ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2135 



Our view is, I need hardly say, that the terms of the treaty itself, 

 which give to the inhabitants of the United States the liberty to 

 take fish of every kind, and reserve no right on the part of the sov- 

 ereign, whose sovereignty is limited, to prohibit taking at such time 

 as the United States chooses, or in such manner as it chooses fur- 

 nished the line which is to be drawn, with the entire field of general 

 sovereignty open and covered by Great Britain. We say that in 

 either view, either the view of a real right, or the view of a binding 

 obligation, when Great Britain comes to the subject-matter of the 

 right, she must stop; that furnishes the line. When she comes to 

 the subject-matter of the right, she is prohibited by her contract, by 

 her grant to us (and it is a part of the limitation of her sovereignty) 

 that she must not say this right shall not cover the taking of fish 

 except at such time as she thinks desirable, or it shall not cover the 

 taking of fish except in such manner as she thinks desirable. If she 

 does think it is desirable to restrict and modify the exercise of that 

 right, because it is a right that she has given to us, she must say to us 

 it is desirable, and we must agree upon the limitations upon our right. 

 It is our view that this furnishes a practicable, convenient, equitable 

 and beneficent guide for the conduct of this business hereafter by the 

 two nations. That if we cannot agree, then under article 4 either 

 party can appeal to the Tribunal which is constituted under this 

 new treaty, or under article 4 either party can appeal to the method 

 which I hope your Honours may be able to prescribe to the satisfac- 

 tion of both parties for perhaps a simpler and less expensive pro- 

 ceeding. And, from this point of view, I want to repeat what I 

 said the other day, bearing upon our view, that the best thing for all 

 parties is to have a definite line, the definite line that the treaty itself 

 establishes, instead of reading into the treaty this perfectly vague 

 and indefinite idea that Great Britain can go just as far as she thinks 

 reasonable, just as far as Newfoundland thinks reasonable, which 

 is no line at all; which would put always upon Great Britain the 

 necessity of either assenting to the always extreme position 

 1291 that Newfoundland must take, which the conditions, the 'na- 

 ture of things, the fact that they are burdened, the fact that 

 we are their competitor, would compel them to take; or of overrul- 

 ing Newfoundland without any definite line of right on which to 

 overrule her, and of course creating resentment and trouble. 



It is better for all parties, as a practical matter, to have a clear 

 line drawn, so that the position of Great Britain will be one of a 

 relation to her colony upon a line of right, instead of a most invidi- 

 ous and difficult position of being compelled to be a Judge deciding 

 for or against her own child in a matter of uncontrolled discretion. 



I want to submit to you that the history of our relations with 

 Great Britain indicates that there will not be any trouble about 



