ARGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1535 



" It is evident, therefore, that this Question asks simply whether or 

 not the treaty permits the inhabitants of the United States to employ 

 as members of the fishing crews of their vessels on the treaty coasts 

 persons of other nationalities who are not inhabitants of the United 

 States. The British Case, however, brings up for discussion in con- 

 nection with this Question the further question of whether under this 

 treaty Great Britain parted with its control over its own subjects, 

 which the United States regards as wholly outside of the scope and 

 meaning of Question 2. 



" Referring to this new question the British Case says." 



Then it quotes from the British Case. At the top of p. 46 I con- 

 tinue reading: 



" And, after stating the British position on this point and reserv- 

 ing ' further discussion of the point until they are in possession of 

 the Case of the United States,' 

 " the British Case concludes with the contention 



" ' That the Colonial legislatures and the Imperial Parliament re- 

 tain the power of prohibiting any of His Majesty's subjects from 

 engaging as fishermen in American vessels, and that the exercise of 

 this power is in no way inconsistent with the treaty.' 



" This contention, it will be observed, relates solely to the effect of 

 the treaty upon the observance of British laws by British subjects, 

 w T hereas Question 2, as shown above, according to the understanding 

 of it accepted by both governments, asks merely whether the treaty 

 permits the inhabitants of the United States to employ persons not 

 inhabitants of the United States for fishing purposes in treaty waters. 

 The Question certainly does not ask whether there is anything in the 

 treaty requiring or authorizing British subjects to engage themselves 

 as members of the fishing crews of the inhabitants of the United 

 States, if they are prohibited or even if they are not prohibited from 

 so doing by British laws, which is all that is involved in the British 

 contention above set forth. The United States, therefore, does not 

 regard this contention of Great Britain as within the scope and mean- 

 ing of the Question submitted for the decision of the Tribunal." 



At pp. 87 and 88 of the Argument of the United States the same 

 thing is repeated : 



" The Question, as before stated, arises directly on the treaty and 

 is to be answered by the treaty. The extraneous question suggested 

 by Great Britain, imports into the case a new arid additional element 

 and one foreign to the treaty, namely, the laws and the effect of the 

 laws of Great Britain. The United States submits, quoting from its 

 Counter-Case " 



929 And then follows the quotation that I have just read. 



Would any Court or Tribunal ever permit the United States 



to say that the effect of the Newfoundland laws had been adjudicated 



by this Tribunal with such a disclaimer, such a denial as that of the 



United States, or can it be presumed that the United States will 



ever make such a contention? That is my first suggestion, and my 



second suggestion is that there can be no objection to the Tribunal's 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 1( 



