42 CASE OF GEEAT BKITAIN. 



implied reservation of that kind. The liberty granted is expressed 

 to be a liberty "in common" with British fishermen. Now, there 

 can be no pretence that British fishermen are not subject to the 

 sovereign power of His Majesty, and these words show that Ameri- 

 can fishermen are to have the same liberty as British fishermen, but 

 no more. If they were to have the liberty free from the control of 

 the sovereign power, the liberty to fish at any time or at any season, 

 in any place, and with any kind of net or other instrument, then it 

 is evident that they would have, not a common liberty, but a liberty 

 much greater than that enjoyed by British fishermen. 



Liberty to enter foreign territory, and to trade there, or fish there, 

 does not imply exemption from the local law, nor freedom to act as 

 each one pleases. It means, of course, to trade or fish subject to the 



local laws regulative of such actions. 



47 Under the treaty in question United States fishermen have 



liberties on the land as well as on the water. They have " the 

 liberty to take fish" in the water, and "to dry and cure fish" on 

 the land. And they are either free from, or subject to, the local laws 

 both afloat and ashore; for it is clear that their operations may be 

 reasonably controlled in one place and not in the other. 



It can not be contended that a treaty which gives to an alien, 

 liberty to enter United States territory (for example) and to do 

 certain acts there, renders him exempt from all the municipal laws 

 of the United States which have never been sanctioned by the alien's 

 Government. Japanese, for example, have treaty liberty to enter the 

 United States and transact business there ; does the United States ask 

 Japan's approbation of its laws before applying them to Japanese? 



The argument is, of course, quite as strong when applied to ter- 

 ritorial waters as when applied to land, for as Hautefeuille says: 



Les parties de la mer qui baignent les cotes, qui les avoisinent im- 

 mediatement et leur servent en quelque sorte de frontieres, sont ce 

 que tous les publicistes ont appele les mers territoriales. D'apres les 

 principes du droit primitif, 1'ocean est libre. II n'en est pas de 

 meme pour les mers territoriales; elles sont, aucontraire, soumises a 

 la souverainete de la nation maitresse de la cote baignee par elles; 

 elles sont sous sa domination de la meme maniere et an meme titre 

 que la terre. Ce n'est pas une derogation aux regies immuables de la 

 loi primitive, c'est seulement une exception au principe general, ex- 

 ception derivee de cette loi meme, et qui repose sur la nature de la 

 mer territoriale, de 1'absence des conditions qui mettent 1'ocean hors 

 de la possession humaine. 



Article one of the treaty under discussion gives to the inhabitants 

 of the United States, liberty to fish on certain parts of the coasts of 

 British territory. The term "liberty," as here used, is equivalent 

 merely to permission. It is true that when granted by treaty it 



" Des droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres," 2nd ed. vol. i, p. 83. 



