ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 2195 



those companies had, under its charter, corporate power to make such 

 a contract. It held, however, that the other of the companies had 

 riot under its charter the corporate right to make such a contract, and 

 declared it invalid. There were two quite separate and distinct 

 questions, which illustrate this question here the two entirely sepa- 

 rate and distinct classes of question which may arise regarding the 

 making of a contract of employment by an inhabitant of the United 

 States with a non-inhabitant in respect of taking part in this fishing 

 industry. This question relates solely to the right under the treaty 

 of the inhabitants of the United States to make a contract with one 

 who is not an inhabitant. 



THE PRESIDENT: If you please, Mr. ' Senator Eoot, what was the 

 consequence of this decision? Was the right of one of these com- 

 panies limited by the absence of the right of the other company, or 

 was the absence of the right of one of these companies supplemented 

 by the right of the other ? 



SENATOR ROOT: In the contract the two rights must necessarily 

 exist to support the contract. 



THE PRESIDENT : Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT: The right of the company which was acting within 

 its corporate power was full and complete. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes; but could it exercise its right in relation to 



the other company whose right was defective ? 

 1327 SENATOR ROOT: No. 



THE PRESIDENT: No; it could not. 



SENATOR ROOT: Not in relation to the other company, but not 

 through an}^ defect of its right. 



THE PRESIDENT: Not through the defect of its right, but through 

 the defect of the right of the other. 



SENATOR ROOT : It could not make a contract with the other company 

 any more than it could make a contract with a person under the law- 

 ful age of contracting, or anyone not sui juris. The defect, however, 

 was not a defect of the right. No invalidity was imported into the 

 right of the company which was keeping within its corporate powers. 



The practical bearing of this question: It is a mistake to suppose 

 that it relates practically to any prohibition upon the citizens of New- 

 foundland. There is no such prohibition. It is true that in the 

 recent correspondence Sir Edward Grey made an observation to the 

 effect that he did not suppose that the United States would contend 

 that it had a right to withdraw the citizens of Newfoundland from 

 obedience to their own laws. That was not answered. There was no 

 occasion to answer it, because no such situation arose. No such situa- 

 tion existed, and none has ever existed. Newfoundland never has 

 prohibited her citizens as Newfoundlanders from taking employment 

 upon vessels of the United States. It is curious that the one thing 



