APPENDIX 397 



For the purpose of such proof it is further contended 

 by the United States : 



(7) That, as the liberty to dry and cure on the Treaty 



coasts and to enter bays and harbours on the non- 

 treaty coasts are both subjected to conditions, and 

 the latter to specific restrictions, it should there- 

 fore be held that the liberty to fish should be 

 subjected to no restrictions, as none are provided 

 for in the Treaty. 



The Tribunal is unable to apply the principle of "ex- 

 pressio unius exclusio alterius" to this case: 



(a) Because the conditions and restrictions as to the 

 liberty to dry and cure on the shore and to enter the har- 

 bours are limitations of the rights themselves, and not re- 

 strictions of their exercise. Thus the right to dry and 

 cure is limited in duration, and the right to enter bays and 

 harbours is limited to particular purposes; 



(&) Because these restrictions of the right to enter bays 

 and harbours applying solely to American fishermen must 

 have been expressed in the Treaty, whereas regulations of 

 the fishery, applying equally to American and British, are 

 made by right of territorial sovereignty. 



For the purpose of such proof it has been contended by 

 the United States : 



(8) That Lord BATHUBST in 1815 mentioned the Ameri- 



can right under the treaty of 1783 as a right to 

 be exercised "at the discretion of the United 

 States "; and that this should be held as to be 

 derogatory to the claim of exclusive regulation 

 by Great Britain: 



