the judgment of the dissenting Commissioner that no ‘sum whatever was payable by the United States under those articles, it ame the duty of this government to compare this re- sult with the authority: imparted to the commis- sion by treaty, and to determine whether it com- ported with or transcended such authority. It will not, I think, be questioned by Her Majesty's govern- ment that, upon the proofs and arguments, in what- ever form, submitted by the two governments to the commission, the practical measure of the concession to the United St under article 18 of the treaty, was simply a free and equal right to take part in the fisheries of the Gulf of St, Lawrence within the three-mile line, instead of being ex- cluded therefrom, 28 we were under the Con- vention of 1818, Nor do I anticipate that you will find any dissent on the part of Lord Salisbury from the proposition that the proofs fully show that the fishery thus opened to us was the mackerel fish- ety within that line. While both governments must regret that the sure footing for a concurrence of views between them, which might have been furnished by a careful system of protocols of the conferences of the commission, is wanting, yet the proofs on both sides leave this proposition in doubt. Indeed, since the publication by Parliament of the “Correspondence respecting tl Halifax Fisheries Commission’ has disclosed the advices given, from time to time, to Her Majesty’s government by Mr. Ford, the very intelligent and cireumspect British agent in attendance upon the commission, of the elop- ments of the real subject for valuation, there seems no room for any difference of views between the two governments on this point. Thus, in his despatch of September 10, 1877, presenting the position, upon the completion of the British evidence and before the opening of the proofs on the part of the United States, Mr. Ford says:— ‘The mackerel fishory, being that most extensively pur- sued by Americans. In’ British waters. 1s the branch of iu- quiry to which the greatest attention was devoted. In giving, too, in the same despatch the general re- sults of any pecuniary measure of benefit to the United States fishermen from the concession of arti- cle 18 of the treaty, which the completed British proofs had presented as a basis for an award, Mr. Ford makes it very apparent that the mackerel catch within the three mile line was the only item of ap- preciable importance, He says:— According to the evidence adduced on the British side. it seems beyond doubt that at least three-quarters of the mackerel taken on the British North Amorican coast in caught witbin the three-mile limit; while, owing probably to the existence of sandy shoals at some di from the shore, the ‘bh of this Ash in United Stat of the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, beyond that distance. Mr. Ford also, upon the mere British proofs, no less distinctly excludes the cod fishery as an element of the computation of the value to us of the conces- sion of article 18. He says:— ‘The cod fishery is pursued to a limited extent only by United States fishermen within British territorial waters, 4nd this is probably the case with hake, haddock, pollock, c. tween the two pec ‘And again:— The evidence is somewhat vague as to the proportion of codfish taken by Americans in British inshores, and it does not probably amount to anything considerable, except on certain portions of the north shore of the Gulf of St. Law- rence. Mr. Ford’s despatch, upon a survey of the counter proofs of the United States, which had just been com- j pleted, under date of October 30, 1877, presents the contention between the parties, and as recognized both sides in the same light. He says:— Seventy-eight witnemes in all bave been examined and 280 affidavits filed on the United States side and, case on the British side, the main part of it has beeu ted to the mackeral fishery, with regard to which the United States counsel have sought to establish the follows nds principal! Ly resorted to by th hermen in the Guif of St yo on Lawrence are on itnated outside the three-m ib Magdalene Islands. to which they bad ac; conclusion of the Treaty of Washington. by 2. That the fishing business is at the best an unprofitable one, as regards its net results to the owners or churterers of veanels. A mass of statistics has been put In evidence with this assertion, and to show that the Guna. sheries can hardly be pursued by United os except at me gal while those on — own ore yield 8 greater Temunorative results, 3 ‘That the remission of duties on Canadian figh is n great benefit to the preducer, inasmuch as the chief market tor mackerel is the United States. In the same despatch, Mr. Ford, in certain observa- tions of his own upon the countervailing force of the roots of the United States, asa whole the itish shows that the valuation of inshore mackerel fishery of the Gulf of St. Lawrence opened to our fishermen was the whole matter of contention before the Commission in respect of the concession of article 18 of the treaty. He remarks :— I may, however, observe that as it has never been denied, by the British si: a m pro a ermen who would’ truthfully depose thet the majority of their successful trips had been inade outside the limit of British territorial jurisdiction. The main fact, however, Temains practieally intuct—vis, that with inshores it would be impossible for the general business of mackerel fishing by United States vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to be pursued with profitable resulta. It seems to this governmment quite certain, then, that upon a correct exposition of the submission of the treaty, and the coneurring action of the two governments, in the pro- dnetion and septiention ot what they deemed ap- propriste proofs. what the pecuniary value of our ee in the inshore mackerel fishery of the jalf of St Lawreace was fairly estimable at, econatitated the cxtreme limit of any possi- ble pecuniary award by the Halifax Commis- sion against the United States. If upon any rational view of the criteria of this value before the commission, the award of the two concur- ring Commissioners of | $5,500,000 aa ® twelve years’ ag a of the privilege can be maintained, it may » fairly conceded that the imputation of invalidity to the award for tranacending the submission of the treaty will fail of adequate demonstration. If, on the other hand, the candid exploration of the evidence shall show that there exists no rational proportion between this award and the unquestionable limits of value which any view of the testimony musé ass! treaty, as correctly int reted, then, by the very statement of the proposition, it is demonstrated that the concurring Commissioners have passed their jndgment of valuation upoa some other subject than that defined in article 18 of the treaty, and have transcended the submission to their dcotnion. In such case the antecedent authority imparted to the commission by the two governments fails to justify the award, and the subject of the fisheries remains at the arbitrament of the two governments, uncon- strained, ae | gon a enlightened, by the deliber- ations of the Halifax Commission. In proceeding to apply the proposed test of confor- mity or nonconformity between the award and the submission, I disclaim all right to trench upon the range of discretion or to dispute the entire Treedota in comparing, weighing and extracting the trae re- sults from evidence which belongs to sich «pecial tri- bunals as the Halifax Coramission. 1 shatl not seek | in the least to impose any views of ny govern: | ment upon the evidence in th place of | any that may be assumed n to have been taken by the concurring Commissioners. I do, how- r, insist that upon any question of fact, within the submission, the record of the evidence cannot be surpassed by spontaneous conjectures or imaginations of the Commissioners. Ihave no difficulty in say- ing that the error of the concurring Commissioners, if error they have fallen into, does not seem to me of this nature. That error is not of mistaking the evidence adduced upon the subject sub- mitted to them, but of mistaking the subject sub- mitted to them and thus liberating their judgments from obedience to the evidence as thus adduced, For- tunately there are trustworthy criteria for determin- ing the value of the concession of article 14, as I have defined’ that concession to be. They are re- sorted to upon one side and the other and confessedly furnish the material upon which the appraisement, if confined wo the subject as truly de- fined, must turn. If, then, upon the evidence, if found conflieting or divergent, the largest measure of valuation dedncible therefrom be given in favor of the concegsion of article 18, and that extreme value shall show no rational or approximate relation to the sum awarded, there would seem to be no escape from the conclusion that the concurring Commissioners nceepted some other subject for their appraisement then that submitted to them. PECUNIARY RRKULTS OF THK FIAK Tt happened that before the Halifax Co concluded its Isbors five fishin period had already elapsed, w | the actual experienc of the enjoyment by the United States fixhermen of the privilege conceded replaced any conjectural estimate of its value by reliable atatisties of tts peenniary resnite, These stati« diselowed that the whole mackerel catch of the United States for five seasons in the Gulf of St, rence, both within and without the three-mile ‘was 167,046 barrels. The provincial estimates claimed | | that three-quarters of this catch was within the three- ile line, and so to be credited to the privilege con- ceded by article 18. The United States estimate placed the proportion at less than a quarter, Upon the provincial claim of three-quarters, the product to our fishermen of these dive years of inshore fishing would be 125,961 barrels, It was estab- lished, upon provincial testimony, that the price which mackerel bore in the provinces, cu and packed ready for exportation, was $3 75 per barrel, and this would give as the value, cured and packed, of the United States inshore catch for five years, the sun of $472,353. But in this value are in- cluded the barrel, the salt, the expense of eatching, curing and pack » which must all be deducted before the profit, ures the value of the fishery priv! is reached. Upon the evidence, $1 a barrel would be an excessive estimate of net profit, and this would give a profit to our fishermen, from the enjoymeut for these five seasons of the fishery privilege conceded under ar- ticle 18, of but $25,000 year, or for the whole treaty period of twelve years of $300,000, Although there would seem to be no reason for distrusting this commercial and tat A measure of the privilege in question, yet if it should be pretended that the not be taken, but the value in the market of the United States; and further, that an extravagant rate of $10 r barrel should be assumed as that value, and again, Eon all bounds of even capricious estimate, a con- jectural profit of fifty per cent should be assi to | the fishing adventures, we should have but $125,000 a year, or $1,500,000 for the entire Ive years of treaty for the gross valua- tion of the concession to the United States by article 18, undiminished, by a penny, for the coun- ter concessions of the United States of articles 19 and 21, Yet this sum, thus reached, is but little more than one-quarter of the award of the concurring Commissioners, after taking into account the deduc- tious required for the privileges of articles19 and 21, The proofs disclose another wholly independent criterion of the value of the privilege conceded to our fishermen by article 18 of the treaty, drawn from the experience of some years intervening between the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty und the negoti- ation of the Treaty of Washington. The provincial government in theae yours adopted system by which vessels of States were admitted to the inshore fishery upon the payment of fees for the season, rated by the ton. The experience of this system showed that under an exaction of fifty cents per ton our fishing fleet generally took out licenses; that when the fee was raised to $1 per ton the number of licenses fell off about one-half; and when a fee of $2 oe ton was exacted but few licenses were taken out. ‘he fairness of this measure of the vaiue privilege is obvious. It furnishes @ compensatory rate between gested and acted upon b; opposing interests, sug- Shar without coercion and by concurring consent. The tonnage, taking out licenses under the first and lowest rate, was at thirty-two thousand tons. Assuming, contrary to experience, that this @ would have borne the highest rate of $2 per ton, the sum of $64,000 per an- num would have measured the valne of the privilege in question, and would have yielded for the treaty period of twelve years $768,000. By this method the yatuation of the privilege of Pay? Be (without de. lucting a penny for the counter vriv: of articles 19 ‘and it) would be but about fourteen cent of the award of the cot Commissioners, after they had taken into account P hear You will say then, to Lord bury, that with every anxiety to find some rational explauation of the enormous disparity between the pecuniary computa- tions of the evidence and the pecuniary measure an- nounced by the concurring Commissioners this government has unable to do #0 upon any other hypothesis than that the very matter detined in article 18, and to which the proofs on both sides were applied, and the very matter measured by the award of the concurring Coramissioners, were not identical nor even similar, and that such award, upon this reason, transcends the submission. COUNTER CONCESSIONS. The demonstration at which I have aimed appears 80 conclusive upon the mere consideration of the con- cession of article 18 as to supersede, so faras the im- mediate argument goes, an exhibition of the reduction even of the moderate sum above assigned as the true appraisal of the concession of that article by the pecu- niary value, as laid before the commission, of the coun- ter concessions of articles 19 and 21, Buta bricf state- mentof the views of this government on the treatment of these counter concessions in the deliberations of the Halifax Commission is requisite both to the com- Perak ra and the frankness of this exposition. In rief, it may be said that Her Majesty's government formally insisted in their ‘‘case” and in their “reply,” laid before the Commission, that the concession of article 19, whereby British subjects are adwitted to the m of our coast fisheries north of the thirty- ninth Hel, is, to quote the language of the “case,” “absolutely valueless;” and that the concession of article 21, admitting fish and fish oil, the product of the Provincial fisheries, to our markets duty tree, to quote the language of the “reply,” “has not resulted in pecuniary profit to the British fisher- men, but, on the contrary, to the American dealer or consumer.” If I have been at all successful in showing the enormous disproportion be- tween the eum of $5,500,000 announced 46 their award. by the concurring commissioners, and the mniary value which the evidence assigns to the concessions of article 18, by itself con- sidered, I need spend little time in showing that these commissioners must have ted the views of Her Majesty's government that nothing was to be allowed for countervailing value to the concessions of articles 19 and 21, or that these commissioners had in their minds a measure for the concession of article 15, still more inconsistent with the true treaty definition of the subject described in that article and submitted to the appraisement of the commission. If the concession of article 19 was held by these commissioners to be “absolutely valueless,” as as- serted in the “Case” of Her Majesty's government, it must have been because the pecuniary profit to the provincial fishermen of the privilege, as actually en- joyed by them, was the trne measure of estimation of the value of the concession. In this view, the immense value of these fisheries, as shown in the evidence, all went for nothing, because the population, capital, or enterprise in the Provinces could not carry on what to them were remote fish- eries in competition with our own coast population, Without insisting upon the unreasonableness of measuring the value of our fishing grounds by the incapacity of Provincial resources to engage in the fishery opened to them, this disposition of the value of the concession of article 19 recognizes the whole force and result of the reaso: yy which I have assigned the true criteria value for the privilege of article 18, under the experience of the actual five years’ enjoyment theroof by our fishermen, who were able to take advantage of the privilege, and did so to the furthest extent compatible with profit.: The vice of the reasoning by which » right of fishing, valuable in its own capacity, is measured by the tenant’s incapacity to fish, is obvious. It furnishes no true criterion of the rent value of a fishery, which is what needed to be got at both under article 18 and article 19. Under article 18 we furnished a true criterion by the experience of a tenant con-fessedly willing and able to improve the fishery to the utmost, and actually doing so. VALUE OF A PREE MARKET. I now desire you to present to Lord Salisbury’s at- tion the subject of the concession of a free market in the United States for the prodnets of the provincial fisheries as by article 21, The value of this privilege to the proviness was required by the treaty to be measured by the Halifax Commission and de- ducted from their raisempent of the concession of article 18 in favor of United States. The statistics of the importation under this privilage showed that at the rate of duty prevalent before that concession, s revenue of about $200,000 per annum on mackerel alone, and of more than $300,000 on all kinds of fish (mackerel included) and fish oil, would have accrued to the United States, For the purpose of argument, conceding that but one-half of this annual sum of $300,000 should be set down as pecuniary profit to the Provincial interests, the aun of $1,900,000 would need to be deducted on the seore of Article 21 the true valuation of the je conceded by Article 18. If I have assigned 13 ble measure of the privilege of Article 18, upon the evidence, as being not more than $1,500,000, this low valuation of the privilege of Article 21 more than extinguishes it. Whatever disposition the concurring Consmissioners made of this countervailing concession of Article 21— whether they gave it a value commensurate with the statietical evidence of the revenue loss to the United States and market gain to the provincial in- terest, or considered it absolutely valueless—the mat- ter is one of much moment. these concurring Commissioners gave tho sum of $5,600,000 as the ap- raixerment of the concession of article 14, after de- jucting some $2,000,000 for the countervailing con- cession of article 21, the argument, as it seems to this government, adequate before, becomes still more con- clusive that the measurement, thus enhanced to some $7,500,000, was not applied and confined to the very subject submitted to the appraixement of the Com- mission by article 1s, But, it may be said, these concurring Commission- But this alternative ¢ whole tenor of the Madd by vi and insisted upon ible negotiations, by their most eminent representatives, through a long course of years. Certainly, ever since 1851, when Lord Elgin, as Governor General of Canada, communicated through the Briti*eh Minister at Washington, Sir Henry Bulwer, to Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, the opinion of the Britis government = that the admission of the paoduct of the Provin- jal fisheries duty free to our market was the one indispensable condition to our participation in the inshore fisheries of the Provinces, down to the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington, the attitude of the British government on this point has been ex- plicit ond unequivocal, Lord Elgin declared : Hor Majesty's government are pi ,.on certain condi- repared, tions and with certain reservations, to make the concersion tance seeme to have been aitached to which so much Impor by Mr. Clayton—namely, to. throw open to the fisheries o the Uitte Staton the Neheriow In the waters of the British h Americ to there Asher. jew for the purpose f of drying their nets provided that in so doing they de not inte he ownesr of privete property, or with ps ns of British fish ermen. Her Majesty's government would require, ws the indispensable condition in revarn for this eonce: that all Hah, either fresh or cured, imported into the States from the British North American poesossi vessels of any nation or descrip id be adiniited the United States duty free, forms in all re apeets of eqnality with fish Imported by citizens of the United states. ‘The deliberations of the Joint High Commission, as presented in the protocols of thetr conferences on the fisheries, exhibit with partes the British opinion as to afree market for the pt MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1878.—TRIPLE SHERT. which meas- | | sitions on our part were withdrawn, and our vincial value should . | the; provincial fisheries being a value to provincial inter esta =whieh sonia” nvt ba minaad ropes | by & pecuniary to im any settle iiealdislegiealllipacntteiieni pices ment of the question. Thus onr High Commis- wioners “that if the value of the inshore fisheries could be ascertained the United States might to purchase fora sum of money the right to enjoy in perpetuity the use of those inshore fisheries in common with ‘British fishermen, and mentioned $1,000,000 as the sum they were prepared to offer.” The British High Commissioners replied “that this offer was, they thought, wholly inadequate, and that no ment would "be acceptable of which the ission into the United States free of duty of fish, the produce of the British fisheries, did not form a part.” After a con- sideration of commercial equivalents, in which the ofters of our High Commissioners were not accepted by the British High Commissioners, all such pr missioners renewed their proposal to pay a money equivalent for the use of the inshore fisheries, and further proposed that in case the two govern- ments should not be able to upon the sum to be paid as an equivalent the matter should be referred to an impartial com- mission for determination.” To this the British h Commissioners replied “that it would not be possible for them to come to any arrangement ex- cept one for s term of years and involving the con- cession of free fish and fish oil by our Commission- ers; but that if free filah and fish oil were conceded they would inquire of their government whether were prepared to assent to a reference to arbitration as to money payment.” Our High Commissioners replied “that they were of opinion that free fish fish oil would be more than an equivalent for those fisheries, but that they were also willing to agree to a reference to determine that question and the amount of any money payment that night be found necessary to complete an equivalent.” Reroute stated in the protocol, “the British Commissioners having referred the last proposal to their government and received instructions to accept it,” the fishery articles of the treaty were agreed to. ‘These opinions of Her Majesty's government were entirely in accord with the views of the leading pro- vincial statesmen. Mr. Stewart Campbell, of Nova Scotia, declared that “under the Reciprocity Treat the total exemption from duty of all fish expo: from the maritime provinces to the markets of the United States was also a boon of inestimable value to the very bes class of Biritish subjects directly and indirectly connected with our fisheries and its resulting trade.” Sir John Macdonald said, in the Parliament of the Dominion, “The only market for the Canadian No. 1 mackerel in the world is the United States. That is our only market, and we are practically excluded from it by the present duty. The consequence of that duty is that our fishermen are at the mercy of the American fish- . They are made the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the Americans, They are obliged to sell their fish st the Americans’ own price. The American fishermen purchase their fish at 8 nominal value and control the American market. The t profits of the trade are handed over to the An jhermen or the Amer- ican merchants engaged in the trade, and they profit to the loss of our own industry and our own people.” HINTS FOR THE FUTURE. It may be that Her Majesty's government has sur- rende! these opinions and that the statesmen of the Dominion and the people of the provinces now think that the possession of our market for the products of the provincial fisheries is of no ary advan- tage to these provincial interests. such case, in any future negotiations respecting the fisheries this government would expect no stress to be laid upon this question of the possession of our own markets, If Her Majesty's government accepts the award of these concurring Commisuioners as carrying the neces- sary consequence thut the concession of article 21 is of no yalue to British or provincial interests, that element of calculation will disappear from any possible exchai of equivalents that the exigencies of any future f1 \y otiations may need to find at their service. A privilege that is valueless when granted to and enjoyed by a beneficiary may well be reserved and withheld without the charge of its being even ungracious to do so. It on the other hand Her Majesty's government adheres to the views of the value of our market for the product of the provincial fisheries, so often and so earnestly pressed upon the attention of this government, and asserts that the award of the concurring Commiasion- ers must be held, upon necessary reasoning, to have measured and deducted this great value of free mar- ket from the appraisement of the concession of free fishing to us, made by them under article 18, this overnment will expect the more ready acceptance by fier Majesty's government of the proposition, that these concurring Commissioners, in their award, mis- took the subject submitted by article 18 to their pe- cuniary measurement, and exceeded the aut ity under which the commission acted. ‘VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES. You will, however, very earnestly Dd upon Lord Salisbury’s atteution in advance of any declaration from Her Majesty’s government of their present views of the value of our markets for the products of the provincial fisheries, that this government has not changed or ut all moditied its opinions on this sub ject. To dissemble or conceal from Her rapa government this fact would be uncandid, and by silence on our part now breed mischief for fu- ture contentions or negotiations. This government hoids now as it did by the month of its High Com- missioners in the conferenees on the subject of the fisheries which produced the pertinent articles of the treaty, “that free fish and fish oil would be more than an equivalent for those fisheries.” The measure of ecuniary value which I have drawn from the revenue ons to the United States, calculated with extreme moderation, is an inadequate expression of the benefit to provincial interests and injury to our own from free importations. It is still the opinion of this vernment that the possession of our mar- et ig of vital importance to the maritime provinces, and such possession # formidable menace, if not & fatal wound, to our own fishing interests. Ido not think that I misunderstand or misrepresent those in- | terests when I «ay that standing, as we now do, mid- way in the treaty period, it would be better for those interests to surrender the enjoyment of the fishing privilege of article 18 for the remaining six years of the twelve, upon @ resumption by this yovernment of the control of our own market for this unexpired period. If Her Majesty's govern- ment and the provincial statesmen are in the opinion that the concession of article 18 parts with 80 much to us, and the-concession of article 21 is yalueless to British and provincial interests, it may well be worth while for the two governments to con- sider whether a mutual resumption of these exchanged interests may not be desirable. In the. future, aos in past, this government will gov far in’ con- cessions to remove occasions strife between ths fishermen of the two nations. But these contribu- tions to good will, as I have before insisted, are not to be confounded with pecuniary tribute on one side or the other, It was in this spirit that free importation of coal, salt and lumber, which was in debate as a measure of wholly domestic interest to ourselves, but with divided opinions, was proposed to the British government for reciprocal arrangements in respect of these articles to be incorporated in the Treaty of Washington. The proposal was re- jected by the British government and the provincial interests, doubtless, upon a measuring cast as to whether this reciprocity carried more benefit or injury to provincial interests, and what we thought an appre- ciably greater advantage to the provinces than to our- selves, was rejected as unimportant to them. The contrast between this indifference to a free market for coul salt and Inniber and the inexorable demand for a market for fish and fish oil, speaks volumes for pecuniar value of this latter to provincial in- terents. Her Majesty's governroent, it yt reasonably be assumed, bas given to this award of the concur Comumisatoners ite careful attention, and subjected if, the nod of the diplomatic negotiations whirh esti the — Halit Commission, and the evidence before that Commission, to a comparison with the authority imparted by the treaty, to deter- mine whether it conforms to the authority and is valid, or transcends that authority and, for that reason, is void. Whatever opinion Her Majesty's government may have formed on this point has not, so far as this government is aware, been made public at home, and has not beon communicated to this gov- ernment. In inviting 4 full exposition of the views of Her Majesty's government upon the matter, as now brought into consideration between the two jovernments, you will to Lord Salisbury at, wholly unsupportable as the pecuniary meas- ure of the single and ‘tary matter, not em- braced in the diplomatic concurrence of the High Joint Commissioners, and thus left by them to im- jal appraixement, seems to this government, it will receive and examine with entire candor any o posing views in maintenance of the the ia. sent. which Her Majesty’s goverty If, as 1 shall not cease to anticipate, Her jesty’s government shall agree that the subject submitted to the Halifax Commission has not been adequately disposed of by the concurring Com- missioners, the way will seem to this government to be thereby opened for @ more permanent and com- prehensive settlement of the fishery interests of the two countries than was reached by the Treaty of Washington, If the present correspondence shali not result in this desired agreement, and even if the opposing views which may be communicated by Hor Majesty's government should affect our pres- ent judgment in the very matter of the validity of the award, Tcannot, in all candor, hold out any expectation that this government can ever recoguize the valuation of the countervailing concessions of articles 18,19 and 21, involved in this award as a h less w standard, for any future fishery contentions, which the ex- igenctes of the situation, as now left, may require. THE MAJORITY QUESTION, Passing from the grave question whieh touches the exvential ele nte of the award, upon considerations vital to e whole of arbitration, 1 desire you, further, Lord Salishury’s attention to @ particular point in the sectual award—that is to say, the failure of the three Commissioners to agree in any result, and the conse- quent announcement of thet inability, and the pro- Spulgation of the widely different conclusions which the two coucurring Commissioners and the pwns | Commiseioner had reached, The — present on the face of the award of the Halifax Commission, viz, whether the comeurrence of the tliree Commissioners in their award was required by the treaty, was made # matter of public discussion both in Great Britain and in the provinces before and during the sitting of the comiuission. In this discussion, so far as it has fallen under my notice, the legal, ‘political and lar organs of opinion seemed quite positive this unanimity was nired by the treaty. In this country the matter was little considered, either because the British view of the subject was accepted, or because complete confidence im our cage, on its morits, superseded any interest in the question. The ‘or the first time for considera governments, and will need at- mnily in cme Majesty's govern nt should fail to coneur in the views of this gov ernment, whieh conden the # on the grave grounds already presented. The question involves Dothing more than tho of the treaty, and it is quite clear of any intermixture with the substance of the award as fatinfno- tory or unsatisfactory to cither party. It turns, first, upon the mere text of the treaty; and, second, upon the surrounding circumstances and the different xub- jects to be treated by the various boards of arbitra tion framed by the Treaty of Washington, so far aa they may be rightly resorted to in aid of & just con- struction of the text. By the ‘Treaty of Washington four boards are constituted for the determination of certain matters to be submitted to their respective decisions :— First—The Geneva Arbitration was composed of five members, in to whose deliberations and cone clusions article 2 of the treaty expressly provides that “all questions considered by the tribunal, includin, the final award, shall be decided by a majority of the arbitrators.” Second—A board of assessors under the Geneva Ar bitration, in case the tribunal should not award & gross sun, was to be composed of three members. In the action of this board article 10 of the treaty declares that ‘a majority of the assessorstin each case shall be sufficient to a decision.” Third—A commission of three members to deter+ mine reciprocal claims between the two countri arising during the civil war, Article 13 providgs that “a majority of the commissioners shall x» sufficient for an award in each case." Yourth—The Halifax Commission, com ot three members, undistinguished, among them- selves, by any aseription of’ umpirage to either, aud with no provision in any form for an award by less than the whole number. The treaty expressly accepts awards, signed. by the assenting arbitrators or assessors or commis- sioners under the other articles, while in the case of the Halifax Commission, this provision takes the place of such acceptance :—The case on either side shall be closed within a period of six months from the date of the organization of the commission, and the commissioners shall be requested to give their award as soon as possible thereafter.” ‘The argument from this comparison is obvious. The high contracting parties possessed a common system of atiaprudence, according to which a reference to arbitrators, ex m termini, required the award to be the actof the arbitrators, that is, of all of them. Tho parties to an arbitration, public or private, might accord to any lesser number the power of award, but express stipulations in the suom. sion alone could carry that authority. Acting in full view of this rule, to which a desired ex- ception needed to be expressed, in three cases, in tha same deliberate and solemn instrument, the high contracting parties imparted the authority to # ma jority by careful and solicitous provisions to that end, In the case of the Halifax Commission, last in tha order of the treaty, and with the previous arrange- ments, in this regard, in their minds and under their eyes, this power is withheld. It is impossible, because it is plainly irrational, to say that 4 treaty provision, containing power to s ma- jority to bind, and a treaty provision expresainig no such authority, mean one the same thing. The high contracting parties have excluded any such con- clusion by the sedulous discrimination which the text of the treaty discloses. To the countervailing suggestion that this varia- tion from the system of the treaty, in the case of the Halifax Commission, is most reasonably accounted for by inadvertence on the part of the High Joint Commissioners the answer is obvious. If either of the high contracting parties should so enire which it certainly would not do without much deliberation, the snypees ony would not affect the argument as to the meaning of the treaty as it stood, but would be in the nature of an appeal to the other high contracting party to waive the objection and reform the treaty. No doubt cases may exist where such appeals should be frankly responded to, though against interest. But you will say to Lord Salisbury that the suggestion of inadvertence in the negotiations, never to be lightly indulged in, over- looks an adequate and presumably the real reason for the requirement of unanimity in the case of the Fisheries Commission, while it was expressly waived in the other submissions of the treaty. In the matters of computation submitted in the several other references of the treaty two circumstances dis tinguished them from that submitted to the award of the Halifax Commission :— First—They were wholly matters of determinate proof—an appraisement of the ships and cargoes de- stroyed by the Alabama and her consorts— an estimation of damages to person: or property suffered by individual British subjects, or American citizens, for which reparation should bo made—these were matters of definitive affirmative f, in pounds or dollars, before any award could Re aahed and were subject to correction by pqnely definite opposing proofs before any award could be ranted. # Second_—The assessments carried no measurement or any still subsisting interests between the high con- tracting parties which wonld survive the payment of the several awards. It was, then, quite suitable to these references to accept the judgment of a majority aud dispense with the concurrence of both parties, as represented in the commissions, in the result of the contentions before them. The matter submitted to the Halifax Commission was different in nature, and in the relations of the high contracting parties to the subject of contention. Both these traits of this dispute conspired to urge upon ie high egrets oes the rn wir pel possible guaranty against unreasonable or illuso: estimates on the, part of the Commission to the prejudice of one party or the other, Besides, this computation touched a matter in which large classes and interests of either community felt a concern, and it was essential that dissatisfaction with results should be alleviated by confidence in the judge ment, So vague @ subject of valuation as the twelve years’ prospective catch of mackerel within threa miles of the shore, on the coasts of the United States and of the provinces, #0 diffuse a problem as the dis- tribution of the burdens of duties between pro- ducer and consumer, gave too large # range for floating speculations’ Unless anchored ‘sober sense by the requirement of unanimity. The permanent importance of these valustions, in the fu- ture negotiations of the two countries, forbade their submission to any commission uncontrolled by the necessary concurrence of tiygreproncntatives of both countries in any award. ‘interests and feelings of the large populations, on one side und the other, de- pendent for prosperity if not for livelihood on these Kaheries made the two governments careful to secure them, in any result, against # sense of injustice as well as of disappointment by this conservative requires ment of unanimity. In submitting to Her Majesty's government the failure of the Commissioners to come to the agree- ment which, in this interpretation of the treaty, is requisite to the validity of the award, this govern- ment wishes to lay no undue stress upon this objec tion. If Her Majesty's government concurs in this construction of the authority conferred upon the Halifax Commission, this agreement between the governments will enable them presently to make more complete as well as more satisface tory, arrangements for the reciprocal interests of the industry and commerce of the privinces and of the United States, than at present exist. If, on the other hand, Her Majesty's yovernment shall announce to this government their construction of the treaty to be that the concurrence of a majority of the Commission- ers warrants a valid award, notwithstanding tl declared dissent of the third Commissioner, thi ‘overnment will not refuse to accord to that opinion thus expressed all the weight which it deserves for it# own views. You will, therefore, say to Lord Salisbury that upon such a declared disagreement upon the true interpre- tation of the treaty in respect of unanimity of the Commiasioners this government will regard the maintenance of entire good faith and mntual ct in all dealings under the beneficent Treat; of Washington as of paramount coneern, and will not assume to press fts own interpretations of the treaty on this polar against the deliberate interpreta tion of Her been government to the contrary. You will promptly communicate theee views to Her Majesty's Jabber by delivering a copy of this do- xpatch to Lord Salisbury and requesting an early ate tention to its contents. Iam, sir, &e., WILLIAM M. EVARTS. RAISING THE WIND. ' Aman, named 8, D. Kelly, residing in Williamsburg, presented two checks at the Munufacturers’ Bank of Williamsburg on H. K. & F. B. Tharber & Co. grocers, of No. 116 Reade street and No. 158 Duane street, last Saturday, and wished to open an account, The cashier thinking that there was @ sctew loose somewhere refused to pay the full amount, which was $1,200, but advanced $300, T hecks were then taken over and shown to the firm, when they were pro- nounced forgerics. The police were notified, and Central Office Detective Sheely arrested Kelly and took him before Judge Kilbreth, who remanded him to Police Headquarters, charged with forgery. Mr, F. B. Thurber gave the following facts of the case to a Henatp reporter last evening :— “A man navied W. G. Howell has been our commis. «ion clerk for the past two yearsand it was always his business to send out the checks to parties in the coun- try from whom we received goods. Instead of sending these two checks to the proper parties he sent them to confederates, intending probably to receive half of the money himself, It sppears that he sent them to this party, 8. D, Kelly, who, I understand, wan for a long time cashier of the Fifth National Bonk of this city. I think that they war the money to gamble with. As soon as the ne reached Howell he lett the store and hes not since been heard from, and his assistant, red. Rowland, also left with Howell. I cannot tell how much fur- ther they have gono with this business as yet, but it is altoyether likely that there have been other attempts made at forging, as there seems to be three of them in the ring.” ‘A thorough search is being made for Howe’ and his assistant, Rowland. A GRANDSON OF PATRICK HINRY. Atypical “Johnny reb" was arraigned for intoxi« cation before Judge Kilbreth at the Tombs Police Court on Saturday afternoon, Tall, gaunt and seedy looking, he brushed back his long straight hair as he hobbled on his crutch and faced the Court, “Have you ever been in old Virginny, dndge ?” he asked, utterly indifferent to the charge ayainst him, “Oh, it’s a glorious country,” and he quoted a fow lines from Byron, “Let mé go, Judge, C fought under N talk to you when you're ober,” said the Judge, and the prisoner was romanded, Yesterday himself again. His name he gave as Wyatt Ow we wrandson of Patrick Hen He fong lit in the rebel army and waa wounded in the battle of Kun. The Judge allowed him to ao.