36 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



On behalf of the United States, Mr. Root in his despatch of 19th 

 October, 1905, asserted that (App., p. 492)- 



The only concern of the Government of Newfoundland with such a 

 vessel (a United States vessel) is to call for proper evidence that 



she is an American vessel, and, therefore, entitled to exercise 

 40 the treaty right, and to have her refrain from violating any 



laws of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the treaty. 



To that statement, admitting (as it does) that some Newfoundland 

 laws may properly be enforced against United States fishermen, no 

 objection could be taken. 



Sir Edward Grey, in his reply (2nd February, 1906), quoted it 

 with approval, and said that (App., p. 495) 



His Majesty's Government, however, agree that no law of New- 

 foundland should be enforced on American fishermen which is incon- 

 sistent with the rights under the convention. 



******* 



They hold that the only ground on which the application of any 

 provisions of the colonial law to American vessels engaged in the 

 fishery can be objected to, is that it unreasonably interferes with the 

 exercise of the American right of fishery. 



What seemed to remain, therefore, was not a question of principle, 

 but the application of the principle. In his later letter (the 30th 

 June, 1906), however, Mr. Root dispelled that idea by declaring 

 that (App., p. 499)- 



The Government of the United States fails to find in the Treaty 

 any grant of right to the makers of colonial law to interfere at all. 

 whether reasonably or unreasonably, with the exercise of the Ameri- 

 can rights of fishery, or any right to determine what would be a 

 reasonable interference with the exercise of that American right if 

 there could be any interference. 



And referring to some specific local laws, he added (App., 

 p. 501) : 



If it be shown that these things are reasonable, the Government of 

 the United States will agree to them; but it cannot submit to have 

 them imposed upon it without its consent. 



And thus have arisen the issues which the Tribunal is requested 

 to consider. 



ARGUMENT. 



It is submitted that the contentions of His Majesty's Government 

 are supported by a consideration of the terms of the treaty of 1818, 

 and by reference to usage in its analogous cases. 



As to the general principle which governs the construction of 

 treaties such as this, it is submitted that the mere grant of a right 

 or liberty to subjects of one State to do certain acts in the territory 

 of another State, does not itself confer any exemption from the 



