QUESTION ONE. 31 



ment, resides in the body of the people of the republic; so that a 

 grant to the entire body of the inhabitants of the United States, made 

 by and through a treaty with the Government of the United States, 

 must be, in substance and effect, and in fact, a grant to the United 

 States. 



The French fishery right on the Newfoundland coast created by the 

 treaty of 1713, was, " to the subjects of France," as likewise was its 

 renewal by the treaty of 1763, and by the treaty of 1783. It has 

 never been claimed that Great Britain and France were not the real 

 parties in interest under those treaties, and that they did not confer 

 upon France a national right. 



The authors below specifically point out that it is a matter of no 

 importance whether it be the states or their subjects who are to enjoy 

 the servitudes. 



Second. The right granted is one in perpetuity. The treaty so 

 declares. 



Third. It is a right to make a part of the territory of Great Britain 

 serve a purpose and an interest of the United States, and is, for that 

 reason, a restriction of the territorial sovereignty of Great Britain, 

 thus answering the requirement of those publicists who deny that a 

 restriction of sovereignty generally can constitute an international 

 servitude, and at the same time meeting the requirement of the others, 

 whose theory of the nature of the sovereignty which may be limited 

 is so broad that it obviously includes limitations of territorial sov- 

 ereignty. 



The French and American fishing rights under the several treaties 

 with Great Britain, and grants generally to one nation to make use 

 of the maritime belt of another nation, as well as grants to cut wood 

 on the land, possess these and other essential requisites of inter- 

 national servitudes. 6 



"Heffter: ibid., sec. 43; Rivier: Lehrbuch ibid., p. 192; Neumann, ibid., sec. 

 13, p. 31; Pradier-Foder, ibid., sec. 837; Fiore, ibid., vol. 2, sec. 829; Rivier, 

 ibid., Principes du Droit Gens, sec. 23; Clauss, ibid., p. 204; Hollatz: Begriff 

 und Wesen der Staatsserritnten, p. 49. 



6 Hall, ibid., pp. 159-160. MSrighnac, ibid., vol. 2, 366-370 Von Liszt: 

 Volkerrecht, 5th ed. (1907), p. 74. Olivart, ibid., vol. 1, sec. 53. Chretien, 

 ibid., sec. 260, p. 366. (Newfoundland fishery and English right to cut dye- 

 wood in Honduras.) Von Ullmann, ibid., sec. 99. Heffter, ibid., sec. 43 (refer- 

 ring to English right to cut dyewood). Von Holtzendorff, ibid., sec. 52, p. 246. 

 Alphonse Rivier: Lehrbuch, ibid., 194. Vattel, Chitty's translation, ibid., Book 

 2, chap. 7, sec. 89, p. 168. Wharton's Commentaries, ibid., sec. 149. Wilson 

 and Tucker, ibid., sec. 55, b. pp. 122, 123, 124. Bonfils, ibid., sec. 342. Despag- 

 net, ibid., sec. 190. Oppenheim, ibid., sees. 205-206. Fiore: ibid., sec. 1095, 

 p. 428. Rivier, ibid., sec. 23. Diena, i&id., p. 125. Clauss, ibid. t pp. 225-226. 



