1930 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



"(c.) Unless their .appropriateness, necessity, reasonableness, and 

 fairness be determined by the United States and Great Britain by 

 common accord and the United States concurs in their enforcement." 



The Tribunal will already have observed, of course, that instead of 

 framing the question, the makers of the special agreement, the com- 

 promis, have stated separately the contention of each party, and 

 have asked the Tribunal to say to what extent these contentions are 

 justified. It may fairly be inferred that neither party to the agree- 

 ment was willing to state the question in terms of the other's choos- 

 ing; and that, therefore, there are two separate statements. An 

 examination of the statement of the contentions indicates the reason. 

 The two parties approached the subject of the first question from 

 different points of view. Great Britain approached it from the 

 standpoint of her sovereignty. The United States approached it 

 from the standpoint of her granted right. Great Britain states the 

 question as a question relating to the exercise of her sovereign rights. 

 The United States states the question as relating to the inviolability 

 of her granted right. And the two approaching the subject thus from 

 different points, there comes a line between the two, and it rests with 

 the Tribunal to draw that line. 



At the outset of the consideration as to where that line is to be 



drawn, and how it is to be drawn, there is plainly to be seen one fact, 



unquestionable, agreed to on all hands: that the contention of the 



United States does not in any degree whatever thrust the assertion 



of its right into the field of British sovereignty in general. It does 



not question the full and unimpeded exercise of the sovereign rights 



of Great Britain over her territory, and the people within her 



1169 territory, in all the general affairs of life. It does not question 



her control, without accountability, over the conduct of all 



persons who are within the spatial sphere of her sovereignty. 



It is a familiar method of dealing with the arguments of an adver- 

 sary to overstate them, for the purpose of destroying them; and 

 when the claims of the United States are stated as being claims to an 

 abdication of British sovereignty, I cannot help feeling that the 

 statement trenches a little upon that method of argument. It con- 

 structs a man of straw, easily overthrown. It creates a certain 

 degree of prejudice against the claim which, stated in such a form. i- 

 to remain during the period of a long argument characterized by such 

 a description. We make no such claim. We admit unrestricted and 

 unquestioned sovereignty by Great Britain over persons and their 

 conduct; but our claim questions whether that sovereignty, since the 

 grant to us, extends to a modification of our right. The American 

 inhabitant who goes to the treaty coast for the exercise of his right 

 is absolutely and in the fullest extent subject to the sovereignty of 

 Great Britain; but what is his right? Can Great Britain change his 



