APPENDIX 387 



and more especially the words "the inhabitants of the 

 United States shall have, forever, in common with the 

 subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish 

 of every kind.' This interpretation must be conformable 

 to the general import of the instrument, the general in- 

 tention of the parties to it, the subject matter of the 

 contract, the expressions actually used and the evidence 

 submitted. 



Now in regard to the preliminary question as to whether 

 the right of reasonable regulation resides in Great Britain. 



Considering that the right to regulate the liberties con- 

 ferred by the Treaty of 1818 is an attribute of sovereignty, 

 and as such must be held to reside in the territorial sov- 

 ereign, unless the contrary be provided; and considering 

 that one of the essential elements of sovereignty is that 

 it is to be exercised within territorial limits, and that, 

 failing proof to the contrary, the territory is coterminous 

 with the Sovereignty, it follows that the burden of the 

 assertion involved in the contention of the United States 

 (viz. that the right to regulate does not reside independ- 

 ently in Great Britain, the territorial Sovereign) must 

 fall on the United States. And for the purpose of sus- 

 taining this burden, the United States have put forward 

 the following series of propositions, each one of which 

 must be singly considered. 



It is contended by the United States: 



(1) That the French right of fishery under the treaty 

 of 1713 designated also as a liberty, was never 

 subjected to regulation by Great Britain, and 

 therefore the inference is warranted that the 

 American liberties of fishery are similarly ex- 

 empted. 



