QUESTION SEVEN. 135 



149 He first discusses the negotiations of 1818, and gives his 

 opinion that Great Britain is not estopped from opposing the 

 present claim by anything that occurred preliminary to the treaty. 

 He continues as follows: 



.We must fall back, then, upon the accepted doctrines of interna- 

 tional law. Every nation has the undoubted right to prescribe such 

 regulations of commerce carried on in its waters, and with its citizens, 

 as it deems expedient, even to the extent of excluding entirely some or 

 all foreign vessels and merchandise. Such measures may be harsh, 

 and under some circumstances a violation of inter-state comity, but 

 they are not illegal. At all events, it does not become a Government 

 to complain which now maintains a tariff prohibitory as to many 

 articles, and which at one time passed a general embargo and non- 

 intercourse Act. There seem to be special reasons why the Dominion 

 authorities may inhibit general commerce by Americans engaged in 

 fishing. Their vessels clear for no particular port; they are accus- 

 tomed to enter one bay or harbour after another as their needs de- 

 mand; they might thus carry on a coasting trade; they would cer- 

 tainly have every opportunity for successful smuggling. Indeed, 

 this whole subject legitimately belongs to the local customs and reve- 

 nue system, and not to the fisheries. We are thus forced to the con- 

 clusion that American fishermen have no right to enter the bays and 

 harbours in question and sell goods or purchase supplies other than 

 wood and water. 



In a foot-note the author adds : 



The remarks in the text are based solely upon the fishery article 

 of the treaty of 1818, without reference to any existing commercial 

 conventions between the United States and Great Britain. It is pos- 

 sible that some provisions in the latter might require a modification 

 of our conclusions. 



MUNICIPAL LAW. 



9. Reference has been made in the course of the discussions on this 

 point to the statutes of Great Britain and of the colonies. But it is 

 not material to discuss these enactments. Even if fishing vessels were 

 entitled to trade under the provisions of the law as it stands, and that 

 is a matter for the courts of the country to determine, there would 

 be nothing, apart from treaty or agreement, to prevent the with- 

 drawal of that right by subsequent legislation. The question before 

 this Tribunal is one of international and not of municipal law. 



CONCLUSIONS. 



His Majesty's Government submit that Question No. 7 must be 

 answered in the negative, because 



1. The treaty of 1818 did not confer any commercial privileges. 



2. Apart from the treaty, American fishing-vessels are not, as a 

 matter of right, entitled to the same commercial privileges as trading- 

 vessels. 



a "Am. Law Rev.," vol. 5, pp. 414-5. 



