80 NOETH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES AEBITRATION. 



(b.) That the treaty of 1818 was in different terms, and very dif- 

 ferent in extent, from that of 1783, and was made for different con- 

 siderations. It was, in other words, a new grant. 



For the purpose of such proof it is further contended by the 

 United States : 



(6.) That as contemporary commercial treaties contain express 

 provisions for submitting foreigners to local legislation, and the 

 treaty of 1818 contains no such provision, it should be held, a con- 

 trario, that inhabitants of the United States exercising these liberties 

 are exempt from regulation. 



The Tribunal is unable to agree with this contention : 



(«.) Because the commercial treaties contemplated did not admit 

 foreigners to all and equal rights, seeing that local legislation ex- 

 cluded them from many rights of importance, e. g.^ that of holding 

 land ; and the purport of the provisions in question consequently was 

 to preserve these discriminations. But no such discriminations ex- 

 isting in the common enjoyment of the fishery by American and 

 British fishermen, no such provision was required ; 



{!).) Because no proof is furnished of similar exemptions of for- 

 eigners from local legislation in default of treaty stipulations sub- 

 jecting them thereto; 



(c.) Because no such express provision for subjection of the 

 nationals of either Party to local law was made either in this treaty, 

 in respect to their reciprocal admission to certain territories as agreed 

 in Article III, or in Article III of the treaty of 1794 ; although such 

 subjection was clearly contemplated by the Parties. 



For the purpose of such proof it is further contended by the United 

 States : 



(7.) That, as the liberty to dry and cure on the treaty coasts and 

 to enter bays and harbours on the non-treaty coasts are both sub- 

 jected to conditions, and the latter to specific restrictions, it should 

 therefore be held that the liberty to fish should be subjected to no 

 restrictions, as none are provided for in the treaty. 



The Tribunal is unable to apply the principle of " expressio unius 

 exclusio altenus " to this case: — 



(«.) Because the conditions and restrictions as to the liberty to 

 dry and cure on the shore and to enter the harbours are limitations 

 of the rights themselves, and not restrictions of their exercise. Thus 

 the right to dry and cure is limited in duration, and the right to enter 

 bays and harbours is limited to particular purposes; 



(6.) Because these restrictions of the right to enter bays and har- 

 bours applying solely to American fishermen must have been ex- 

 pressed in the treaty, whereas regulations of the fishery, applying 

 equally to American and British, are made by right of territorial 

 sovereignty. 



