1540 NOETH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Now, we submit that the question why these things, some of which 

 had been discussed between the two Governments, were not put into 

 this Question or this treaty of arbitration, was because there was 

 absolutely no limit to the questions that would have to be submitted. 



Underlying the whole thing, and most important between the two 

 countries after it was raised, is the question whether, in the treaty, 

 the United States is confined to the exercise of this fishing liberty by 

 inhabitants of the United States only. That underlies the whole 

 thing. If this Tribunal decides that we are confined to inhabitants 

 of the United States, that disposes of everj 7 thing; and it is of the 

 utmost importance that this question should be disposed of and de- 

 cided. But when it comes to anything beyond that the interpreta- 

 tion of statutes as I have already suggested, the maze into which 

 we are led is not traversible ; and the countries did not determine to 

 put, and did not put, it into this arbitration. 



I want to summarize my position on this matter, and then I shall 



have done with Question 2. 



932 Question 2 relates solely to non-inhabitancy as the criterion 

 of inclusion or exclusion from the American fishing crew 

 upon a vessel entitled to exercise the treaty right. In other words, 

 the question is whether the owner of a vessel, which is to exercise the 

 treaty right, is excluded from employing a person who lacks the 

 qualification or status of being an inhabitant of the United States. 

 If the lack of that qualification or status excludes an owner from 

 employing, the whole matter is disposed of. If on the other hand the 

 lack of that qualification or status does not exclude the owner from 

 employing such a person, there might still remain any number of 

 reasons other than the lack of that qualification which may interfere 

 with such employment, or may interfere with or prevent special 

 classes of people, not inhabitants of the United States, from accept- 

 ing the employment offered by American owners. If an employment 

 of any of the persons who are subjected to such prohibitions is un- 

 lawful, it is not because the treaty of 1818 does not permit the 

 American owner to employ such persons, but because some statute 

 forbids such persons to accept the employment. 



Question 2 relates solely to the owner's right under the treaty of 

 1818 to employ non-inhabitants, not at all to particular non-inhabi- 

 tants' disqualification by the laws of their own countries to accept 

 employment. No question is submitted to the Tribunal regarding 

 any of those other possible reasons, and no answer which the Tribunal 

 can make to this Question can apply to any of those possible reasons. 

 We have in this record illustrations of a number of such reasons. 

 The Newfoundland Act of the 15th June, 1905 (United States Case 

 Appendix, p. 197), prohibits the master of any foreign fishing- vessel 

 from engaging any person to form part of his crew in the territorial 



