1728 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



that is a reason for letting that word alone not for using it; and, 

 after all, the treaty says " fishing." 



I was just about to say that the ground upon which the request 

 was made by Mr. Adams 



THE PRESIDENT: Could it not be said, as the treaty speaks of the 

 right of taking fish attributed to the inhabitants of the United States, 

 so the personal limitation " inhabitants of the United States " refers 

 only to the right of taking fish; so that the right of taking fish is 

 limited to the inhabitants of the United States, without affecting 

 the question of entering the territory ? The question of entering the 

 territory is not decided directly by the treaty; but is a collateral 

 issue, 



SIR W. ROBSON : Then, in that case, nobody has the right to enter 

 the territory. The point as it is put to me by the learned President 

 is really quite sufficient for my purpose. In fact, there is no way of 

 putting this point so as to escape the words of the treaty. For 

 instance, let me take the point put by the learned President : The 

 inhabitant of the United States has a right to take fish. 



THE PRESIDENT: Nobody else? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Nobody else. But nothing is said about the right 

 of entry. Then, if nothing is said about the right of entry, that 

 does not mean that anybody else may enter, though he may not take 

 fish. It means that nobody else may enter or take fish, if nothing 

 is said about the right of entry. This is really the simplest question 

 that ever was asked, if one keeps to the words. Nobody may enter. 

 The whole fallacy of the United States consists in treating this right 

 of entry as though it were open to the world. 



Perhaps I had better, instead of reading Mr. Adams' letter, just 

 follow the course of my notes one or two steps farther. I will read 

 this letter again, but I prefer keeping to the law, rather than to 

 benevolence and humanity talked of here. I am a little more at home 

 on the point of law, I believe. I will just read what the law is; and 

 the essential consideration with which one ought to approach this 

 question is this: I said the right of every nation is to exclude aliens. 

 One may give it a technical name, " droit de renvoi," which is an 

 essential attribute of every sovereign State. 



Take General Halleck, p. 493, because he is a United States author, 

 although of course every international lawyer makes the same a> 

 tion. General Halleck says, on p. 493 : 



" The right of a State to expel foreigners from her territories is 

 sometimes called the Droit de Renvoi. Since every State is obliged 

 to receive its own subjects, even after they have emigrated abroad, so 

 there is a corresponding power of every State to send away a foreign 

 citizen who has immigrated there. This right of a State ceases where 

 a foreigner has been naturalized in the particular State." 



