QUESTION TWO. 49 



esty's Government involves as a corollary that no American vessel 

 would be entitled to enter the waters of British North America (in 

 which inhabitants of the United States are debarred from fishing by 

 the convention of 1818) for any of the four specified purposes, unless 

 all the members of the crew are inhabitants of the United States. 



Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the treaty as to the 

 employment of foreigners generally on board American vessels, His 

 Majesty's Government do not suppose that the United States Gov- 

 ernment lay claim to withdraw Newfoundlanders from the jurisdic- 

 tion of their own Government so as to entitle them to fish in the 

 employment of Americans in violation of Newfoundland laws. The 

 United States Government do not, His Majesty's Government un- 

 derstand, put their claim higher than that of a " common " fishery, 

 and such an arrangement cannot override the power of the colonial 

 legislature to enact laws binding on the inhabitants of the colony. 



It can hardly be contended that His Majesty's Government have 

 lost their jurisdiction not only over American fishermen fishing in 

 territorial waters of Newfoundland, but also over the British sub- 

 jects working with them. 



It may be as well to mention incidentally in regard to Mr. Root's 

 contention that no claim to place any such restriction on the French 

 right of fishery was ever put forward by Great Britain, that there 

 was never any occasion to advance it, for the reason that foreigners 

 other than Frenchmen were never employed by French fishing ves- 

 sels. 



ARGUMENT. 

 THE TREATY IS CLEAR. 



1. His Majesty's Government submits that this question must 

 50 be determined by the terms of the article, and by those terms 

 alone. The article confers the liberty to take fish on the " in- 

 habitants of the United States." These words are not ambiguous; 

 they specify, quite clearly, the persons who are to be entitled to fish ; 

 and it is submitted that those persons, and no others, are so entitled. 



VESSELS HAVE NO RIGHTS. 



2. The article makes no reference to vessels, and confers no rights 

 on fishing-vessels as such. The qualification necessary for the exer- 

 cise of the liberty to take fish is the nationality of the fisherman, and 

 not the flag of the vessel on which he happens to be engaged. 



INTENTION OF NEGOTIATORS OF CONVENTION. 



3. This construction gives effect to the intentions of the convention. 

 It was the sole object of the American negotiators to secure the liberty 

 to take fish in British waters for the fishermen of the United States. 

 Their claim was supported by arguments which could apply only to 

 men who were inhabitants of the United States and were fishermen 

 by trade. They stated that there was a large population in the United 



