2072 NORTH ATLANTIC GOAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



expression of that restriction, that it excluded any possible implica- 

 tion of other restrictions, however circumstances might change, and. 

 in the face of that, the negotiators included in their treaty that ex- 

 press restriction without any saving as against the application of 

 the doctrine expressio unius. 



THE PRESIDENT : Could it not be said, Mr. Root, that for this reser- 

 vation there was quite a special reason and a special necessity in tin 

 words " for ever," because if this reservation had not been made, then 

 the use of the shore for drying purposes would also be a permanent 

 use without any regard to its becoming inhabited on the shores? 



SENATOR ROOT: Yes, Mr. President, that may be said. That fur- 

 nishes a reason for putting in the express restriction, but emphasise- 

 the interference inevitably to be drawn from the fact that in the face 

 of the argument which Mr. Adams had used as to the well-known im- 

 plication that from the expression of one restriction, the absence of 

 power to impose any others has to be drawn. In the face of that they 

 did put it in. However good the reason may have been, doubt le-> 

 there was a reason, evidently there was a reason, but the fact that there 

 was a reason does not interfere at all with the inference we are bound 

 to draw from the fact that with fair notice that that rule would In* 

 applied to them, was being applied to them, they chose to put it in 

 without any saving clause to negative the application of the rule. 



THE PRESIDENT: This reservation was to express that the right to 

 fish was a permanent right, and that the right to dry and cure was 

 not a permanent right, but depended upon the circumstance whether 

 the shore remained unsettled, as at that time it was, or became after- 

 wards settled. 



1254 SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. There was a good reason for 

 putting it in. and there was not, manifestly, in the minds of 

 the negotiators, any occasion for negativing the inference that would 

 be drawn from the fact that they did put one restriction in. 



Then they proceed in dealing with the third branch of the treaty 

 right, that which relates to the entrance of the American fishermen 

 into bays or harbours on what we call the non-treaty coast, although 

 one of my friends on the other side has justly remarked it was all 

 treaty coast, for the purpose of shelter and repairing damage, pur- 

 chasing wood and obtaining water, to impose there an express reser- 

 vation of the po\ver of restriction 



"They shall be under such restriction as niay be necessary to pre- 

 vent their taking, drying or curing fish therein or in any other man- 

 ner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." 



That is an express reservation of the power of future restriction 

 by regulation limited to the specific purposes that are designated 

 here. 



