QUESTION ONE. 55 



The next regulation mentioned is one in respect of " the method, 

 means, and implements to be used in the taking of fish or in the 

 carrying on of fishing operations on such coasts." Here it is again 

 manifest that the treaty is without limitation as to the method, means, 

 and implements which may be used in the taking of fish or in the 

 carrying on of fishing operations, and that, therefore, regulations 

 limiting the method, means, and implements, which may be used, are 

 in conflict with the treaty. It is not necessary in this connection, to 

 consider regulations in respect of " other matters of a similar char- 

 acter," for the reasons hereinbefore stated. 



Here, it is submitted, the affirmative argument logically ends. 

 Regulations of the character, which it is contended Great Britain 

 has authority to make without the consent of the United States, neces- 

 sarily limit the treaty right granted to the United States ; the grant 

 of that right by Great Britain was a voluntary renunciation of her 

 sovereignty to do anything which in fact limits the right ; therefore, 

 Great Britain has no authority to make such regulations without the 

 consent of the United States. 



BRITISH ARGUMENT AS TO THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS. 



The position of Great Britain in opposition to the views of the 

 United States above set forth is stated thus in the British Case : 



As to the general principle which governs the construction of 

 treaties such as this it is submitted that the mere grant of a right or 

 liberty to subjects of one state to do certain acts in the territory 

 of another state, does not itself confer any exemption from the juris- 

 diction of the state in which those acts are done." 



This statement is open to criticism in two respects. It speaks of 

 the treaty right in question as the mere grant or liberty to the sub- 

 jects of one state. The grant it is submitted was to the United 

 States as a nation. Such a grant, the British statement proceeds to 

 assert, does not confer any exemption from the jurisdiction of the 

 state in which the acts are done. If that be true the grant is to be 

 held and enjoyed absolutely at the discretion of the grantor. That 

 position has never been taken by Great Britain heretofore and clearly 

 is not tenable. The very submission in this case negatives any such 

 extreme contention. There must be some exemption from the juris- 



British Case, 40. 



