48 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



period I am not able to discover that any suggestion has ever been 

 made of a right to scrutinize the nationality of the crews employed 

 in the vessels through which the Treaty right has been exercised. 



Replying to Mr. Root's objections, Sir Edward Grey, in his note 

 of June 20, 1907, restated the British contention as follows : 



Mr. Root's language, however, appears to imply that the con- 

 dition which His Majesty's Government seek to impose on the right 

 of fishing is a condition upon the entry of an American vessel into 

 the Treaty waters for the purpose of fishing. This is not the case. 

 His Majesty's Government do not contend that every person on 

 board an American vessel fishing in the Treaty waters must be an 

 inhabitant of the United States, but merely that no such person is 

 entitled to take fish unless he is an inhabitant of the United States. 

 This appears to meet Mr. Root's argument that the contention of 

 His Majesty'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 fish- 

 ing 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. 6 



The British contention, therefore, is merely that no person on 

 board an American vessel is entitled to take fish unless he is an in- 

 habitant of the United States. 



The United States on the other hand contends that although such 

 persons who are not inhabitants of the United States may not be 

 entitled to take fish for themselves yet the liberty of the inhabitants 

 of the United States to take fish under the treaty may be exercised 

 by employing such persons as part of the fishing crew of their vessels 

 to take fish for them. 



With the exception of some of the grounds upon which the British 

 contention is based in the British Case, which are briefly examined 

 below, it is unnecessary to review here the evidence presented either 

 by the United States or Great Britain in support of their respective 

 contentions on this Question. 



Objections to the British contention. 



The British Case suggests as one of the principal grounds for con- 

 struing the treaty in accordance with the British contention that such 

 construction would give effect to the intentions of the negotiators. 

 In support of this view, it is stated that an argument was made by 

 the American negotiators (although no such argument is reported in 

 the published records of the negotiations) " that there was a large 



U. S. Case, p. 220. 6 U. S. Case, p. 235. 



