ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 1941 



right of sovereignty. And what is the scope of the right of sov- 

 ereignty ? 



It is to do what she pleases. It is that she may, if she will, go to 

 any length whatever in restricting, limiting, impeding, or practically 

 destroying the right which has been granted, for there is no limita- 

 tion upon the right of sovereignty, and whatever authority is to be 

 inferred from that is an authority without limit. 



Now, I have endeavoured to state what I think to be the attitude of 

 the two parties in regard to Question One, and to draw from the 

 record definitions, in so far as seems to be useful for the moment, as 

 to what Great Britain can do and what Great Britain cannot do. It 

 is my purpose, as best I may, first to dispose of certain rather narrow 

 questions relating to the meaning of terms in the grant of 1818; 

 second, to show the practical bearing of the decision of the first ques- 

 tion on the substantial rights of the United States; third, to examine 

 the nature of the right granted and the consequences and legal effect 

 of that nature ; fourth, to show the understanding and intent of the 

 negotiators as to the meaning and effect of the article and the terms 

 used in it ; fifth, to show the construction that has been put upon the 

 article of the treaty of 1818 in question by the parties the construc- 

 tion that was put upon it for more than sixty years after it was 

 made and, sixth, to show the relations to this case, to this right 

 created by this article, of the accepted rules of international law 

 which have grown up in the consideration and treatment of cases 

 embodying the same fundamental characteristics and having a generic 

 relation to the grant of the right under the treaty of 1818, as I hope 

 to make it plain to you. 



First, as to the meaning of some of the terms in the Article. For- 

 tunately, we have for our assistance in the elucidation of these terms 

 at the outset the fact that this agreement was an agreement in settle- 

 ment of an old controversy. It was a settlement of questions which 

 arose under the former treaty of 1783, and the terms used, wherever 

 there is any question, may be considered with all the light thrown 

 upon them that comes from the terms of the former treaty, the nego- 

 tiations and correspondence relating to it, the practice under it, and 

 the evidence of understanding by the parties as to what that treaty 

 meant. 



Words are like those insects that take their colour from their sur- 

 roundings. Half the misunderstanding in this world comes from the 

 fact that the words that are spoken or written are conditioned in the 

 mind that gives them forth by one set of thoughts and ideas, and they 

 are conditioned in the mind of the hearer or reader by another set of 

 thoughts and ideas, and even the simplest forms of expression are 

 frequently quite open to mistake, unless the hearer or reader can get 



