ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2009 



Before leaving this subject let me put a third proposition. I have 

 stated that this was a grant of a national right from one sovereign to 

 another, that the relation which was involved was in no sense a rela- 

 tion of two juristic persons with each other, but the relation of two 

 sovereigns dealing with the subject-matter of the sovereignty. 



The third proposition is that this grant of this treaty must be con- 

 strued and interpreted with reference to the fact that it was the settle- 

 ment of a claim to a national right of the highest importance. That 

 is the relevancy and materiality of the discussion regarding partition 

 of Empire, and that is all. The bearing of that discussion is upon 

 the construction which is to be placed upon this treaty, upon what 

 we must consider to have been in the minds of the makers of the 

 treaty, and as presenting the great salient fact with reference to the 

 presence of which in the minds of the makers of the treaty we must 

 construe and interpret their words. 



This was the settlement of a controversy in which the United 

 States had claimed that she was entitled for her people, to equal 

 rights upon these coasts with Great Britain for her people, and in 

 this treaty, a part of the rights regarding which that claim was made, 

 and that controversy waged, were surrendered, and a part were con- 

 tinued, re-granted. 



The renunciation refers expressly to the matter in controversy. 

 Observe the recital: - 



" Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by 

 the United States for the inhabitants thereof." 



Now the renunciation : 



"And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty here- 

 tofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof. . . ." 



A direct reference to the statement of the subject-matter of the con- 

 troversy 



" and by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry or cure fish, on or within 

 three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of 

 His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included within 

 the above-mentioned limits;" 



And the new grant of the treaty covered a portion of the libert} r 

 claimed, and the renunciation of the treaty covered all the remainder 

 of the liberty claimed. So I say it is not to be supposed that the 

 makers of this treaty considered that they were going very far in 

 making a grant of a right affecting this small portion of the coasts 

 involved in the controversy as a right of the highest order of dignity. 



The true nature of this right could not be better stated than it was 

 stated by Lord Bathurst in his letter to Mr. Adams of the 30th Octo- 

 ber, 1815, which appears in the United States Case Appendix, and 

 from which I will read, p. 274. 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 28 



