58 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



mutual servitude was created, which restricted the sovereignty of 

 each nation, to limit or impair, without the consent of the other, the 

 enjoyment of the servitude reciprocally created. 



The statement that American fishermen engaged in fishing under it 

 were uniformly held to be subject to local British regulations, is re- 

 spectfully denied if the statement implies the acquiescence or partici- 

 pation of the United States in any such holding. The same is true 

 of the statement that it was explicitly recognized in Mr. Marcy's 

 circular that American fishermen were subject to local regulations, 

 if the statement implies that Mr. Marcy recognized that American 

 fishermen were bound to observe regulations limiting their treaty 

 rights except in the sense that such regulations were de facto mu- 

 nicipal laws, the validity of which, if questioned, it was the right and 

 duty of the nation to dispute and not that of its citizens. The 

 Marcy circular and other acts and declarations of officials of the 

 United States, from which it has been attempted to show concurrence 

 by the United States in Great Britain's claim of a right to make 

 fishery regulations, will be discussed below in another connection. 



The last of these treaty provisions printed in the British Case is 

 taken from article 27 of the treaty of 1871, between the United States 

 and Great Britain, called the Treaty ol \Vashington. That article 

 did not provide for the use by citizens of the United States of the 

 Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion of Canada, 

 as the abbreviated form in which it is printed in the British Case 

 would make it appear, but stipulated merely that Great Britain 

 engaged to urge upon the Government of the Dominion of Canada 

 to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of those canals 

 " on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion." 



Even if, however, that article had granted citizens of the United 

 States the rights stated, the principal deduction drawn from it by 

 the British Case might be admitted without impairing the force of 

 any proposition advanced in this argument. It has never, indeed, 

 "been contended that citizens of either country were to be exempt 

 from the local laws of the other country when within its territory." 

 No one has suggested that " on terms of equality " (similar in mean- 

 ing to the words in common in the treaty under discussion) meant 

 that although the citizens of both countries were subject to law when 

 at home, they were free from law when abroad. 



Britisb Case, Appendix, 41. 



