ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2231 



now, presupposes the action of the fishing-vessel coming up to New- 

 foundland and then afterwards being converted into a trading-vessel. 

 SENATOR ROOT: Of course, trading privileges are subject to the 

 regulations appropriate to secure the proper conduct and the proper 

 exercise of the trading privilege. There can be no claim of a right 

 to trade on the part of a vessel which does not conform to those regu- 

 lations ; and the regulation against hovering, the regulation which re- 

 quires a trading-vessel to come directly into the port in which 



1349 it is to trade would apply equally to any vessel that seeks the 

 privilege of trading which has also purposed to fish, as to any 



vessel which has not. It is perfectly within the competency of New- 

 foundland to say to any vessel which has not come direct from port 

 to port that it cannot trade. The moment the vessel applies for the 

 trading privilege, it subjects itself to all the limitations upon that 

 privilege; and it must not have disqualified itself by any conduct 

 which is in contravention of those regulations. 



This concludes the Argument which I had in mind to make, and I 

 beg to express, on behalf of the counsel and the agent of the United 

 States, their very high appreciation of the attentiveness and consid- 

 eration and courtesy with which we have been received and heard by 

 the Tribunal. 



1350 REPLY BY THE BIGHT HONOURABLE SIR WILLIAM SNOW- 



DON ROBSON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ENGLAND. 



SIR WILLIAM ROBSON : Mr. President, I do not propose to avail 

 myself of such width of indulgence as Mr. Root has indicated may 

 possibly be within my right. I am certainly not going to attempt 

 to correct what I conceive to be in particular cases inaccuracies on 

 the part of Mr. Root. I think I have no right to do anything of the 

 kind. The only right I shall ask, and Mr. Root indicates he would 

 willingly see it granted, is to deal with two or three pieces of fresh 

 evidence which have been laid before the Tribunal by Mr. Root. I 

 think I can do it in a few minutes, and I think I shall not trouble 

 you with more than one reference to the Appendix. 



The first point to which I think attention may properly be drawn 

 was the assertion by Mr. Root that certain cases which had been 

 cited, one by my learned friend Mr. Ewart and one by myself, on 

 Question 1, with regard to the meaning attributed by an American 

 Judge to the words " in common," have been overruled. 



It may be remembered that my learned friend Mr. Ewart cited a 

 case of the United States v. The Alaska Packers Association." I 

 cited a case referring to a vessel named the " James G. Swan." 6 

 Both of these cases deal with the construction of treaties made 



o 79 Fed. Rep., p. 152. 6 50 Fed. Rep., p. 108. 



