2370 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



If ? however, the Tribunal should be of the opinion that the speci- 

 fication of grounds of objection thus made by the United States is 

 not sufficient to fairly advise the Tribunal of the grounds of objec- 

 tions, the United States will expect to be advised of the opinion of 

 the Tribunal in that regard, and as a matter of course to have an 

 opportunity to make the statement of grounds more specific, in ac- 

 cordance with the opinion of the Tribunal. 



In respect of the production of proof, the United States under- 

 stands 



1. That the production thereof or argument thereupon, in addition 

 to such proof and argument as have already been had as incident to 

 the presentation ana discussion of the seven main questions sub- 

 mitted, would be premature before the award, which, as the special 

 agreement plainly contemplates, may render any decision of the 

 question of reasonableness, &c., unnecessary, and which musf lay 

 down the principles which are to guide the production and applica- 

 tion of proof. 



2. That the special agreement of the 27th January, 1909, 

 1429 contemplates under the terms of articles 2 and 3 that addi- 

 tional proof upon questions of reasonableness, &c., is to be fur- 

 nished by means of a special Commission of experts, with reference 

 to the report whereof special provisions are made. 



The United States has understood that the Tribunal had already 

 determined to appoint a Commission of experts in case the nature of 

 the award is such as to require a consideration of the questions of 

 reasonableness, fairness, necessity, &c. That the United States has 

 been justified in this understanding appears by Protocol No. 

 XXXVI of the proceedings of the 5th Augustj whereby it is re- 

 corded that, in response to the request of the Tribunal to the agent 

 and counsel of the respective parties, the United States on that <l;ite 

 designated Mr. Hugh M. Smith to act as a member of the Commis- 

 sion, as provided by article 3 of the special agreement, which des- 

 ignation was received without any intimation that the understand- 

 ing of the United States evinced thereby was erroneous. The dis- 

 cussion proceeded thereafter, and was declared to be closed on the 

 12th August, without any intimation that the understanding of the 

 United States was not correct. 



The United States accordingly now understands. that in case the 

 award of the Tribunal shall be such as to call for any decision upon 

 questions regarding the appropriateness, reasonableness, necessity or 

 lairness of any statute or regulation, such questions will be con- 

 sidered as questions of fact to be determined upon proof furnished 

 by the report of expert specialists, having reference to the grounds 

 of objection which the United States has already presented, or to 

 further specifications in case the Tribunal shall deem further speci- 

 fications to be appropriate. 



In the foregoing statements the United States does not wish to be 

 understood as in any manner conceding that Great Britain does not 

 rest under the burden of alleging and proving affirmatively that there 

 are sufficient grounds which make it reasonable and necessary to im- 

 pose particular limitations and restrictions upon the exercise in the 

 treaty waters of the liberty granted to the United States by the 

 treaty of 1818. 



