1424 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



all treaties interrupt entirely the legislative power in the countries 

 affected by them, you must allow them to go on and legislate subject 

 to diplomatic representations. By the present agreement, of course, 

 they have ample security in the power of reference. 



Further, Sirs, I think we would have some difficulty in pressing 

 any request upon the United States for assent to our regulations. We 

 have no right to ask that assent. We have no right, at all events, to 

 expect it to be given. They are under no legal obligation to give it; 

 there is nothing in the treaty which compels them to give it. 



The case is very similar to that which sometimes happens, under 

 British and United States law, in reference to the law of landlord 

 and tenant. Sometimes there is a clause preventing the tenant from 

 assigning or sub-letting without the assent of the landlord. The 

 tenant asks the assent of the landlord, and the landlord merely says: 

 " I won't give it." He is not bound to give any reason unless the 

 agreement is that assent is not to be unreasonably withheld and so 

 the United States here would not be bound to give any reason. We 

 might ask : " What is the reason ? " and they would say : " That is 

 none of your business ; we merely do not assent." What security have 

 we against an unreasonable exercise of the veto power? They have 

 the assurance, on their part, that we are bound by the treaty to act 

 reasonably and properly. We have no such assurance from them; 

 because, by the treaty, they are under no obligation to assent to any 

 regulation that we choose to make, however reasonable or necessary. 



Further, the United States have really a very small interest now 

 in these fisheries compared with ours. It has been said that they are 

 as much interested as we are in the preservation of the fisheries. 

 That is not the fact. What has appeared before the Tribunal will 

 give ample assurance of that fact. The Newfoundlanders are abso- 

 lutely dependent upon their fisheries; the United States go very little 

 there. They go there, as a matter of commerce, to buy herring, and 

 they go there to get bait. And so far as bait is concerned, it is said 

 in some of the proceedings before the Tribunal that it is not neces- 

 sary that they have plenty of menhaden bait on their own shores, 

 and that they can get plenty of bait of other kinds on the banks near 

 the cod fisheries themselves. 



For all these reasons, I submit that it would not be at all reasonable 

 to suppose that the negotiators contemplated placing Great Britain. 

 in reference to regulations, in the position suggested by the United 

 States. 



The history of the attempts to agree upon joint regulations is 

 rather disheartening. Several attempts have been made, and all 

 have failed. 



There have been two attempts with reference to the non -treaty 

 shore ; one attempt with reference to the treaty shore ; and there was 



