ARGUMENT OF EUHU BOOT. 1987 



the power of legislation, but the urgent necessity for exemption which 

 applies here did not apply to those treaties. I shall take up the 

 nature of the right hereafter, and of course the right might have 

 existed, although it might not have been necessary for it to exist. 

 If one were arguing the question whether the exemption existed 

 under those treaties, one would not have the ground of argument 

 which I have just been urging regarding the treaty of 1818, that 

 is all. 



THE PRESIDENT : There would be another basis ? 



SENATOR ROOT: There would be another basis which applies both 

 to the treaty of 1818 and to those, but this basis of argument would 

 be wanting. 



THE PRESIDENT : Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT : It might well be that one could find the exemption 

 here and not find it there, although I think that it exists in both cases. 



THE PRESIDENT: In the American Argument it is in some place 

 expressed that the treaty of 1871, in its grant of fishing rights, is in 

 effect the same as the treaty of 1818. 



SENATOR ROOT: Yes. I suppose that is designed to refer to the 



terms of the grant. 



1203 THE PRESIDENT : Yes. It refers to the terms of the grant. 

 But, therefore, one might conclude that, also under the treaty 

 of 1854 and 1871, American fishermen were exempted from the Brit- 

 ish regulations. 



SENATOR ROOT : I think they were ; but not on this ground. 



THE PRESIDENT: Not on this ground, because these treaties were 

 not perpetual? 



SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. 



THE PRESIDENT: And were not unilateral? 



SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. 



I have said something about sympathy with the Newfoundland 

 fishermen. Of course one cannot help it. This is a burden. But 

 there is a right way and there is a wrong way to get rid of a burden. 

 The right way is to do as Great Britain did with France make a 

 new agreement with her, and to the extent that the burden is relieved 

 by cutting down the right that was burdensome, to make compensa- 

 tion for it, as she did in 1904. The wrong way is to do what is being 

 done here, to whittle away, wear away, fritter away the right so that 

 it is worthless, and it will no longer be profitable to maintain it as a 

 burden. 



Let me call attention to the fact that when fishermen are let alone, 

 they settle the difficulty. They have settled it whenever they were 

 left to themselves. It is no necessary burden upon Newfoundland, 

 because when the fishermen were left alone they settled it by what? 

 By substituting for the treaty burden a profitable trade for them- 



