86 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



His Majesty's Government considered that it would be unnecessary to 

 call upon the Tribunal for an opinion under the second clause of Article 

 II, in regard to the executive act of the United States of America in 

 117 sending war ships to the territorial waters in question, in view of 

 the recognised motives of the United States of America in taking 

 this action, and of the relations maintained by their representatives with 

 the local authorities. And this being the sole act to which the attention 

 of this Tribunal has been called by His Majesty's Government, no further 

 action in their behalf is required from this Tribunal under Article II. 



The United States of America presented a statement in which their 

 claim that specific provisions of certain legislative and executive acts of 

 the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland were inconsistent with 

 the true interpretation of the treaty of 1818 was based on the contention 

 that these provisions were not " reasonable " within the meaning of 

 Question I. 



After calling upon this Tribunal to express an opinion on these acts, 

 pursuant to the second clause of Article II, the United States of America 

 pointed out in that statement that under Article III any question re- 

 garding the reasonableness of any regulation might be referred by the 

 Tribunal to a Commission of expert specialists, and expressed an inten- 

 tion of asking for such reference under certain circumstances. 



The Tribunal having carefully considered the counter-statement pre- 

 sented on behalf of Great Britain at the session of August 2nd, is of 

 opinion that the decision on the reasonableness of these regulations requires 

 expert information about the fisheries themselves and an examination of 

 the practical effect of a great number of these provisions in relation to 

 the conditions surrounding the exercise of. the liberty of fishery enjoyed 

 by the inhabitants of the United States, as contemplated by Article III. 

 No further action on behalf of the United States is therefore required from 

 this Tribunal under Article U. 



AS TO ARTICLE III. 



As provided in Article III, hereinbefore cited and above referred to, " any 

 question regarding the reasonableness of any regulation, or otherwise, 

 which requires an examination of the practical effect of any provisions 

 surrounding the exercise of the liberty of fishery enjoyed by the inhabit- 

 ants of the United States, or which requires expert information about the 

 fisheries themselves, may be referred by this Tribunal to a Commission of 

 expert specialists: one to be designated by each of the Parties hereto, and 

 the third, who shall not be a national of either Party, to be designated by 

 the Tribunal." 



The Tribunal now, therefore, calls upon the Parties to designate within 

 one month their national Commissioners for the expert examination of the 

 questions submitted. 



As the third non-national Commissioner this Tribunal designates Dr. 

 P. P. C. Hoek, scientific adviser for the fisheries of the Netherlands, and 

 if any necessity arises therefor a substitute may be appointed by the 

 President of this Tribunal. 



After a reasonable time, to be agreed on by the Parties, for the expert 

 Commission to arrive at a conclusion, by conference, or, if necessary, by 

 local inspection, the Tribunal shall, if convoked by the President at the 

 request of either Party, thereupon at the earliest convenient date, recon- 

 vene to consider the report of the Commission, and if it be on the whole 

 unanimous shall incorporate it in the Award. If not on the whole unani- 



