QUESTION FOUR. 115 



RESTRICTIONS LIMITEB TO THOSE NECESSARY FOR THE PUR- 

 POSES SPECIFIED IN THE TREATY. 



Moreover, the very terms of the treaty present a significant feature 

 which in itself would be sufficient to defeat the British contention. 

 The treaty, as above pointed out, is silent as to requirements and 

 exactions with reference to the treaty coasts, but in express terms it 

 provides the measure of supervision which may be exercised over 

 fishing vessels seeking the bays and harbors on the non-treaty coasts. 



They shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to pre- 

 vent their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any manner 

 whatsoever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. 



What the restrictions on fishing vessels were to be, and what they 

 were to be for, and the extent to which they might be imposed, are 

 all clearly expressed in the treaty, to which resort must be had, rather 

 than to the very general considerations put forth in the British Case, 

 to determine whether it is permissible to make the privileges accorded 

 on the non-treaty coasts " conditional upon the payment of light or 

 harbor or other dues, or entering or reporting at custom houses or any 

 similar conditions." The restrictions, and the only restrictions per- 

 missible, are such " as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying 

 or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever Abusing the 

 privileges hereby reserved to them." 



This restrictive clause is subject to a rule of construction which 

 must not be lost sight of, and that is, .that the express mention of one 

 thing is the negation of all other things not mentioned. Expressio 

 unius est exclusio alterius. So that when the negotiators agreed on 

 and inserted in the treaty of 1818 an affirmative provision concerning 

 the supervision which might be exercised over American fishing ves- 

 sels resorting to the non-treaty coasts, they fixed by that provision 

 the kind, character, and degree of supervision which was permissible, 

 and negatived every other kind, character, or degree of supervision. 



This Tribunal must determine then, before it can give its sanc- 

 tion to the restrictions which Great Britain claims the right to make, 

 that they are necessary to prevent the fishermen taking, drying or 

 curing fish, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges 

 reserved to them. They must also determine with reference to any 

 particular character of restriction, whether it is of a kind to nullify 

 or make valueless or unduly impair the privilege reserved to the 

 fishermen, because it is not to be assumed that the negotiators meant 

 to give a worthless privilege. It is true that the restrictions con- 



