1652 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



" Before the receipt of a reply from Her Majesty's Government, it 

 would be premature to consider what should be the course of this 

 government should this limitation upon the treaty privileges of the 

 United States be insisted upon by the British Government as their 

 construction of the treaty." 



Now, says Mr. Turner, when Mr. Evarts wrote that he had the 

 payment of the Halifax Award in his mind, and what he meant AMIS. 

 unless you disavow this claim of jurisdiction you do not get the 

 money under the Halifax Award. Of course I am putting it in very 

 blunt terms, but Mr. Turner suggests that was clearly what was 

 meant. Well, I think it was not, because when one looks at the very 

 same letter, which is on pp. 656 and 657 of the United States Case 

 Appendix, one sees that Mr. Evarts himself is careful to distinguish 

 between the two subjects which were then engaging the attention of 

 both Governments. The letter is on the Fortune Bay dispute. It 

 begins on p. 652, and he sets out all the circumstances relating to that 

 dispute from the United States point of view. He says nothing 

 whatever about the payment of the Halifax Award. 



Then at the bottom of p. 656, the very last line, or perhaps I had 

 better read the last paragraph, he says : 



" I cannot but regret that this vital question has presented itself so 

 unexpectedly to this Government, and at a date so near the period 

 at which this Government, upon a comparison of views with Her 

 Majesty's Government, is to pass upon the conformity of the proceed- 

 ings of the Halifax Commisssion with the requirements of the Treaty 

 of Washington." 



Now, having dealt with the jurisdiction question, he says, " I am 

 sorry this question should arise at a time when we are all ready 

 when we have our hands full of this other question, namely, the 

 Halifax Award." And then he goes on: 



"The present question" (that is the jurisdiction point) " is wholly 

 aside from the considerations bearing upon that subject, and which 

 furnishes the topic of my recent dispatch." 



And then he goes on to say, " We must have from the British Gov- 

 erment a frank avowal or disavowal of its attitude on the jurisdiction 

 question." Having first pointed out that there are two questions he 

 says, " The one I am dealing with now, namely, the question of juris- 

 diction, has nothing to do with the other one which formed the 

 999 subject of my recent despatch." That was the question of the 

 Arbitrators exceeding their powers and making an award 

 which was not valid, and under which, therefore, no payment should 

 be made. 



What he calls his " despatch " is one of the 27th September, of 

 which there is a separate print." It appears in a separate print pre- 



Appendix (E), infra, p. 1379. 



