APPENDICES TO OEAL ARGUMENTS. 2369 



Commission of expert specialists for a report thereon, in accordance with 

 Article III of the Special Agreement aforesaid, such of the specific provisions 

 set forth in the First and Second Schedules as require an examination of the 

 practical effect thereof in relation to the conditions surrounding the exercise of 

 the liberty of fishery or require expert information about the fisheries them- 

 selves, for the determination of their appropriateness, necessity, reasonableness, 

 and fairness as defined in Question One." 



In connection with paragraph 3, it will be noted that article 2 of 

 the special agreement contemplates that the award on Question One 

 shall be determined upon before the Tribunal can express its opinion 

 upon the acts specified, and point out in what respects, if any, they 

 are inconsistent with the principles laid down in the award. 



So also, article 3 of the special agreement contemplates that the 

 award on Question One shall precede the decision of the Tribunal in 

 regard to the acts specified, for it provides with reference to the 

 function to be performed by the Commission of experts to be ap- 

 pointed, that " Pending the report of the Commission upon the ques- 

 tion or questions so referred, and without awaiting such report, the 

 Tribunal may make a separate award upon all or any other questions 

 before it, and such separate award, if made, shall become immedi- 

 ately effective, provided that the report aforesaid shall not be in- 

 corporated in the award until it has been considered by the Tribunal." 



Thereafter, at the session of the 2nd August, Great Britain pre- 

 sented to the Tribunal its answer to the statement of the United 

 States above referred to. 



The answer thus presented contained four distinct propositions: 



1. An assertion, in effect, that the grounds of objection contained 

 in the statement of the United States were not sufficient. (This was 

 based on an erroneous and misleading allegation as to the scope and 

 application of the statement at the end of paragraph 4 of the paper 

 submitted by the United States.) 



2. The contention that in the absence of specific grounds of objec- 

 tion, the regulations referred to must be taken to be reasonable. 



3. The submission by Great Britain that the regulations are in 

 fact reasonable, and asking for an award to that effect. 



4. An averment that no ground has been laid for the request that 

 some of the provisions should be referred to a Commission of expert 

 specialists. 



The United States supposed that its specification of the objections 

 that the particular provisions of the acts to which it called attention 

 were not appropriate or necessary for the protection and preservation 

 of the fisheries, &c. ; that they were not desirable on the grounds of 

 public order and morals; that they were not equitable and fair as 

 between local fishermen and the inhabitants of the United States, 

 and that they were so framed as to give an advantage to the former 

 over the latter class and to give such an advantage unfairly, was a 

 full compliance with the request of the Tribunal made on the 19th 

 July. 



The United States conceived and now understands that the aver- 

 ment in the answer of Great Britain that the said provisions of the 

 acts are reasonable, raised a special issue upon which nothing remains 

 to be done except the production of proof regarding matters of fact 

 and siich argument as may be appropriate regarding the effect of the 

 proofs thus adduced. 



