1534 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



argument with regard to France and Spain proves too much. It 

 would appear to prove that a subject of the King of France, now a 

 citizen of the republic of France, must be barred from these fisheries ; 

 it would go to the extent of his being barred after he became entitled 

 uryjer this treaty because he was an inhabitant. There must have 

 been a recognition at that time of the enormous influx into the 

 928 United States of foreigners, who became inhabitants the mo- 

 ment they landed, because their intention was well formed. 

 It can hardly be that the British negotiators assumed that the King 

 was protecting his fisheries by the use of such a word as that. 



Allusion has been made to other treaties the Jay Treaty and the 

 treaty of 1815 in reference to this matter. These were treaties of 

 commerce and citizens of the United States were entitled to go with 

 their vessels, but, has it ever been suggested that citizens of the United 

 States, whose vessels exercised that right, must employ nothing but 

 citizens of the United States on board, against the well-known prac- 

 tice of employing all sorts of people ? Sailors are inhabitants of the 

 world and they ship wherever they are ashore, after their last money 

 has been spent. Business has been conducted under these treaties, as 

 it has under the treaty of 1818, in the usual and ordinary way. 



Now, I am not unaware that Great Britain seeks to have this Tri- 

 bunal answer another question, and, in fact two others, as the Argu- 

 ment appears, namely, the effect of the statutes of Newfoundland, and 

 also the effect of the treaties with France and Spain. The United 

 States deny most emphatically that any such questions are submitted 

 to this Tribunal. The question which is clearly and sharply pre- 

 sented to this Tribunal is one of inhabitancy. There may be any 

 number of disqualifications of the individual to a particular occupa- 

 tion, but the one that these two countries presented to this Tribunal 

 was the question of inhabitancy. Was non-inhabitancy of the United 

 States a disqualification under this treaty, or was it not ? There was 

 the underlying question which was important to these two countries, 

 and they have brought it here, and, as I have said, and do say with 

 the greatest earnestness, the United States denies that any further 

 question was presented for determination here. The Tribunal, at an 

 earlier stage, during the argument, I think, of Senator Turner, made 

 the inquiry whether a decision of this question would not be res adju- 

 dicata concerning the effect of Newfoundland statutes, and with ref- 

 erence to that I have two things to say. The first is this: In deter- 

 mining what a decision of the Court adjudicates, not only the de- 

 cision, but the pleadings, the written statements made by the parties 

 and the evidence in the case may, and must be, gone into, to see ex- 

 actly what the Tribunal or the Court was dealing with and what its 

 decision did determine. I refer the Tribunal to the United States 

 Counter-Case, p. 45 ; 



