56 THE ABGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



diction of the state within which the acts are done. If so, what is it? 

 The United States submits that the exemption is from the exercise of 

 local jurisdiction directed at the particular subject-matter of the 

 grant and intended to limit and restrain its exercise and enjoyment. 

 Further, if the attempted exercise of the local jurisdiction would in 

 fact limit and restrain the enjoyment of the grant, the exemp- 

 tion is not destroyed because some local policy is to be subserved 

 by the limitation and restriction. Necessarily, the exemption re- 

 mains, where the grant is one of a fishery right to be held in com- 

 mon with the grantor, and the policy which induces any limitation 

 and restriction of the grant is one which the two states have an 

 equal interest in advancing and promoting. This policy can only be 

 advanced and promoted by regulations which, decided upon by the 

 two states, are equally fair and just to each in their provisions. 



The British Case quotes a passage from Hall's work on interna- 

 tional law in support of its view. It was written in connection 

 with a discussion of the construction of treaties, and it is submitted 

 that the author had lost sight temporarily of the distinction between 

 a treaty dealing with a subject-matter not in itself implying a limita- 

 tion of sovereignty, and a treaty which by reason of the terms and 

 the subject-matter necessarily implies such a limitation. With refer- 

 ence to the first class of treaties it was an accurate statement of the 

 law to say that " no treaty can be taken to restrict by implication the 

 exercise of the right of sovereignty." It was entirely inaccurate to 

 apply that observation to the second class of treaties, because as has 

 been shown, a treaty containing stipulations which have the effect of 

 creating a state servitude, by necessary implication does restrict the 

 right of sovereignty. 



In another part of his work Hall speaks of these treaty rights as 

 servitudes, and as derogations " from the full enforcement of sover- 

 eignty over parts of the national territory," and this passage will be 

 found to be a more accurate statement of the law applicable here than 

 that quoted from the same author in the British Case. 6 



In the passage quoted in the British Case, the contention of the 

 United States put forth in connection with the Fortune Bay claim is 

 characterized as "scarcely intelligible," and it is said that "it was 

 contended that the simple grant to foreign subjects of the right to 



British Case, 41-42. * Hall's International Law, pp. 150-160. 



