ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 2013 



Appendix, p. 86, refers to the right permanently conveyed. Now, 

 the connection of that with the right of regulation is that there is 

 only one way to give effect to this absolutely essential feature of the 

 grant, and that is to regard it, not as an obligation, but as a convey- 

 ance of the right from Great Britain to the United States; so that 

 it becomes the right of the United States and not a mere obligation 

 of Great Britain, for all obligations are ended by war, and all obliga- 

 tions are ended by transfer of sovereignty. 



THE PRESIDENT: Could there not be a perpetual obligation without 

 a transfer of sovereignty ? 



SENATOR ROOT: There could not be a perpetual obligation not 

 ended by war. The obligation ends with war, and the same obliga- 

 tion ends with a transfer of sovereignty. It must be remembered 

 that sovereignty had been transferred as to thirteen British colonies, 

 and it always must have been in contemplation that it might be 

 transferred as to another. Lord Salisbury, in his speech in the House 

 of Lords in 1891, declared, of the French right, that Newfoundland 

 was mistaken in considering that the burden of the right was due 

 to her continued allegiance to Great Britain, that wherever New- 

 foundland went that right would still persist, and I say there is no 

 other way to give effect to this essential quality of the grant than to 

 regard it as being not a mere obligation, but to regard it as being a 

 transfer of the right from Great Britain to the United States, so 

 that it became the right of the United States and not the right of 

 Great Britain. To that feature of the article we are all bound to 

 give effect, and we cannot put any construction on the article which 

 leaves the right open to be destroyed either by war, or by a transfer 

 of sovereignty, or by any other agency, unless it be the voluntary act 

 of the grantee. 



THE PRESIDENT: Then the consequence of the fact that this right 

 has been acknowledged as a permanent right would be that the char- 

 acter of the right would be enlarged beyond the words of the grant 

 itself? The grant itself speaks of the right of the United States 

 to take fish, and in consequence of the fact that the right has 

 1219 been granted for ever, it extends to a participation by the 

 United States in the legislation and administration of Great 

 Britain concerning the exercise of the right? 



SENATOR ROOT : Xo, the right was not a grant to the inhabitants of 

 the United States. 



THE PRESIDENT: Xo. it was a grant to the United States for the 

 benefit of the inhabitants of the United States. 



SENATOR ROOT: It is a grant to the United States, and a right 

 granted to the United States, of course, belongs to the United States. 

 It is its right. 



