1400 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



dians the liberty " in common " with citizens is, that they are to be 

 upon the same footing as other citizens, and that such reasonable 

 laws as do not deprive them of such liberty as was intended to be 

 secured to them by the treaty are not an interference with their 



treaty liberty. 

 845 One other point in the treaty of 1818 requires a word or 



two, and that is with reference to the argument of Senator 

 Turner to the effect that the " restrictions " referred to in the last 

 clause of the treaty are the only restrictions or regulations that can 

 be imposed upon United States fishermen. The senator invokes the 

 maxim expressio wnius est excliiMO altering, and argues that, inas- 

 much as power is given to provide certain restrictions, therefore no 

 other power exists. It seems to me, Sirs, that the restrictions re- 

 ferred to are of a special and unusual character, and that they do not 

 at all include, and were not intended tn include, the general right of 

 legislation of the sovereign of the country in which these operations 

 were to take place. We have here a very special liberty given to the 

 United States fishermen those who are fishing outside on the banks, 

 not fishing in British territory at all to enter British waters, and 

 also to land for the four purposes specified in the treaty. " But 

 they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent," 

 &c. The special privilege they are given is accompanied with the 

 power of imposing on them special restrictions; but, I submit, that 

 it cannot be taken as including the whole list of regulations which 

 can be imposed upon them when they come in. For example, they 

 come into a harbour and the only restrictions that can be imposed 

 upon them, it is said, are such as will prevent them abusing the privi- 

 leges of coming in. But, I submit, that when they come into a har- 

 bour they could pnoperly be required to conform to the harbour regu- 

 lations; for example, they could be required to take their anchorage 

 in certain places in the harbour. That would not at all be connected 

 with abusing their privileges, but it would be a harbour regulation 

 quite outside of the restrictions which are referred to ; and so, I say, 

 that this clause is not at all intended to exclude the right of Great 

 Britain to subject American fishermen to all the reasonable and ordi- 

 nary restrictions which are customary in every port. 



I would suggest that the effect of the clause is very much the same 

 as the effect of a somewhat similar clause in the 1871 treaty (British 

 Case Appendix, at p. 39). There, the Tribunal will remember, the 

 liberty is given to citizens of the United States to fish in British 

 waters, and to make use of the harbours and shores; and then there 

 is this clause: 



" provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of 

 private property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of 

 any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose." 



