1688 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Is not that the difference between the 

 two? In the Case of the United States they speak of a limitation of 

 sovereignty and in your Case you speak of a limitation of the exercise 

 of sovereignty. In one case the sovereignty remains intact, under 

 your theory, but the exercise is limited, while, under the other theory, 

 the sovereignty does not remain intact. Then the question is what 

 becomes of the portion which has been taken away from it. 



SIR W. ROBSON : The United States say that they have got it, that 

 they have got that which carries the right of regulation. If the pas- 

 sages in their Argument were confined to the construction suggested 

 by Mr. Justice Gray it would be of no use to them because they want 

 some construction of the right of fishing which carries with it the 

 right of regulation and, in order to get that, they say, not merely that 

 we have limited your sovereignty, but that we have got what you lost 

 For instance, they say that on p. 16 of the Argument. It is the 

 italicised passage: 



" the question at issue between the two Governments is as to what 

 regulation of the freedom, of the -fishery in the matter of the time and 

 manner of taking fish remains part of British sovereignty over waters 

 within which exclusive sovereignty over the fishery has been parted 

 with by Great Britain " 



Not merely limited or restricted in its exercise, but parted with 



" by virtue of its grant to the United States of an equal right in the 

 said fishery." 



They say: We are really made partners. We are partners with 

 you and the grant is to be considered in the light of ancient history. 

 We were originally co-owners with you, the grant continues the co- 

 ownership and the co-ownership and dominion carry with them the 

 right of regulation. They must get to that or else they cannot win 

 this case. They must show that they have the right of regulation 

 and until they show that they have the right of regulation they 

 cannot be content because that construction that Mr. Justice 

 1021 Gray suggests might be put upon these passages. It would 

 probably be the correct construction if it were left without 

 anything further being done. 



JUDGE GRAY : Your argument is with regard to one of the positions 

 taken by the United States with regard to the construction of this 

 right as a servitude. There is another branch of their argument 

 which I hope you will consider and, no doubt, will do so, which con- 

 fines itself to the extent of the limitation upon the scope of the sov- 

 ereignty, as Lord Salisbury, I think, puts it somewhere. He says 

 that there is a limitation upon the scope of the sovereignty of Great 

 Britain in its territorial waters. The question then arises: What is 

 the extent of the limitation upon the scope of the sovereignty? 



