ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 1931 



right? His conduct, in exercising the right, yes; he must obey the 

 laws. But can it change his right ? It is conceded for certain pur- 

 poses of argument asserted asserted in the printed documents, 

 asserted by the counsel for Great Britain here, and repeated over and 

 over again, with emphasis, that there is a line beyond which Great 

 Britain cannot go. Where is the line? 



Let me call attention to three expressions as to the existence of the 

 line beyond which Great Britain cannot go, which appear in the 

 record, and which are progressively definitive. I will begin with the 

 circular of Mr. Marcy, with which the Tribunal is very familiar, and . 

 which appears in the British Case Appendix at p. 207. The Tri- 

 bunal will remember that Mr. Marcy, the American Secretary of 

 State, upon the revival of the attempt to put into force the temporary 

 and reciprocal treaty of 1854, issued a circular letter to the Collectors 

 of Customs of the United States in which he said that there were cer- 

 tain acts of the colonial legislatures " intended to prevent the wanton 

 destruction of the fish which frequent the coasts of the colonies and 

 injuries to the fishing." 



And he said: 



"There is nothing in the Eeciprocity Treaty between the United 

 States and Great Britain which stipulates for the observance of these 

 regulations by our fishermen ; yet, as it is presumed, they have been 

 framed with a view to prevent injuries to the fisheries, in which our 

 fishermen now have an equal interest with those of Great Britain, 

 it is deemed reasonable and desirable that both should pay a like 

 respect to those regulations, which were designed to preserve and 

 increase the productiveness and prosperity of the fisheries themselves. 

 It is, consequently, earnestly recommended to our citizens to direct 

 their proceedings accordingly." 



That was issued upon the submission to him of the statutes to 

 which he refers, with a statement that they contained no provisions 

 inconsistent with the full enjoyment of the American citizens' rights 

 of fishing secured by the treaty. That statement appears in a series 

 of preceding letters, notably the letter of Mr. Crampton to Mr. 

 Manners Sutton, which is to be found on pp. 205 and 206 of the 

 British Case Appendix. It appears from this circular that Mr. 

 Marcy, after examining these statutes, found nothing which he con- 

 sidered to be inconsistent with the full enjoyment of the American 

 citizens' rights of fishing, and he approved the statutes and recom- 

 mended their observance. Thereupon the British Minister repre- 

 sented to Mr. Marcy that a statement in his circular that there was 

 nothing in the treaty which stipulated for the observance of these 

 regulations would be apt to make trouble with the fishermen; that 

 the American fishermen would not be likely to observe the recom- 

 mendation which had been made to them, in the face of the state- 

 ment that there was no stipulation requiring them to obey. That 



