AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL. 81 



For the purpose of such proof it hr.s been contended by the United 



States : 



(8.) That Lord Bathurst in 1815 mentioned the American right 

 under the treaty of 1783 as a right to be exercised " at the discretion 

 of the United States;" and that this should be held as to be deroga- 

 tory to the claim of exclusive regulation by Great Britain. 



But the Tribunal is unable to agree with this contention : 



(a.) Because these words implied only the necessity of an express 

 stipulation for any liberty to use foreign territory at the pleasure of 

 the grantee, without touching any question as to regulation; 



(h.) Because in this same letter Lord Bathurst characterised this 

 right as a policy " temporary and experimental, depending on the 

 use that might be made of it, on the condition of the islands and 

 places where it was to be exercised, and the more general conveniences 

 or inconveniences from a military, naval and commercial point of 

 view;" so that it cannot have been his intention to acknowledge the 

 exclusion of British interference with this right; 



(c.) Because Lord Bathurst, in his note to Governor Sir C. 

 114 Hamilton in 1819, orders the Governor to take care that the 

 American fishery on the coast of Labrador be carried on in the 

 same manner as previous to the late war; showing that he did not 

 interpret the treaty just signed as a grant conveying absolute im- 

 munity from interference with the American fishery right. 



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

 States : 



(9.) That on various other occasions following the conclusion of 

 the treaty, as evidenced by official correspondence, Great Britain 

 made use of expressions inc^onsistent with the claim to a right of 

 regulation. 



The Tribunal, unwilling to invest such expressions with an impor- 

 tance entitling them to affect the general question, considers that such 

 conflicting or inconsistent expressions as have been exposed on either 

 side are sufficiently explained by their relations to ephemeral phases 

 of a controversy of almost secular duration, and should be held to be 

 without direct effect on the principal and present issues. 



Now, with regard to the second contention involved in Question I, 

 as to whether the right of regulation can be reasonably exercised by 

 Great Britain without the consent of the United States : — 



Considering that the recognition of a concurrent right of consent 

 in the United States would affect the independence of Great Britain, 

 which would become dependent on the Government of the United 

 States for the exercise of its sovereign right of regulation, and con- 

 sidering that such a co-dominium would be contrary to the constitu- 

 tion of both sovereign States; the burden of proof is imposed on the 

 United States to show that the independence of Great Britain was 



