The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1895. AN ANGLO-AMERICAN DIFFERENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10599, 7 March 1895, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1895. AN ANGLO-AMERICAN DIFFERENCE.

International arbitration as a substitute for war has long been lauded by reformers; but the cause is not likely to be furthered by the attitude just, taken up by the United States Congress on the subject of the Behring fisheries award made by an International Court of Arbitration that sat in 1893. According to the cable, Congress has prorogued without authorising the payment of the damages due to England in the matter of these fisheries—has, in fact, distinctly refused to sanction the payment, despite a special appeal made by the President. This action seems unspeakably mean, as the amount is inconsiderable, and was fixed by the United States Government itself. It is particularly scurvy coming from a nation that received over three millions sterling from Great Britain as the outcome of the Alabama arbitration. Briefly, the history of the fisheries dispute is as follows:—In 1886 the United States Government, having purchased Alaska from Russia, made a claim that the Behring Sea was thus made a mare clausum ; was, in fact, all United States territory. Canadian and English fishers claimed the right to exercise their calling in these waters, but had their craft seized by United States revenue cutters. A vigorous protest from England, followed up by the moving of troops into Canada, brought the American Government to a reasonable frame of mind, and in 1892 arbitration was agreed upon. The Court sat iu Paris in the following year, and after full inquiry its decision was given in favour of Great Britain. This decision implied that England was entitled to compensation for the seizure of vessels by the United States, and an International Board was appointed to assess the amount of damages. Before this Board reported the United States Government offered a fixed sum in payment of all claims, and the offer was accepted. Evidently what the Congress has just declined to do is to sanction the appropriation of the money for the purpose of paying the amount agreed upon. This is distinct repudiation and a breach of good faith* Possibly the motives o£,

I the members who oppose the settleI meat are mixed. They will include C’-jfi appeal to a spurious sentiment o£ |patriotism, and to the “spreadeagleism ” that delights to flout the I' British lion whenever occasion offers. ; The leading motive, doubtless, is ; a pandering to the truculent , Irish - American element, with a view to getting the political support of the “ bosses” who control the Irish vote. Of course, the GoIvernments concerned will find means of settling the outstanding debt without further unpleasantness; but the .incident, as recorded, shows American politicians in an unenviable and contemptible light.