ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 81 



line and part of the time without, it all comes in mider the general prin- 

 ciple, the necessary principle, without which I have said there would 

 be no such property to quarrel over. As my friend suggests to me, both 

 writers make a cardinal condition of the exhaustibility of this product, 

 distinguishing such a product as this from those general fisheries that 

 are, as far as we know, practically inexhaustible. 



Then there is a passage from Yalin, a French writer, which is cited 

 at page 188, which may usefully enough be referred to in this connec- 

 tion, though it is quoted for another purpose. When we come to dis- 

 cuss the question of the Newfoundland Fisheries that have been spoken 

 of before in this argument, it will be seen that this passage from Vattel 

 Avas quoted in that discussion as giving to Grreat Britain the exclusive 

 control over those fisheries, extending- very, very fnv out into the ocean 

 in all directions from the coast. It is in that connection that this from 

 Yalin is quoted. 



As to the right of fishing upon the bank of Newfonndland, as tliat island which 

 is as it were the seat of this lisheiy then belonged to France, it was so held by the 

 French tliat other nations could naturally fish there only by virtue of the treaties. 



How far out that was we shall see when I come to deal with the 

 subject. 



This has since changed by means of the cession of the island of Newfoundland 

 made to the English by the treaty of Utrecht; but Louis XIV, at the time of that 

 cession, uuide an express reservation of the right of fishing upon the bank of New- 

 foundland, in favor of the French as before. 



It will be seen, as the context, I think, is read from this book, from 

 the construction that has been put upon this many times when it has 

 been cited in similar controversies, that Vattel never has been under- 

 stood as merely assuming that the nation liad a certain territorial 

 jurisdiction outside of the land, which nobody denies, but he asserts 

 that irrespective of that it may exercise a control over this sort of 

 product under those conditions and under those circumstances. 



ISTow is there any authority tiie otlier way? Have my learned friends 

 in the exhaustive and very able argument of this case, both in writing 

 and orally, which the Tribunal have had the advantage of hearing, 

 produced anything on the other side? Is there some writer on inter- 

 national law who has declared somewhere, that this right does not 

 exist ? Is there any writer or any Court to be found to assert that in prop- 

 erty situate like this to which Vattel refers, the right of protection 

 terminates at three miles or at a cannon shot or at any other specified 

 distance? Why yes, there are jurists who have had the high honour 

 of being cited by the distinguished counsel of a great nation; there is 

 a man who writes for a newspaper in America, who is brought forward 

 as a jurist, who has been a steadfast volunteer champion to the extent 

 of his capacity, of the British side of the case from the beginning, on 

 every single point that has been discussed. He is an authority for my 

 learned friends, not only on this important point of international law, 

 but on every other question that has been proposed in the course of this 

 dispute. What his motives are may be conjectured. I do not know 

 anything about tliem, and 1 do not know anything about him. He is 

 not a lawyer, and who and what he is, and whether his name is a worn 

 de plume or not, I do not know. 



There was a very celebrated English Jmlge who, in one of his judg- 

 ments, declared that reading and writing came by nature; if he had 

 lived a little later he might have added international law to the cate- 



B s, PT XV G 



