QUESTION ONE. 43 



became as between Great Britain and the United States a matter of 

 right, but there can be no questiqn as to the extent of what was 

 granted. It was merely permission to fish, in common with British 

 fishermen, and was necessarily subject to the right of regulation by 

 the Government of the country, inasmuch as. in the absence of such 

 regulation, the subject-matter of the grant might itself be destroyed. 



48 EFFECT OF UNITED STATES CONTENTION. 



The view contended for by the United States would appear to 

 involve the most extraordinary consequences. They assert that only 

 with the consent of the United States, can American fishermen be 

 subjected to regulations made by the British parliament. It follows 

 that, failing such consent, either the American fishermen are to be 

 subject to no regulations at all, or that the American Government is 

 to have the exclusive right of framing regulations which are to gov- 

 ern the action of American fishermen in British territory. Both 

 alternatives are equally impossible. It is obvious that American 

 fishermen must be subject to regulation, and that anarchy on these 

 fisheries is impossible. It is equally obvious that the American Gov- 

 ernment cannot have the right to frame regulations to be enforced 

 within British territory. Any provision conferring such power 

 would amount to a partition of sovereignty such as has found place 

 only in treaties with Oriental States, and is wholly out of place as 

 between such countries as Great Britain and the United States. 

 Indeed, no such contention appears to be put forward on behalf of 

 the United States, and the point is referred to here only as illustrat- 

 ing the inherent absurdity of the contention that, for the purpose of 

 such regulations, the concurrence of the American Government is 

 necessary. 



EFFECT OF WAR OF 1812. 



It has from time to time been earnestly contended by the United 

 States that the war of 1812 did not terminate the liberties to take 

 and dry and cure fish which were granted by the treaty of 1783 ; that 

 the treaty of 1783 merely recognised and continued the rights which 

 the fishermen of the United States possessed as subjects of the British 

 Crown before the Declaration of Independence; and that the treaty 

 of 1818, in its turn, recognised and continued existing rights. This 

 view has always been repudiated by Great Britain, and, for reasons 

 which will be submitted to the Tribunal if reliance is placed on this 

 contention in the United States Case, cannot be sustained. 



49 But even if this suggestion on the part of the United States 

 were sound, it is difficult to see how it is reconcilable with 



t!^eir contention on the question which is now under consideration. 

 For if the citizens of the United States are now enjoying the rights 



