1720 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



inserted. It was deleted, but both England and France knew that 

 they were leaving open a subject of controversy. England said: 

 " We will strike out the word ' exclusive,' and that means that their 

 right is not to be exclusive." France said: "Well, the word 'ex- 

 clusive ' is gone, but still if we find the general political conditions 

 favourable, we shall insist that the thing remains although the word 

 is gone, because of the nature of the right." Each knew perfectly 

 well that the other was going to raise the contention. They might 

 have settled it at once, but they wanted to have a peace, and they 

 thought that their successors in various high offices might as well 

 have something to think about, something to talk about, and some- 

 thing to quarrel about, at some later stage, and they did not trouble 

 much over it. 



Before I leave Question 1, may I just make an observation, not 

 an argument at all? The Tribunal, a few days ago I have not the 

 note before me, but I think I recollect what was said drew attention 

 to the provisions of Article 2 of the Treaty of Arbitration, which 

 enabled either of the parties to bring to the attention of the Tribunal 

 any legislative or executive acts of which either complained in order 

 that each side might have full notice of the grounds on which the 

 other objected to any such executive or legislative act, and that the 

 Tribunal itself might have such notice carefully set out. The Presi- 

 dent said that: 



" It would facilitate our work and expedite the final disposition of 

 this case if the parties supplied us with a detailed statement of the 

 particular provisions of the statutes and regulations to which they 

 object, accompanied by an exposition of the grounds of such objec- 

 tion. The objections of each party to be communicated to the other. 

 The objection should be made known to the Tribunal and the adverse 

 party within one week from this day and the answer of the adverse 

 party within one week thereafter, so that the Tribunal, before taking 

 the questions submitted under advisement, may have the benefit of 

 a complete statement of the objections from each party, with such 

 answer as the other party may desire to make. In addition to the 

 written objections the Tribunal would be pleased to receive such 

 further oral statements as either party may choose to make." [P. 872 

 supra.'] 



As far as that is concerned, as representing Great Britain, and 

 after consulting with my learned colleagues,! thought it was not worth 

 while, in so far as Great Britain was concerned, to persist in the 

 objection which it had made as to the visit of certain American ships 

 of war to the scene years ago, because I said that, although we con- 

 tested the legality of the act, we did not appear to have made a very 

 fervent protest, and I do not think that we did object to the manner 

 in which the United States behaved on that occasion. We respect- 

 fully submit that the United States was mistaken as to its rights, 



