1394 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



was at that date undecided, and that he, therefore, left the question 

 where he found it. 



THE PRESIDENT : I am not conversant enough with the constitution 

 of the United States to be sure I understand the end of this sentence. 

 There arises a certain doubt within me. Is there not a difference 

 between cases arising out of inter-State relations and cases arising 

 out of international relations, because of the right of the Supreme 

 Court of the United States to consider the constitutionality of the 

 laws of the different States? 



MR. EWART: There is just this difference, Sir, that there is some 

 method of determining the question as to whether a State exceeds its 

 powers or not. That is quite in line with the remark made by Mr. 

 Justice Gray a few moments ago. That does not seem to me, with 

 submission to the President, to touch the question of the right of the 

 State to make the laws. That only touches the question of the solu- 

 tion of any difficulty that may arise in case of dispute respecting the 

 exercise of those rights. No doubt the United States Supreme Court 

 is there and can settle those difficulties; and, as between nations 

 (apart from the agreement we have here), there is no way of settling 

 those difficulties. But, that is a mere matter of method of settling 

 difficulties. That does not touch the question of the rights of the 

 parties under an agreement, or under a constitution. That is, the 

 situation under the constitution would be the same, whether the 

 Supreme Court had a right to interpret, or to declare ultra vires, the 

 statutes of Massachusetts or not. 



The next case I refer to, and the only other one on this line, is 

 the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against Manchester. 

 I am sorry I have not a print of the case. It is reported in 152 

 Massachusetts Reports, and it is so much like the one that I have been 

 able to give the Tribunal the copy of, that probably they will not 

 require this one to the same extent as if they had not that one. 



This case is almost precisely the same as the other. It was a com- 

 plaint against a citizen of Rhode Island for breach of a statute which 

 prohibited the use of a purse seine for the taking of fish in the waters 

 of Buzzard Bay within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. An 

 important question arose, whether that particular place was within 

 the jurisdiction; and its discussion takes up a large part of the 

 judgment. After that is disposed of, the question of the right of a 

 State to make regulations is taken up, and the learned Judge, Chief 

 Justice Field, follows the case of Dunham v. Lamphere, which 

 842 he says, indeed, was decisive of the question. The only para- 

 graph I wish to read is contained in the last few sentences 

 on p. 248 : 



" The statute of Massachusetts which the defendant is charged with 

 violating is in terms confined to waters ' within the jurisdiction of 



