1740 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



DR. DRACO: As you are not to have the last word. as you have just 

 mentioned, perhaps it would be as well for you to take into considera- 

 tion this aspect of the question : 



The treaty says that the liberty of fishing is given to " inhabitants 



of the United States." Foreigners may be inhabitants of the United 



States; an alien may be an inhabitant of the United States; the only 



thing required by the treaty is for a man to live in the United Stau -. 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. 



DR. DRAGO: Then there is another aspect to be considered. The 

 treaty does not make any distinction as to natives or citizens of the 

 United States. But a native of the United States, or a citizen of the 

 United States, may be a non-inhabitant of the United States. 

 SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. 



DR. DRAGO: He may live in Newfoundland, for instance. 

 SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. 



DR. DRAGO : Or in Canada. Would he be allowed to fish ? 

 SIR W. ROBSON : Well, I think if the question were raised as a point 

 of law, in a particular case, he would not be allowed to fish. Of 

 course it is not one that would be of much importance. 

 DR. DRAGO : I am not raising it as a point of law. 

 SIR W. ROBSON: No. 



DR. DRAGO (continuing) : Or as a puzzle or anything of that kind : 

 but only to go into the intention of the negotiators. Were they in 

 those days thinking of nationalities when they gave a liberty to 

 "inhabitants of the United States"? 



SIR W. ROBSON: I think, strictly speaking, that a native of the 

 United States living elsewhere would not be allowed to fish, but at the 

 same time that would be reverting again to the maxim that of lit t It- 

 things the law takes no trouble de minimis non curat lex. Of course. 

 in effect, if a citizen of the United States found himself on a fishing 

 boat but living in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, nobody would 

 dream of turning him out, because it would not be worth while. Rut 

 strictly speaking on the terms of the treaty he could not. 

 THE PRESIDENT: Having in mind these two distinctions that an in- 

 habitant of the United States may fish even if he is not a 

 1053 citizen, and that a citizen of the United States may not fish 

 if he is not an inhabitant of the United States is not that 

 proof that the intention of the parties was that the economic profit, 

 the economic advantage of this fishery, should revert to the United 

 States? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Well, to inhabitants of the United States, that 

 whoever lived there I dare say it might be safe to say that it is 

 intended to confer an advantage on the United States as a community, 

 and I do not at all object to that way of putting it, as a community. 

 Of course it is the United States. 



