QUESTION SEVEN. 261 



The United States contends that American fishing vessels resorting 

 to British territorial waters under the terms of the treaty are entitled, 

 as of right 



If, in speaking of a vessel's rights, the British Case but used " a 

 convenient and customary form of describing the owner's or master's 

 right and duties in respect of the ship " it might well be said, as Mr. 

 Root, replying to Sir Edward Grey, June 30, 1906, 6 did say " it is 

 probably quite unimportant which form of expression is used." But 

 this is not what the British Case does. After denying in the discus- 

 sion of Question Two that American vessels have any rights, it 

 proceeds to discuss this Question as if all fishing and trading rights 

 of the United States were rights belonging to vessels, and as if the 

 employment of a vessel as a fisherman or as a trader had the effect of 

 fixing and determining the rights of the inhabitants of the United 

 States who own such vessel. It may fairly be said that the British 

 contention under this Question has no other foundation than this 

 classification of vessels. It is, therefore, important to point out again 

 that the Question is: 



Are the inhabitants of the United States whose vessels resort to 

 the treaty coast * * * entitled to have for those vessels 



It has already been shown, under Questions One and Two, that the 

 United States is the real party in interest and that the words " in- 

 habitants of the United States " are not words of limitation, but 

 words aptly describing the sovereign power in which the treaty 

 liberties are vested. The Question in its effect and essence then is 

 this: Is the United States entitled to have for the inhabitants 

 thereof, &c. 



It may be contended that the words, "trading vessels", refer to 

 some rights reserved exclusively to vessels having that character and 

 no other. Then this Question is an absurdity. If the United States 

 " by agreement or otherwise " secured some commercial privileges, 

 which by the terms of the agreement could only be exercised by ves- 

 sels exclusively used in trading, then it is preposterous to ask the 

 Tribunal to determine whether they can be exercised by vessels 

 engaged in fishing. No question whatever would be presented. The 

 Question should bear a reasonable construction and one which will 

 present a real issue, which this Question certainly does. 



British Case, 127. *U. S. Case, Appendix, 979. 



