QUESTION TWO. 53 



For these reasons it is submitted that persons other than inhabitants 

 of the United States cannot be regarded as within the terms of the 

 treaty, and that the rights conferred by article 1 with regard to fish- 

 ing, and the drying and curing of fish, are confined to American 

 fishermen. 



EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS. 



But, apart, from the general question as to the employment of 

 foreigners, it is submitted that the right of the British and Colonial 

 legislatures to prevent the employment of British subjects by Amer- 

 icans upon these fisheries is absolutely indisputable. The in- 

 61 habitants of Newfoundland, or of any British Colony, are sub- 

 ject to the legislation of that Colony and of the Imperial Par- 

 liament. It is within the competency of the legislature to which they 

 are subject to forbid them to engage in any such industry. The 

 treaty contains no expressions from which it can be inferred that His 

 Majesty's Government parted with its control over its own subjects, 

 and His Majesty's Government submitvS that the prevention of in- 

 habitants of the Colonies from taking service with Americans fishing 

 in British waters under the treaty of 1818 would not be a breach of 

 that treaty. 



CONCLUSION. 



For these reasons His Majesty's Government contends that the con- 

 clusions stated in the British Case have been established, namely: 



1. That Article I means what in terms it says, and that it confers 

 the liberty to take fish on the inhabitants of the United States, and 

 not on the inhabitants of other countries. 



2. That the Colonial legislatures and the Imperial Parliament re- 

 tain the power of prohibiting any of His Majesty's subjects from en- 

 gaging as fishermen in American vessels, and that the exercise of 

 this power is in no way inconsistent with the treaty. 



