ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1389 



MR. EWART: The first point the honourable Arbitrator mentions 

 does go to the root of the whole question. It was the second point 

 that I was directing my remarks to. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Can there be regulation without leg- 

 islation ? 



MR. EWART: Not unless authorized by legislation. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Directly or indirectly there must be 

 legislation ? 



MR. EWART : Yes. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Can there be any concurrence in regula- 

 tions without legislation ? 



MR. EWART: No, Sir, I think not. At all events, the executive 

 under the constitution I have been referring to could not have con- 

 curred in our regulations in any way. They had no power to do it. 

 They could not put United States citizens under foreign jurisdiction 

 by an executive act. It would be a difficult thing to draw a statute 

 to do it. It has never been attempted so far as I know. 



THE PRESIDENT: Please, Sir, do I understand that your position 

 is this: That Great Britain is entitled to make by itself, without 

 the concurrence of the United States, regulations which are made 

 bond fide, and for the purpose of executing the terms of the treaty, 

 and which have not the purpose or the effect of destroying the rights 

 which are conferred by the treaty upon the United States ? 



MR. EWART: Yes. 



THE PRESIDENT: But that of course if these regulations would 

 have the purpose or effect of destroying that which has been granted 

 by the treaty to the United States, there would be a breach of the 

 treaty? 



MR. EWART: Yes, there would be a breach of the treaty. That is 

 my position. 



THE PRESIDENT: And who would be the final judge as to whether 

 those regulations did infringe upon the rights granted by the treaty ? 



MR. EWART: That would have to be settled in the same way that 

 such questions arising under every other treaty that has ever been 

 made have to be settled. In case of a difference of opinion, unless 

 they agree to go to The Hague Tribunal, they would have to settle 

 by diplomatic discussions ; and, if they could not arrive at it in that 

 way, or by compromise, they would have to leave it either unsettled, 

 or go to war about it. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Does not this treaty provide for that 

 very difficulty? 



MR. EWART : Yes, in this particular case. 



839 THE PRESIDENT: Is not that the purport of article 4 of the 

 agreement ? 



MR. EWART: Yes. 



