ARGUMENT OF ELIHtJ ROOT. 2209 



SENATOR ROOT: Clearly that is all. We have here an illustration. 

 Under this so-called modus with Canada of 1888, the modus which 

 has worked so well that we have gone on under it for twenty years 

 without trouble, provides that no entry or clearance shall be required 

 of any fishing- vessel which enters Canadian ports for shelter, repairs, 

 wood, or water, if the vessel does not remain more than twenty-four 

 hours, provided they do not communicate with shore. 



Now, there is a practical illustration of the distinction which is 

 made. 



THE PRESIDENT : Do I understand well, Mr. Root, that " report " 

 is something like the delivering of a statement for the identification 

 of the vessel, and its loading, whereas making an entry is applying 

 for admission for intercourse? 



SENATOR ROOT : That I understand to be the distinction. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : The President said report the " loading." 



THE PRESIDENT : What she had on board. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Does not " report " mean merely report- 

 ing the fact of the presence of the ship in the port, pure and simple ? 



SENATOR ROOT : That is the ordinary scope of " report." I should 

 think that the kind of report which ought to be made here would be 

 to report the presence of the ship, and American fishermen on the 

 ship to exercise the treaty right under the treaty, and having on board 

 articles appropriate to the exercise of the right. 



JUDGE GRAY: And no other; to identify her as not a trading vessel. 



SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. I do not want any inferences to be 

 drawn, however, that will affect Question 7. 



THE PRESIDENT : And " entry " has to do with the admission into 

 intercourse on the land ? 



SENATOR ROOT: Precisely. You see, if "entry" means anything 

 more than " report," it is quite unnecessary, for " report " does every- 

 thing that is requisite. 



Now the second question under that head : Can an American fish- 

 ing-vessel be subjected, without the consent of the United States, to 

 the payment of light, harbour, or other dues? 



First let me ask your attention to the question of strict right. 

 What is the justification for the exaction of light or harbour or 

 other similar dues from any vessel that comes into the territorial 

 waters of a country? What is the basis of right? There must be 

 some basis of right creating an obligation, of course. Civilised 

 countries do not take property away from aliens who come. If 

 they require aliens u> hand over their money when they come into 

 the territory, in these civilised days, they do it upon the theory that 

 there is an obligation on the part of the alien, that he owes the 

 money, always. It must be so, otherwise we go back to the dark 

 ages. 



