QUESTION THEEE. 99 



It should be stated further that, when the United States has fur- 

 nished its fishing vessels with permits to touch and trade, and they 

 have been accorded that privilege, it has never insisted on their im- 

 munity from British or colonial commercial and revenue regulations, 

 requiring entry and clearance at custom-houses or the payment of 

 light, harbor, or other dues. It has only been when the colonial 

 governments denied trading privileges and held the American fishing 

 vessels to the treaty right of fishing exclusively, that the latter have 

 refused to conform to the colonial laws relating to entry and clear- 

 ance at custom-houses and the payment of light, harbor, and other 

 dues. Sir Edward Grey substantially admitted this in his memoran- 

 dum of February 2, 1906, and the record will be searched in vain for 

 any contention by the Government of the United States that its vessels 

 were immune from such customs and revenue regulations when per- 

 mitted to enjoy commercial privileges. The United States then dis- 

 claims that commercial privileges constitute any part of " the liberties 

 referred to in the said article," and it admits that its fishing vessels 

 when supplied by it with authority to exercise commercial privileges, 

 and when permitted by the colonies to enjoy such privileges, are prop- 

 erly subject in British colonial ports, " to the requirements of entry 

 or report at custom-houses, or the payment of light, harbor, or other 

 dues, or to any other similar requirement, or condition, or exaction." 

 It contends, however, that its fishing vessels, when resorting to the 

 colonial waters exclusively for the treaty purpose of fishing, are not 

 properly subject to any such requirements ; and this contention on its 

 part and the negation of that contention on the part of Great Britain 

 constitute the sole issue for determination by this Tribunal under 

 the submission of Question Three. 



APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF SEBVITTTDES. 



Addressing the argument to that issue the United States insists 

 that the principles of international law do not permit Great Britain 

 to subject the fishing vessels of the United States to the require- 

 ments and exactions mentioned in Question Three. As shown in the 

 discussion of Question One, the right granted by the treaty of 1818 

 is a real right and constitutes an international servitude. The treaty 



U. S. Counter Case, 57 ; British Case, 62. 



