ARGUMENT OP SAMUEL, J. ELDEB. 1509 



912 MR. ELDER: Charters an American vessel? 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Charters a foreign vessel, under 

 time charter, say a six-months' charter, a very usual form of char- 

 ter 



MR. ELDER: Yes. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK (continuing) : And brings that vessel up 

 to Canadian waters, with American fishermen on board, and they 

 fish in Canadian waters 



MR. ELDER : It cannot be done, Sir. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: They cannot do it? 



MR. ELDER: No, Sir. No. The right is vested in the United 

 States, and the United States must give its authority for the exercise 

 of that privilege. Upon that I wish to cite several passages for the 

 attention of the Tribunal. To begin with, Mr. Root's letter, to be 

 found in the United States Case Appendix, volume ii, p. 967. Mr. 

 Root laid down the case in six propositions, 4, 5 and 6 being the last 

 ones. I read proposition 4, on p. 967 of volume ii of the Appendix to 

 the Case of the United States : 



" 4. The proper evidence that a vessel is an American vessel and 

 entitled to exercise the Treaty right is the production of the ship's 

 papers of the kind generally recognized in the maritime world as 

 evidence of a vessel's national character. 



" 5. When a vessel has produced papers showing that she is an 

 American vessel, the officials of Newfoundland have no concern with 

 the character or extent of the privileges accorded to such a vessel by 

 the Government of the United States. No question as between a 

 registry and licence is a proper subject for their consideration. 

 They are not charged with enforcing any laws or regulations of the 

 United States. As to them, if the vessel is American she has the 

 Treaty right, and they are not at liberty to deny it. 



" 6. If any such matter were a proper subject for the consideration 

 of the officials of Newfoundland, the statement of this Department 

 that vessels bearing an American registry are entitled to exercise the 

 Treaty right should be taken by such officials as conclusive." 



Thus, clearly and sharply, setting out from beginning to end that 

 the authorization must proceed from the United States to the persons 

 who are to exercise the privilege to the inhabitants of the United 

 States. 



Well, now, there was no dissent from that. Sir Edward Grey in 

 his reply makes no dissent whatever in the passage which I have 

 read from the letter dealing with that subject. He makes no dissent 

 whatever to propositions 4, 5, and 6, as to the necessity of the au- 

 thorisation coming from the United States. The only thing he says 

 is, that the persons who exercise the fishery must be inhabitants of 

 the United States, And so Mr. Root is enabled to say, as he does 

 say at p. 979, in the next to the last paragraph : 



" I find in the Memorandum no substantial dissent from the first 

 proposition of my note to Sir Mortimer Durand of the 19th October, 



