NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES DISPUTE 27 



pretation of the Treaty of 1818. In that respect the Tribunal is of 

 opinion : 



(a) That the right to take fish was accorded as a condition of peace 

 to a foreign people; wherefore the British negotiators refused to place 

 the right of British subjects on the same footing with those of American 

 inhabitants; and further, refused to insert the words also proposed by 

 Mr. Adams — "continue to enjoy" — in the second branch of Art. Ill of 

 the Treaty of 1783; 



(6) That the Treaty of 1818 was in different terms, and very diff- 

 erent in extent, from that of 1783, and was made for different considera- 

 tions. It was, in otlier words, a new grant 



For the purpose of such proof it is further contended by the United 

 States : 



(6) That as contemporary Commercial Treaties contain express 

 provisions for submitting foreigners to local legislation, and the 

 Treaty of 1818 contain.s no such provision, it should be held, 

 a conlrano, that inhabitants of the United States exercising 

 these liberties are exempt from regulation. 



The Tribunal is unable to agree with this contention : 



(a) Because the Commercial Treaties contemplated did not admit 

 foreigners to all and equal rights, seeing that local legislation excluded 

 them from many rights of importance, e.g., that of holding land; and the 

 purport of the provisions in question consequently was to preserve these 

 discriminations. But no such discriminations existing in the common en- 

 joyment of the fishery by American and British fishermen, no such pro- 

 vision was required; 



(b) Because no proof is furnislied of similar exemptions of foreign- 

 ers from local legislation in default of Treaty stipulations subjecting 

 them thereto ; 



(c) Because no such express provision for subjection of the nationals 

 of either Party to local law was made either in this Treaty, in respect 

 to their reciprocal admission to certain territories as agreed in Art. Ill, 

 or in Art. Ill of the Treaty of 1794; although such subjection was clearly 

 contemplated by the Parties. 



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 sub- 

 jected to conditions, and the latter to specific restrictions, it 

 should therefore be held that the liberty to fish shoiild be sub- 

 jected to no restrictions, as none are provided for in the Treaty. 



The Tribunal is unable to apply the principle of " expressio unius 

 exclvsio alterius" to this case: 



