6 COUNTER CASE OP THE UNITED STATES. 



The only part of the contention of the United States, therefore, 

 which requires further consideration is that covered by sub-division 

 (c) thereof. The issue between the United States and Great Britain 

 on this Question is thus reduced to the question of the extent to 

 which the United States is justified in the contention that the exercise 

 of the liberty referred to is not subject, in respect of the matters 

 specified, to limitations, restraints, or regulations 



(c) Unless their appropriateness, necessity, reasonableness, and 

 fairness be determined by the United States and Great Britain by 

 common accord and the United States concurs in their enforcement. 



It is evident from the foregoing examination of the British con- 

 tentions, as set forth in this Question, that the position of Great 

 Britain with respect to this particular contention is that the British 

 authorities may interfere with the American fishing liberty on the 

 treaty coasts without the consent of the United States, provided that 

 such interference is appropriate, necessary, reasonable, and fair as 

 defined in the contentions of the two Governments in Question I. 



The position of the United States, on the other hand, is, as stated 

 by Mr. Eoot, when Secretary of State, while this question was under 

 discussion in 1906, that " 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 ex- 

 ercise of the American 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." 6 



The interpretation adopted for the treaty by the two Governments 

 in their contentions, as set forth in Question I, would seem to be in 

 itself sufficient to sustain the position of the United States on this 

 point, for, obviously, it would be unreasonable to allow the British 

 authorities to constitute themselves the sole judges of what kind of 

 interference would be reasonable with respect to the American fish- 

 ing liberty, when it is admitted by Great Britain that in order to 

 be reasonable it must be, as a matter of fact, " appropriate or necessary 

 for the protection and preservation of * * * the liberty which 

 by the said Article I the inhabitants of the United States have 

 therein in common with British subjects," and " equitable and fair 

 as between local fishermen and the inhabitants of the United States 



British Case, p. 20. 6 U. S. Case, p. 222. 



