1642 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



The words " in common " make great difficulty for the United 

 States. They have shown some doubt and hesitation in their printed 

 Argument as to how they should deal with them. They feel they 

 must give some meaning to those words. So they say they were used 

 there in order to exclude any contention on the part of the United 

 States that Great Britain was not to share in the fishery. 



Now, really let us look at the words. We grant them a " liberty " 

 such as we had granted in 1783. They have " liberty " to take fish 

 of every kind on the coast of Newfoundland, and so on. They have 

 been doing that for all these years. Had it ever occurred to them to 

 say that the liberty thus conferred upon them was exclusive ? Had 

 it ever occurred to any British statesman that they might say so? 

 But, says Mr. Turner, the French were saying so. The French were 

 saying so upon different ground. They got those words, so long the 

 subject of conflict between England and France, that we were not to 

 interrupt by our competition, which meant that we were not to go 

 there while they were fishing. We could only go there when they 

 were not there. That made a very fair ground for a claim to ex- 

 clusiveness. But, the mere liberty to them to go and fish could not 

 have been construed as a liberty to go and fish, and to keep us away. 

 All that this treaty did was to say that they should not be 

 993 excluded, that they could come on the same terms as our own 

 public. That is the whole of that treaty. That is all the 

 " right " which is expressed by those words. And, to treat those 

 vital words, or at all events those useful words, because I daresay the 

 same meaning would attach to the clause even if the words were not 

 there treat them as having been inserted simply to show that Eng- 

 land retained also the same liberty is I must say to belittle the effect 

 of words in a treaty in a way which is scarcely in accordance with 

 proper canons of construction. The words are there for a sound 

 purpose. What are they there for? They have a very useful pur- 

 pose. 



Supposing they had not been there, supposing we had granted the 

 liberty to fish and had retained, as we did retain, sovereignty over the 

 fishermen, we should have had to make regulations. Now. those 

 regulations would have had to be reasonable regulations, because that 

 is implied. Wherever there is a right retained or stipulated for to 

 make regulations, they must be reasonable. 



But, the question of reasonableness is a very difficult thing, and it 

 is extremely difficult in cases as between nations, where there is no 

 supreme sanction, where there is no high international court and 

 so, when nations have got to settle those difficulties between them- 

 selves as sovereign States, it is well that every treaty should rely as 

 little as possible upon mere reasonableness, and endeavour to give to 

 " reasonableness " some definite measure of standing. 



