2034 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



coasts to exercise their liberty should, in respect of that liberty, be 

 subjected to the laws of Great Britain. However many reasons there 

 may have been for subjecting the travellers and traders here, what- 

 ever the reasons were, they knew how to subject them, and the fact 

 that they did not subject them on the fishing coast shows that they 

 saw no reason to subject them. 



THE PRESIDENT: But was there not one difference? Concerning 

 the general right of aliens to enter foreign territory, to live in foreign 

 territory, to exercise certain industries, there was the general inten- 

 tion of upholding certain discriminatory dispositions, whereas, as 

 to the exercise of the fishing industry there was the intention of 

 making no discrimination between foreigners and citizens, as they 



had the right in common. 



1231 SENATOR ROOT: It may have been that the intentions upon 

 the treaty coast were much more benevolent than they were in 

 regard to the holding of real estate. Nevertheless, the fact that it was 

 deemed necessary in the one case to expressly subject the foreign 

 citizen coming into the territory to the laws holds good in the 

 other. Whatever may have been the reasons for subjecting or not 

 subjecting, the very object of subjecting was plain. And if they 

 did not employ that recognised, customary, effective way of sub- 

 jecting the foreign citizen to the laws and regulations of the coun- 

 try whatever the reasons may have been if they did not employ it, 

 we are bound to infer that they did not intend to subject them. 



The next consideration tending to show, tending very powerfully 

 to show, that the makers of the treaty had no idea of subjecting the 

 inhabitants of the United States to any restriction or modification 

 of their rights, was that the negotiators had before them the example 

 of the French rights. They knew (the evidence is here in this rec- 

 ord) all about the French rights. Of course no one negotiating a 

 treaty regarding the fisheries could have failed to know, to be 

 familiar with, the French right. Mr. Gallatin, Minister to Paris, 

 Swis by birth, French his native language, one of the most acute 

 and able men among the many whom the continent of Europe fur- 

 nished to the formative period of the young republic across the 

 Atlantic, he knew, of course. Mr. Rush, a man who, as Minister to 

 England, stood against Castlereagh for the rights of South America, 

 and collaborated with Canning that arrangement or understanding 

 between Great Britain and the United States that brought forth 

 Canning's famous remark that he had redressed the balance of power 

 of the old world by bringing the new world into life; and the still 

 more famous declaration of Monroe, of which our old friend John 

 Quincy Adams really was the true author, no one can doubt Richard 

 Rush's competency or knowledge of the subject with which he was 

 dealing, and all these gentlemen of course knew, and these negotiators 



