STATEMENT IN CONCLUSION. 



The United States, on the evidence herewith presented in the 

 Case and Appendix thereto, and on the facts estabhshed thereby, 

 claims that the questions referred for decision to the Tribunal, as 

 set forth in Article I of the Special Agreement of January 27, 1909, 

 should be answered and decided in accordance with the position 

 taken by the United States with respect to the true intent and 

 meaning of Article I of the treaty of 1818; and in order that such 

 position may be clearly defined, it is stated below in the form of 

 an answer to each of the questions submitted, and the United 

 States requests that such questions be answered accordingly. 



1. The position of the United States with reference to Question 1 

 is, as stated therein, that the exercise of the liberty to take fish, 

 referred to in Article I of the treaty of 1818, which the inliabitants 

 of the United States have forever in common with the subjects of 

 His Britannic Majesty, is not subject to limitations or restraints by 

 Great Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland in the form of municipal 

 laws, ordinances, or regulations in respect of (1) the hours, days, 

 or seasons when the inhabitants of the United States may take 

 fish on the treaty coasts, or (2) the method, means, and imple- 

 ments used by them in taking fish or in carrying on fishing opera- 

 tions on such coasts, or (3) any other limitations or restraints 

 of similar character — 



(a) Unless they are appropriate and necessary for the protection 

 and preservation of the common rights in such fisheries and the 

 exercise thereof; and 



(b) Unless they are reasonable in themselves and fair as between 

 local fishermen and fishermen coming from the United States, and 

 not so framed as to give an advantage to the former over the latter 

 class; and 



(c) Unless their appropriateness, necessity, reasonableness and 

 fairness be determined by the United States and Great Britain by 

 common accord and the United States concurs in their enforcement. 



The United States requests the Tribunal to answer and decide that 

 this contention on the part of the United States is wholly justified, 

 92909 ■'-S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 1 24 247 



