16 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



It is evident, therefore, that as a result of the award no regulations 

 limiting the time, manner and implements of fishing can hereafter be 

 imposed upon American fishermen exercising their treaty liberties in 

 Newfoundland and Canadian waters if any objection has been raised 

 to them by the United States, unlass their reasonableness, necessity 

 and fairness has been approved by an impartial commission or 

 tribunal. 



The result thus obtained is one which the United States Govern- 

 ment would have been willing to agree to at any time during the 

 history of this controversy. Secretaries of State Marcy, Fish, Evarts, 

 and Root have each in turn specifically stated that the United States 

 was willing that the American fishermen on the treaty coasts should 

 be subjected to just and reasonable regulations, but they all insisted 

 that Great Britain and her colonies could not be permitted to be the 

 sole judge of the justness and reasonableness of such regulations. 



The only feature of the contention of the United States on ques- 

 tion 1 which was not sustained by the tribunal was the extreme 

 position taken in the argument of counsel that the treaty estab- 

 lished an international servitude in favor of the United States, 

 exempting American fishermen absolutely from obedience to British 

 fishing regulations. This contention was based upon a principle of 

 international law, supported by the great majority of international 

 publicists, but which was regarded by the tribunal as antiquated 

 and not suited to modem conditions, although the treaty under 

 consideration was equally antiquated, having been entered into in 

 the early part of the last century. Nevertheless, the decision in 

 practical effect secures the same measure of protection against 

 unfair and arbitrary regulation of the fisheries which this contention 

 of the United States was designed to secure, and the strength of the 

 contention of the United States on this point unquestionably had a 

 very effective influence in obtaining for the United States the large 

 measure of advantage which is secured to its fishermen by the award. 



An alternative line of argument which was relied on by the United 

 States, and which finally prevailed, was that under the obligations 

 imposed by the treaty and by the interpretation of it adopted by 

 both parties in their subsequent governmental actions and particu- 

 larly by the limitations accepted under the special agreement sub- 

 mitting the question to arbitration, the exercise of British sovereignty 

 had been limited with respect to the matters under consideration 

 even if British sovereignty itself was not limited ; and the award has 

 sustained this contention of the United States. 



Although British sovereign rights over the fisheries in British 

 waters are affirmed in the decision, nevertheless the exercise of such 

 rights is effectively limited by the award to the extent above indicated. 



On question 2 the tribunal has decided in favor of the contention 

 of the United States tfeat the inhabitants of the United States while 



