1G90 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Not under anybody else's jurisdiction 



"and we find that that sovereign right is being disturbed and im- 

 paired by the mode in which regulations are being carried on, we 

 may come in and say: 



" * It shall not be done in this manner any longer. We propose 

 to have our own voice and our own hand and our own participation 

 not only in the. making of these regulations but in their enforcement 

 in these waters.' 



" JUDGE GRAY : Would that be war ? 



" MR. TURNER: Well, it would be war if Great Britain should deny 

 the right of the United States -to do so." 



And so on. 

 1022 THE PRESIDENT: Is not this conception of Mr. Turner's, with 



reference to the littoral sea, expressed in the American con- 

 tention, as it is set out in article 1 of the agreement itself, where it 

 is said that regulations are not valid 



" unless their appropriateness, necessity, reasonableness, and fairness 

 be determined by the United States and Great Britain by common 

 accord and the United States concurs in their enforcement." 



If it is necessary to have the common accord of Great Britain and 

 the United States, then the United States view is that the United 

 States have an equal part in the making of these regulations with 

 Great Britain, and that as Great Britain has the sovereignty, that 

 therefore the United States must also have the sovereignty ? 



SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. 



THE PRESIDENT: The same is the case with regard to concurring in 

 the enforcement of the regulations, which is a vital part of sover- 

 eignty. If the concurrence of the United States is necessary to 

 enforcement, the logical deduction and consequence would be that 

 the United States shared in the sovereignty ? 



SIR W. ROBSON: I submit that is the true construction of that 

 paragraph of the agreement submitted to the Tribunal. That was 

 the contention of the United States. I say this in answer to Mr. 

 Justice Gray's observation. There are a number of passages which, 

 taken alone, of course, might lend themselves to a more restricted 

 construction, but when you come to take them all together, and espe- 

 cially that passage to which the President has been kind enough to 

 direct our attention setting forth the actual question -iibmitted. there 

 is no doubt whatever that the intention of the United States is to 

 say: We are not content with a limitation or restriction; we demand 

 a sovereignty of the same kind as your own, although it may be 

 operative in a more restricted sphere. It may be in reference to 

 territorial waters only and to a particular right, but still a sover- 

 eignty. 



