ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 1995 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Subject to your objection? 



SENATOR ROOT: No. Because my proposition is the regulation 

 shall not take effect until it has been determined that it ought to take 

 effect. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : That is right. 



SENATOR ROOT: My proposition is that the application of the 

 British theory here is that by force of British sovereignty they can 

 make a regulation which is imposed, which does take effect, upon 

 which they have decided they, and they alone, have decided in the 

 exercise of their sovereign power, and have made it effective; and 

 that it shall stand there until we have appealed to an arbitral Tri- 

 bunal for the purpose of reversing their decision. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Do I understand you to say, then, 

 that if you object, and the principle is adopted that in case of your 

 objection the regulation would not have effect until such time as it 

 would be submitted to The Hague Tribunal, that you would be satis- 

 fied with that? 



SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. Certainly. That is what we are con- 

 tending for. And I think that this treaty grant draws clearly the 

 line within which that principle applies; that Great Britain has full 

 and unrestrained scope of sovereignty until she comes to that clear 

 and definite line, that is, of the exercise of the right of fishing, as 

 granted in the terms of the grant ; but when she comes to that narrow 

 field, wishing to change the situation by making a new limitation, 

 that was not in the treaty, a limitation upon the times or manner, 

 then that ought to be in practical good sense the subject of consulta- 

 tion between both owners of the common right; and if they cannot 

 agree, let it be determined before it is made effective and our fisher- 

 men's vessels are seized under it. My objection to the British theory 

 is that they propose to make these things effective by virtue of their 

 sovereignty, ex proprio vigore, before anybody has decided. Sir 

 Robert Finlay says they have not the right to decide; that they do 

 not claim the right to decide; that they ought not to decide but 



they propose to make effective these limitations by deciding. 

 1208 THE PRESIDENT: Your rights, as you consider them, would 

 be safeguarded by conceding to you a suspensive veto ? 



SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. 



THE PRESIDENT: A suspensive veto, until the decision of an im- 

 partial Tribunal ? 



SENATOR ROOT : Precisely. Before this treaty was made, what we 

 claimed was that instead of going ahead and putting your regula- 

 tions, extending your sovereignty, over the modification of this right 

 without saying anything to us, you should consult us first, just as you 

 did with Mr. Marcy, when these laws were brought down to him 

 and he approved them. And in order to obviate the claim that that 



