APPENDIX 391 



relations of Sovereign States, has found little, if any, sup- 

 port from modern publicists. It could therefore in the 

 general interest of the Community of Nations, and of the 

 Parties to this Treaty, be affirmed by this Tribunal only 

 on the express evidence of an International contract; 



(/) Because even if these liberties of fishery constituted 

 an International servitude, the servitude would derogate 

 from the sovereignty of the servient State only in so far 

 as the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the servient 

 State would be contrary to the exercise of the servitude 

 right by the dominant State. Whereas it is evident that, 

 though every regulation of the fishery is to some extent 

 a limitation, as it puts limits to the exercise of the fishery 

 at will, yet such regulations as are reasonable and made 

 for the purpose of securing and preserving the fishery 

 and its exercise for the common benefit, are clearly to be 

 distinguished from those restrictions and "molestations," 

 the annulment of which was the purpose of the American 

 demands formulated by MR. ADAMS in 1782, and such 

 regulations consequently cannot be held to be inconsistent 

 with a servitude ; 



(g) Because the fishery to which the inhabitants of the 

 United States were admitted in 1783, and again in 1818, 

 was a regulated fishery, as is evidenced by the following 

 regulations : 



Act 15 Charles II, Cap. 16, s. 7 (1663) forbidding "to 

 lay any seine or other net in or near any harbour in New- 

 foundland, whereby to take the spawn or young fry of 

 the Poor-John, or for any other use or uses, except for 

 the taking of bait only," which had not been superseded 

 either by the order in council of March 10th, 1670, or 

 by the statute 10 and XI Wm. Ill, Cap. 25, 1699. The 

 order in council provides expressly for the obligation "to 

 submit unto and to observe all rules and orders as are 



