1384 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



And I think that the frame of mind of the colonials at that time 

 was such that they would have been delighted to have had an oppor- 

 tunity of refusing to assent to any law of his. One can hardly 

 imagine, Sirs, that the British Government, after that treaty, should 

 have sent over to the United States, and should have asked their 

 assent to the re-enactment of the regulations which were then in 

 existence, and without which the fisheries could not properly be con- 

 ducted. I think that we should have had a unanimous and vigorous 

 dissent; and we can almost get a little of the flavour of it in some 

 language of Mr. Root in British Case Appendix, p. 500, at the top. 

 He is referring to Sir Edward Grey's memorandum, in which it was 

 said : 



" ' The American fishermen cannot rightly claim to exercise their 

 right of fishery under the Convention of 1818 on a footing different 

 than if they had never ceased to be British subjects.' r 



It is the end of the quotation. Then Mr. Root goes on : 



" What then was the meaning of independence? What was it that 

 continued the power of the British Crown over this particular right 

 of Americans formerly exercised by them as British subjects, although 

 the power of the British Crown over all other rights formerly exer- 

 cised by them as British subjects was ended? " 



I think, Sirs, something like that, but infinitely stronger and 

 punctuated with emphasis of various sorts, would have been the 

 kind of answer we would have got if we had asked the colonials, while 

 they were in the state of mind that they were at that time and I do 

 not say improperly for assent to any of our laws. That period 

 was one of the most intense excitement, and but for Washington and 

 other splendid men of the period, the war of independence might have 

 been followed by civil war and state bankruptcy. 



Another point has to be considered; if concurrence and consent 

 were necessary in 1783, how could it have been given ? 



According to the constitution of the United States at that time, 

 what would have been its form? One has to consider what the 

 concurrence and consent had to accomplish. We have to take it 

 that by the treaty American fishermen could go into British waters 

 and when there would be free from British sovereignty. We want, 

 then, something which will place those men under the operation of 

 British sovereignty. Concurrence and consent do not seem to be 

 the proper words to use in that connection. I say that by the treaty, 

 the American fishermen, according to the United States contention, 

 could go into the British waters and be free entirely from British 

 sovereignty. What is wanted, then, is some act of the United States 

 or of the individual States, which will place these men under British 

 sovereignty when in British territory. 



