QUESTION TWO. 45 



The first point for discussion, therefore, is the general question 

 whether the treaty gives any right to the inhabitants of the United 

 States to employ fishermen of other nationalities, not being inhab- 

 itants of the United States, to fish for them at all. 



If that be decided in the affirmative, contrary to the contention of 

 His Majesty's Government, then the further point arises whether the 

 employment of British subjects, or of persons resident in the Colonies, 

 may be prohibited by British legislation without breach of the treaty. 



In the Counter-Case of the United States it is suggested that this 

 second point is not within the scope of the question referred to the 

 Tribunal. But the prohibition of the employment of British sub- 

 jects in these fisheries was one of the matters which occasioned the 

 reference to arbitration, and it is clearly submitted to the Tribunal. 

 Great Britain contends that she may prohibit any inhabitant of the 

 Colonies from engaging to fish for Americans in British waters with- 

 out breach of the treaty: If that be not conceded, His Majesty's 

 Government must ask for an express decision upon the point. 

 (United States Counter-Case, p. 45.) 



LANGUAGE OF THE TREATY. 



His Majesty's Government submits that the language of the treaty 

 is clear and that the contention of the United States is inconsistent 



with that language. 



52 The treaty in terms limits the liberties to inhabitants of the 



United States, whereas by the interpretation put upon it by 

 the United States the liberties were conferred upon all nations and 

 races, wherever their habitations, provided solely that they operated 

 from an American vessel. 



It is said, indeed, that an American vessel must, according to the 

 laws of the United States now in force, be owned and officered by 

 Americans. That is a matter which must depend on the will of the 

 United States. But even if those laws remain in force, the effect of 

 the contention is that while the officers of American vessels must be 

 Americans, the men who do the actual fishing may be exclusively non- 

 inhabitants of the United States; in other words, that although the 

 treaty gives liberties to, alternatively, "inhabitants of the United 

 States " and "American fishermen," yet that the liberties may be exer- 

 cised by persons who are neither inhabitants nor Americans. 



The change which would be effected by acceptance of the United 

 States interpretation is thus seen to be far-reaching in its effect. It 

 alters the plain language of the article and does away with the limi- 

 tation contained in it. A grant confined to the inhabitants of the 

 United States is very different in extent from a grant to all persons 

 whom those inhabitants may choose to employ. 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 821 



