64 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



the record concerning the effect of such regulations, for the purpose 

 of showing that these statutes and regulations are intended to and do 

 discriminate in favor of the local shore fishery and against the vessel 

 fishery of the Americans, or were made to suit the convenience of local 

 fishermen and with entire indifference to American fishing rights. 

 Upon the subject of the purpose and effect, of these regulations gen- 

 erally, the United States also calls attention to the diplomatic cor- 

 respondence between the two countries. 



The United States further submits that the peculiar form in which 

 Great Britain has clothed her contention is. in view of the subject- 

 matter of the right and the relations of the two nations respecting it, 

 strong confirmation of the contention of the United States that it is 

 entitled to an equal voice in the making of regulations which sub- 

 stantially limit or impair the right, in that the contention contains 

 admissions in the standards of reasonableness set up, which show 

 the identity of interest of the two nations in all the purposes of the 

 regulations and in the manner in which they shall be framed. 



They have a common right in the fishery and a common interest 

 in its preservation and protection. They have a like common inter- 

 est in the full and fair exercise by the fishermen of the two nations 

 of the common right to fish, and in having the regulations to that 

 end. so framed as not to give an advantage unfairly to one over 

 the other. 



It is true that they have not identical interest in regulations de- 

 sirable on grounds of public order and morals, but as the relation 

 between public order and morals and regulations directed at the 

 hours, days or seasons when fish may be taken, or at the method, 

 means and implements used in the taking of fish, is far from intimate, 

 and covers, at best, but a limited range of regulations, a discussion 

 of that standard and the regulations which might be referred to it, 

 will be postponed to a later stage of the argument. 



There is one particular only, in which the situation of Great Brit- 

 ain with reference to these regulations is different from that of 

 the United States and that is that they are to be enforced within 

 British territorial jurisdiction. 



Recurring now to the question of the equal right of the two nations 

 to participate in the making of the regulations, it is not conceived 



U. S. Case, Appendix, 655-656, 984. 



