ARGUMENT OP ELIHU ROOT. 2097 



in his letter to Mr. Evarts to which I have already referred. He 

 quoted that circular in support of his proposition that laws in exist- 

 ence at the time the treaty was made were binding, although sub- 

 sequent laws would not be. He quoted that circular saying such 

 was the view taken by Mr. Marcy, and that is clearly the only sub- 

 ject that Mr. Marcy had under consideration. 



The next transaction to which is ascribed some element of inju- 

 rious admission on the part of the United States is the Cardwell 

 letter. On the 12th April, 1866, Mr. Cardwell wrote a letter Mr. 

 Cardwell being the Colonial Secretary of Great Britain and the 

 letter being to the Lords of the Admiralty, with reference to the 

 conduct of British naval vessels. In that letter, which is quite long 

 and contains a great variety of observations calculated to govern 

 the conduct of naval vessels of Great Britain, he states the limits 

 of the treaty grant, that Americans are entitled to take fish in such 

 and such limits, cure them within such and such limits on the 

 shore, and he includes a statement of what he apparently assumes 

 as a matter of course, that naval officers should be aware that Ameri- 

 cans who exercise their right of fishing in colonial waters 



DR. SAVORNIN LOHMAN : From what page are you reading? 



SENATOR ROOT: Page 601 of the United States Case Appendix. 

 I will read the full paragraph, just below the middle of the page: 



" On the other hand, naval officers should be aware that Americans 

 who exercise their right of fishing in Colonial waters in common 

 with subjects of Her Majesty, are also bound in common with those 

 subjects, to obey the law of the country, including such Colonial laws 

 as have been passed to insure the peaceable and profitable enjoyment 

 of the fisheries by all persons entitled thereto." 



That letter, with that general observation embosomed in it, rested 

 for four years without being communicated to anyone except to the 

 persons to whom it was addressed and the officers, very probably, who 

 were under them. But four years afterwards, on the 3rd June, 1870, 

 the difficulties which led to the making of the treaty of 1871 being 

 active, an active controversy on the bay question having arisen again, 

 there was a correspondence on that subject between the British and 

 the American authorities, and on p. 597 of the United States Case 

 Appendix, at the top of the page, the Tribunal will find a letter from 

 the British Minister (Mr. Thornton) to the American Secretary of 

 State (Mr. Fish), dated 3rd June, 1870, in which he transmits a letter 

 relating to the enforcement of the British view regarding the limits 

 of American fishing in the bays. Mr. Thornton says, at the top of 

 p.597: 



" In compliance with instructions which I have received from the 

 Earl of Clarendon, I have the honor to transmit for your informa- 

 tion copy of a letter addressed by the Admiralty to the Foreign 

 1269 Office inclosing copy of one received from Vice Admiral Wei- 



