2304 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



ing him into the details of his argument. These very matters were 

 examined at great length and with conscientious minuteness by the 

 commission whose award is under discussion. The decision of the 

 majority was given after full hearing of all the considerations that 

 either side was able to advance, and that decision, within the limits 

 of the matter submitted to them, is, under the treaty, without appeal. 

 The argument of Mr. Evarts amounts to a review of their award upon 

 the questions of fact and of pecuniary computation referred to them. 

 He contends that the sum awarded is excessive, and that therefore 

 the award must have been arrived at by some illegitimate process. 

 But to argue against the validity of an award solely on the ground 

 that the conclusion arrived at by the arbitrators on the very point 

 referred to them is erroneous, is in effect the same thing as to dispute 

 the judgment which they have formed upon the evidence. 



Her Majesty's Government do not feel that it is their duty to put 

 forward any opinion, adverse or favourable, to the decision which 

 the majority of the Commissioners have passed upon the affidavits 

 and depositions which they had to consider. Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment could not do so without undertaking the same laborious investi- 

 gation as that which was performed by the commission, a task for 

 which the interval which has been left between October 10, the day 

 on which Mr. Evarts's despatch was delivered to me, and November 

 23, the day on which the payment awarded is to be made, would cer- 

 tainly not suffice. 



But they are precluded from passing in review the judgment of the 

 commission by a far more serious disqualification. They cannot be 

 judges of appeal in this cause, because they have been litigants. As 

 litigants they have expressed the view upon the facts which they felt 

 bound in that capacity to maintain. Their computations have been 

 totally different in method, and result from those which the American 

 counsel sustained, and which, in part, Mr. Evarts reiterates in his 

 despatch. The interpretation which they have given to the 

 1392 data laid before the Tribunal has been in complete antagonism 

 to his. They have been of opinion, and have insisted with all 

 the force of argument that their agents could command, that 15,000,000 

 dollars was the legitimate compensation which, under the treaty, was 

 their due. The majority of the Commissioners has decided to re- 

 duce that claim nearly by two-thirds. Having formally engaged to 

 submit the matter to this arbitration, they do not think that it is 

 open to them to enquire how it was that the commission came to form 

 an opinion upon their claims so widely different from their own. Still 

 less can they admit that either side is entitled to treat this difference 

 as ground for assuming that the arbitrators have imported into their 

 judgment considerations which the treaty did not authorise them to 

 entertain. Her Majesty's Government can only accept now, as on 

 similar occasions they have accepted before, the decision of the 

 Tribunal to which they have solemnly and voluntarily submitted. 



At the close of his despatch Mr. Evarts refers to a consideration, 

 which I ought not to pass over without observation, though he does 

 not place it in the first rank among the objections which he raises 

 against the award. He calls attention to the fact that the award of 

 the commission was not unanimous, and that in the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington no stipulation is, in this case, made that the decision of the 

 majority is to be binding. 



