1762 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes; and to say that provisions of the second 

 order would not be a breach of the treaty, whereas the provision of 

 the first order would be a breach of the treaty. 



SIB W. ROBSON : Yes. The provision of the first order being that 

 a particular nationality is 



THE PRESIDENT: That all nationalities are forbidden to enter the 

 fishing industry of the United States. 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. That, of course, would clearly be a breach 

 of the treaty for it would include in the prohibition the employment 

 of Americans by Americans. But supposing that you had a provi- 

 sion applicable to a particular nationality let us say a Malay, or a 

 subject of one of the smaller States that is not likely to trouble us if 

 they are afterwards offended suppose we say that the subject of the 

 Malay State is forbidden to be employed in any industry : If he was 

 forbidden to be employed in the territory of Newfoundland, and 

 nevertheless were employed to fish, I cannot imagine how that would 

 be other than a breach of Newfoundland law. It must be; because 

 the generality of the prohibition does not admit of gaps or 

 1066 loopholes, as you may say places through which the foreigner 

 may come. The Malay is told that he may not be employed in 

 that territory. Now, if he may not be employed in that territory, 

 and the United States master comes along and says: " I am going to 

 employ him, and bring him, because it suits me, and helps me in the 

 exercise of my right," why, in that case, there is a clear breach of the 

 law of Newfoundland, first by the Malay, who knows he has no right 

 to come, and secondly by the United States master, who knows he 

 has no right to bring him. 



In either case, taking either of those propositions, a breach of either 

 prohibition absolutely destroys and denies the self-government ot 

 Newfoundland. There is no way out of it. It could not make either 

 prohibition except on some principle which entitles it to make both. 

 The first prohibition, which is against the subjects of all States, other 

 than those which have treaty rights, from taking part in the fishery, 

 is made by what right? By what right does Newfoundland make 

 such a stipulation? Only by virtue of its sovereign right, by virtue 

 of its right of exclusion, which is the same in substance as the droit 

 de renvoi of which Mr. Halleck talked this morning the right to 

 exclude either when they are coming in or after they have come in. 

 That is the basis of such a right. 



Now, take the second prohibition, which is that of a particular 

 State being forbidden to indulge in any industry. That prohibition, 

 again, can only be justified on the same principle of international 

 law, the droit de renvoi, the right to say : " You shall not come in." 

 It is exactly the same principle that justifies either prohibition ; and 

 either prohibition is essential to the independence of the State. 



