AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL. 83 



fisheries; alwa^'s rcmemberinfi: that the exercise of this right of legis- 

 lation is limited by the obligation to execute the treat}^ in good faith. 

 This has been admitted by counsel and recognised b}^ Great Britain 

 in limiting the right of regulation to that of reasonable regulation. 

 The inherent defect of this limitation of reasonableness, without any 

 sanction except in diplomatic remonstrance, has been supplied by the 

 submission to arbitral Award as to existing regulations in accordance 

 with Articles II and III of the special agreement, and as to further 

 regulation by the obligation to submit their reasonableness to an 

 arbitral test in accordance with Article IV of the agreement. 

 It is finally contended by the United States: 



That the United States did not expressly agree that the liberty 

 granted to them could be subjected to any restriction that the grantor 

 might choose to impose on the ground that in her judgment such re- 

 striction was reasonable. And that while admitting that all laws of 

 a general character, controlling the conduct of men within the ter- 

 ritory of Great Britain, are effective, binding and beyond objection 

 by the United States, and competent to be made upon the sole deter- 

 mination of Great Britain or her colony, without accountability to 

 anj'one whomsoever; yet there is some\^here a line, beyond which it 

 is not competent for Great Britain to go, or beyond which she cannot 

 rightfully go, because to go beyond it would be an invasion of the 

 right granted to the United States in 1818. That the legal effect of 

 the grant of 1818 was not to leave the determination as to where tliat 

 line is to be drawn to the uncontrolled judgment of the grantor, 

 either upon the grantor's consideration as to Avhat would be a 

 reasonable exercise of its sovereignty over the British Empire, or 

 upon the grantor's consideration of what would be a reasonable exer- 

 cise thereof towards the grantee. 



But this contention is founded on assumptions which this Tribunal 

 cannot accept for the folloAving reasons in addition to those already 

 set forth: — 



(a.) Because the line by which the respective rights of both parties 

 accruing out of the treaty are to be circumscribed, can refer only to 

 the right granted by the treaty ; that is to say, to the liberty of taking, 

 drying and curing fish by American inhabitants in certain British 

 waters in common with British subjects, and not to the exercise of 

 rights of legislation by Great Britain not referred to in the treaty ; 



(b.) Because a line which would limit the exercise of sovereignty 

 of a State within the limits of its own territory can be drawn only 

 on the ground of express stipulation, and not by implication from 

 stipulations concerning a different subject-matter; 



(c.) Because the line in question is drawn according to the prin- 

 ciple of international law that treaty obligations are to be executed 

 in perfect good faith, therefore excluding the right to legislate at 



