ABGUMENT OP SAMUEL J. ELDEB. 1591 



power in colonial waters both to trade and fish, and he goes on to 

 say: 



" The United States' Government would undoubtedly be entitled to 

 complain if the fishery of inhabitants of the United States were 

 seriously interfered with by a vexatious and arbitrary enforcement 

 of the Colonial Customs laws, but it must be remembered that, in 

 proceeding to the waters in which the winter fishery is conducted, 

 American vessels must pass in close proximity to several custom- 

 houses, and that in order to reach or leave the grounds in the arms 

 of the Bay of Islands, on which the fishery has been principally car- 

 ried on during the past season, they have sailed by no less than three 

 custom-houses on the shores of the bay itself. So that the obligation 

 to report and clear need not in any way have interfered with a vessel's 

 operations." 



That is to say (and this expression of register with right both to 

 trade and fish occurs repeatedly) when Sir Edward Grey deals with 

 it he does not say, but you have no right to do both, you have no 

 right to be here with authority to do both, but he says you may 

 trade, and therefore because you may trade, you ought to enter at the 

 custom-house, and it is perfectly convenient for you to enter at the 

 custom-house because there are three custom-houses on the shores 

 of the Bay of Islands itself. There, as I submit, we have the whole 

 question admitted. 



One thing more, if the Tribunal will pardon me an instant longer. 

 The claim is made in the British Argument, and used by Mr. Ewart, 

 that counsel for the United States have been so indiscreet by their 

 language, in the Case and Counter-Case, as to throw away this whole 

 contention, and abandon the whole thing, that it was said in the 

 United States Case that the question was solely one of the interpre- 

 tation of the treaty. We did not say that. That is our answer to it. 

 And, in the Counter-Case, that we said we did not claim that there 

 were any rights under the treaty. We say now exactly what he said 

 in the Case, and that is. that the question to be determined is con- 

 cerning the treaty, namely, whether there is anything in the treaty 

 which prohibits a fishing- vessel from trading. 



I have finished what I desired to say, Sirs, and I beg to thank you, 

 and the other members of the Tribunal, for the extreme courtesy and 

 kindness with which you have treated me during my argument. 



(Thereupon at 4.45 o'clock P. M., the Tribunal adjourned until 

 Monday, the 25th July, 1910, at 10 o'clock A. M.) 



O 



