1386 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



the executive, to place United States citizens under foreign jurisdic- 

 tion, even in foreign territory. What would have had to be done, 

 then (if that could have been done), would have been that each 

 State should have passed a statute placing its own citizens under the 

 foreign jurisdiction a proceeding that, of course, could not have 

 been anticipated and something that would never have happened. 



It may be said that Congress could have made a new treaty. Yes. 

 The old treaty, by which the United States got those liberties might 

 have been torn up, and another treaty made by which the United 

 States would have taken those liberties with the necessary qualifica- 

 tion. But that is not a sufficient reply, for nobody will argue that 

 this treaty was made with the intention of its being torn up and 

 another being made in its place. I am asking what could have been 

 done under this treaty; and as far as I can see there was no provision 

 made for the concurrence and the consent of the United States; it 

 was something that practically could not have been obtained ; and we 

 are left in the position that there were no means by which the United 

 States fishermen could have been brought under control in British 

 waters. 



One might press the argument a little further, and point to the 

 effect upon the British Parliament of such a contention as this. The 

 suggestion is that British laws would not be valid urfiess assented to 

 by the United States; that British sovereignty was limited and cur- 

 tailed, and that its exercise was to depend upon the concurrence and 

 consent of the United States. British statutes at present, Sirs, recite 

 "that His Majesty, by and with the consent of the Lords and Com- 

 mons enacts " ; but if this contention of the United States were up- 

 held, the recital would have to be amplified; it would have to be: 

 " His Majesty by and with the consent of the Lords and Commons 

 and of the United States, enacts, &c." Well, Sirs, I need not say that 

 the British Parliament has never intentionally so limited itself. 



I have shown what the political situation was before 1782 



JUDGE GRAY: Mr. Ewart, let me see if I follow your argument: 

 It is your contention that the position of the United States is such 

 as you have just indicated, and that the treaty of 1818 itself must be 

 taken to mean, or looked forward to, necessary regulations of the fish- 

 ing act, and that those regulations must be made by concurrent action 

 between Great Britain and the United States. 



MR. EWART : Do you mean that that is my view, Sir ? 



JUDGE GRAY: Is that your view of the position of the United 

 States: That any regulations which may be adopted, or any legis- 

 lation that may be enacted by Great Britain or the colonies, must 

 be formally assented to by the United States, and thus become active 

 and operative? 



