ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 253 



by this Tiibmial. And upon the point Avliich I think Lord naiinen 

 aud Senator Morgan directed my atrention to, it is not to be supposed, 

 for reasons that I will say a word about in a moment, that two nations 

 agreeing with each other, would consent to delegate to the other nation 

 the form of determination as to what shall be the legislation which the 

 particular nation would itself lay down. To ijoint my observation: 

 the United States would never consent to Great Britain dictating 

 to the United States what would be the form of the United States 

 legislation. 



Lord Hannen. — The regulations cannot be carried out in either 

 country without legislation. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — In neither country could the rights of 

 nationals upon the high seas be interfered with except by municipal 

 legislation. 



Senator Morgan. — And therefore there has to be in both govern- 

 ments legislation that is as nearly parallel as it can be made. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Subject only to the good feeling and good 

 faith on the part of the Government making the legislation, that the 

 act or statute shall be eflective for the purposes for which it is intended. 



Senator Morgan. — Then 1 understand that if we should adopt regu- 

 lations, with such amendments as you have proposed to them, that 

 these regulations would have no sanction for their enforcement except 

 the fact that this award would make them a part of the treaty obliga- 

 tion between the two Governments. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — I consider. Sir, it would be just as though 

 the two nations had agreed upon regulations and then there would be 

 a moral obligation upon each country to give effect to that agreement, 

 and that moral obligation would have as much effect, of course and be 

 as much respected, as if it were a legal obligation. 



Senator Morgan. — Aud in the case you suggest, of either govern- 

 ment failing to carry into effect by law regulations that were satisfac- 

 tory to the other. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I have not suggested that. 



Senator Morgan. — I am suggesting it — or any regulations at all, then 

 the remedy of the other Government would be only to hold that the 

 Government failing to carry them into effect had not complied with its 

 treaty obligations. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I should think so. There was one regula- 

 tion that we did not think it right or proper, Mr. President, to insert, 

 because it seemed to me it ought to come essentially from the Tribunal, 

 and that is as to whether or not these regulations should continue for 

 a definite time or should be supposed to be in perpetuity. Of course, 

 in one sense the Tribunal could not affect the rights of the nation. 

 Assuming that the award, being enforced by municipal legislation, 

 and in five or ten years time either the United States shouUrtake the 

 view that it was not satisfactory, or that Great Britain should take 

 the view that in the circumstance then shewn to exist the state of things 

 was not satisfactory, no award of this Tribunal could limit the right 

 of the country in the future to say. 



The President. — I can hardly think it is permissible that you should 

 say such a thing before us. We are doing serious business, and the two 

 Governments have pledged themselves to execute whatever we award. 

 If they break their word, of course they can do so, but they have pledged 

 themselves. 



Sir Richard Webster. — If you will forgive me for a moment, I was 

 going to deal with that matter. I ha<l not finished the mere expression 



