ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 1929 



hereby renounce forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed 

 by the Inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure Fish on, or within 

 three marine Miles of any of the Coasts, Bays, Creeks, or Harbours 

 of His Britannic Majesty's Dominion in America not included within 

 the above mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American 

 Fishermen shall be admitted to enter such Bays or Harbours for the 

 purpose of Shelter and of repairing Damages therein, of purchasing 

 \Vood, and of obtaining Water, and for no other purpose whatever. 

 But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to pre- 

 vent their taking, drying or curing Fish therein, or in any other man- 

 ner whatever abusing the Privileges hereby reserved to them." 



The question is: 



" QUESTION ONE. 



" To what extent are the following contentions or either of them 

 justified? 



" It is contended on the part of Great Britain that the exercise of 

 the liberty to take fish referred to in the said article, which the in- 

 habitants of the United States have forever in common with the sub- 

 jects of His Britannic Majestj^, is subject, without the consent of the 

 United States, to reasonable regulation by Great Britain, Canada, or 

 Newfoundland in the form of municipal laws, ordinances, or rules, 

 as, for example, to regulations in respect of (1) the hours, days, or 

 seasons when fish may be taken on the treaty coasts; (2) the method, 

 means and implements to be used in the taking of fish or in the 

 carrying on of fishing operations on such coasts; (3) any other mat- 

 ters "of similar character relating to fishing; such regulations being 

 reasonable, as being, for instance 



"(a.) Appropriate or necessary for the protection and preserva- 

 tion of such fisheries and the exercise of the rights of British subjects 

 therein and the liberty which by the said article 1 the inhabitants of 

 the United States have therein in common with British subjects; 



"(6.) Desirable on grounds of public order and morals; 



"(c.) Equitable and fair as between local fishermen and the in- 

 habitants of the United States exercising the said treaty liberty, and 

 not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage to the former over 

 the latter class. 



" It is contended on the part of the United States that the exercise 

 of such liberty is not subject to limitations or restraints by Great 

 Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland in the form of municipal laws, 

 ordnances, or regulations in respect of (1) the hours, days, or seasons 

 when the inhabitants of the United States may take fish on the treaty 

 coasts, or (2) the method, means, and implements used by them in 

 taking fish or in carrying on fishing operations on such coasts, or (3) 

 any other limitations or restraints of similar character 



"(fl.) Unless they are appropriate and necessary for the protection 

 and preservation of the common rights in such fisheries and the 

 exercise thereof: and 



"(5.) Unless they are reasonable in themselves and fair as between 

 local fishermen and fishermen coming from the United States, and 

 not so framed as to give an advantage to the former over the latter 

 class; and 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 23 



