included
the barrel, the salt, the expense of catching, curing and packing,
which must all be deducted before the profit is realized. Upon the
evidence, a dollar a barrel would be an excessive estimate of _net_
profit, and this would give to our fishermen, for the five seasons of
the fishery privilege, but $25,000 a year, or for the whole twelve
years but $300,000."

Not content to rest his argument upon this statement alone, Mr. Evarts
called Lord Salisbury's attention to the fact that if the mackerel be
estimated at the most extravagant price of $10 per barrel, and half the
sum estimated as _net_ profit, the total value of the fishery would be
but $125,000 per annum, or $1,500,000 for the twelve years. The only
problem, therefore, left for the Government of the United States to
consider, was whether in exchange for the $5,500,000 awarded by Mr.
Delfosse, and the $4,200,000 of duties remitted to Canada on fish and
fish-oil, we were actually to receive a total of $300,000 or
$1,500,000? In other words was the loss to the United States by the
transaction to be $9,400,000 or $8,200,000?

Lord Salisbury, in his reply, quoted eminent American publicists to
show that a majority of the Commission was authorized to make an award.
He maintained that the rule in international arbitrations empowered
the majority of the arbitrators to decide; but if that be a generally
recognized rule, his Lordship should have explained why in the case of
the Geneva and Washington arbitrations, (provided for in the same
treaty with the Halifax arbitration), the right of the majority to
decide was specifically provided for, and was regarded in at least one
case _as a concession by the High Commissioners of Great Britain_. His
Lordship declined to follow Mr. Evarts "into the details of his
argument." He maintained that "these very matters were examined at
great length and with conscientious minuteness by the Commission whose
award is under discussion." He admitted, with diplomatic courtesy,
that "Mr. Evarts' reasoning is powerful," but still in his judgment,
"capable of refutation." He did not, however, attempt to refute it,
but based his case simply on the ground that the award gave the
$5,500,000 to England. In all frankness his Lordship should have said
that Mr. Delfosse, in his grace and benevolence, gave the large sum to
England.

Secretary Evarts, with great propriety, declined to press the points
submitted in his dispatch. His o