1992 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Suppose Great Britain were of the opinion that comity, kindly 

 feeling, good relations with the United States called upon her to 

 review the action of the self-governing colony of Newfoundland as 

 to whether this power with which the colony had been invested had 

 not been abused. Ah ! There we have it. We have to prove, and to 

 secure any action from Great Britain we must prove, that there has 

 been an abuse of the power, and that is very difficult. It must be a 

 case gross, extreme, outrageous, to lead the mother country to face 

 the inevitable resentment of her colony which would follow a con- 

 demnation for an abuse of its constitutional powers. Hardly a prac- 

 tical relief. 



THE PRESIDENT: But was it not practised in 1906 withholding the 

 Royal sanction to the Act of 1906 ? 



SENATOR ROOT: Yes, it was; for the purposes of this arbitration, 

 and when Newfoundland imposed conditions upon her consent to 

 entry into the arbitration ; that is, the conditions of including in the 

 arbitration Sir Robert Bond's Question Six and also the trading 

 question. But you will remember with what indignation that was 

 received by Newfoundland. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT: And it was justified by Great Britain in 

 1206 this correspondence, not as a reversal, not as a final judgment, 

 but as a necessary modus, to make it possible to secure an ad- 

 justment by arbitration between the two countries. 



Now, as to arbitration; the practical bearing of that. Of course 

 I am talking now only about the practical situation that we would be 

 in, and therefore I refrain from any reference at this time to the fact 

 that you are first to pass upon rights as they existed under the treaty 

 of 1818, which would be the basis of further arbitration. But there 

 is one preliminary thing to be considered, and that is: What is the 

 scope and continuance of article 4 of the agreement? First, as to 

 its scope, if any question arises regarding the exercise of the liberties 

 referred to in the treaty of 1818 (this is on p. 6 of the United States 

 Case Appendix) it may be determined in accordance with the prin- 

 ciples laid down in the award. The Tribunal is to " recommend, for 

 the consideration of the contracting parties, rules and a method of 

 procedure under which all questions which may arise in the future 

 regarding the exercise of the liberties by them referred to may be 

 determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the 

 award." If the rules are not adopted 



" then any differences which may arise in the future between the 

 High Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation of the Treaty 

 of 1818 or to the effect and application of the award of the Tribunal 

 shall be referred informally to the Permanent Court at The Hague 

 for decision." 



