ARGUMENT OP SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1543 



MR. ELDER : Even a ward who was bound in articles of apprentice- 

 ship. It would prohibit that employment? 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes; because in the question there is no excep- 

 tion. The question is entitled : " or have a right to employ as mem- 

 bers of their fishing crews persons not inhabitants of the United 

 States." 



MR. ELDER: Can it be that the United States and Great Britain in- 

 tended to cover every individual in the world ? Now, in that gener- 

 ality, if a man were under contract to serve as a civil engineer out 

 in one of our new territories, for three years, he could not ship on one 

 of our crews because of that prohibition. There are no end of dis- 

 qualifications or prohibitions which might affect this case. But the 

 question I think is to be read according to its tenor, according to its 

 full meaning, and that is to raise the question of inhabitancy or non- 

 inhabitancy of the United States. And all the subsidiary questions 

 that might arise from men's personal contracts with each other, which 

 might arise from the laws of the country to which they owed obedi- 

 ence and allegiance which arise in any way whatsoever are ex- 

 cluded from that question and were not contemplated. No one 

 dreamed it. 



THE PRESIDENT: You assimilate, Sir, the prohibition of a national 

 law to that of a personal contract into which the individual has 

 entered? Would it be quite the same, whether the person is pro- 

 hibited by a personal contract which he has entered into with another 

 person or whether he is prohibited by the law of his country ? 



MR. ELDER : It would not be quite the same, Mr. President. 

 934 THE PRESIDENT: Not quite the same. I should think not. 



MR. ELDER : I quite agree. But when we are discussing the 

 generality of the question, when we are considering whether there are 

 any persons who would be prohibited from serving, every kind of dis- 

 qualification would then be brought in. Therefore, while my illus- 

 tration was an extreme one, it seems to me that it was a fair one. 



I wish also to call attention to the fact that Great Britain, neither 

 in its Case nor in its Argument, nor in Sir Robert Finlay's argument, 

 put the question on that ground. They did not contend it was a part 

 of the question itself. Their contention was merely that the parties 

 had been discussing between themselves the question of one of these 

 Newfoundland statutes, and therefore, for the purpose of disposing, 

 as they contended, of all questions, they asked this Tribunal to 

 answer a question which they call Question No. 2. 



THE PRESIDENT: But would not the Tribunal, if it should answer 

 this question with a simple " Yes," expose itself to the danger of being 

 misunderstood? And is it not the duty of the Tribunal to give its 

 answer in such a way that it is not liable to be misunderstood ? 



MR. ELDER: Precisely. I am quite in accord with the suggestion 

 of the President on that point. And it was intended that that should 



