ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2117 



her contention in Question 1 the principle of reasonableness, neces- 

 sity, and fairness. She is not at liberty to abjure it. She has pre- 

 cluded herself from it by the contention of Question 1, which puts 

 the test of reasonableness, fairness, and necessity into the exercise 

 of the liberty, and she is not at liberty to make that test an illusion, 

 to destroy it, to withdraw it by saying: ]yjy w iu, m y judgment alone, 

 shall be sovereign as she does say when she arrogates to herself the 

 sole right to decide; and there is no more right to destroy the test 

 under the theory of obligatory relation than under the theory of a 

 real right. Great Britain is not at liberty to stand, on the position 

 she asserts here, upon either theory, that her judgment and her will, 

 or the judgment that she has handed over to the Legislature of New- 

 foundland, in its will, shall make and put into force a law which 

 shall bind our fishermen in the exercise of our right, under which our 

 vessels shall be seized and forfeited, under which men shall be ar- 

 rested, under which our fishermen shall be kept off the coast and shall 

 be prevented from following their industry and exercising it profit- 

 ably, on the faith that at some future day we will carry an appeal 

 to the Government of Great Britain, then an appeal to a tribunal 

 to be created in the future, and all the time suffering the slow process 

 of diplomatic correspondence pending the framing of the submission, 

 pending the framing of the questions, the selection of the arbitrators, 

 und the creation of such a feeling on the part of both countries as to 

 justify their governments in making an appeal, while all that time 

 the judgment the uncontrolled, sole judgment of the Legislature 

 of Newfoundland is, according to the British theory, to be in effect 

 and operation. 



It requires a long, long period of accumulated grievances to move 

 two great nations to an arbitration. Many a fisherman has worn 

 out his life waiting upon that slow process. I know men working 

 for day's wages now who, ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago, were 

 masters of ships, and who have a claim that never yet has reached 

 final decision and fruition. It is not one grievance, or two, or a dozen, 

 but through the long process of years an accumulation of grievances 

 must occur before the humble fishermen of the United States can 

 move two great countries to an arbitration. 



Now, I say against the exercise of the uncontrolled power of the 

 Legislature of Great Britain, or the Legislature of Newfoundland 

 to make and put into force provisions relating to the time and man- 

 ner of the exercise of this treaty right, under the obligatory view, 

 as under the real view, the concession of Great Britain, in the state- 

 ment of Question 1, stands as a barrier; and under the obligatory 

 view, as under the real view, against that position, stands always the 

 definition of international law by the great Mansfield Justice, 

 equity, convenience, the reason of the thing, I care little by what 



