QUESTION TWO. 93 



Would it ever be contended that this mutual privilege was confined 

 in its every form and manifestation to those who were inhabitants of 

 the two countries, and that they must man their ships and handle 

 their cargoes with none but inhabitants ? 



Again, in the mutual privileges secured to the two countries, by 

 Articles 26 and 28 of the treaty of 1871, to navigate certain rivers 

 and lakes, such privileges are expressed as belonging to " subjects of 

 Her Britannic Majesty " in the one case, and to " citizens of the 

 United States" in the other. 



It would be unreasonable to contend that by these provisions the 

 privilege of the citizens and subjects of the two countries, respec- 

 tively, to navigate such rivers and lakes was intended to be limited 

 as to the manner and the instrumentalities which they might find it 

 convenient and profitable to employ, including crews of any nation- 

 ality. Yet such contention would be no more unreasonable than the 

 present British contention that the treaty of 1818 limits the inhabi- 

 tants of the United States, in carrying on the fishery granted to them, 

 to certain prescribed human instrumentalities. 



6. The contention in the British Case that there is no ascertain- 

 able limit to the amount of fish that may be taken, if inhabitants 

 of the United States may employ others to act for them, and that it 

 can not be assumed that Great Britain conceded a right so indefinite 

 in extent, ignores the broad meaning of the word inhabitants as used 

 in the treaty. An inhabitant by the English and American law is a 

 resident, as distinguished from a mere visitor or sojourner. No par- 

 ticular time, however, is essential to the acquirement of a residence. 

 Residence is a matter of intention and becomes fixed and established 

 when one takes up his abode in a particular place with the intention of 

 remaining there. It is evident, therefore, that Great Britain did not 

 employ the word or assent to its employment with a view of limiting 

 the American fishing right by limiting the character of persons by 

 whom it might be carried on. Furthermore, the idea has no founda- 

 tion that such a nation, as the United States is now, or was in 1818, 

 would be limited in the amount of fish it might take by limiting to 

 its own inhabitants the agency which might actually take fish. The 

 amount of fish to be taken, whatever the limitation on the agency, 



British Case, Appendix, 41. 



