30 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



United States Governmeut in 1823, with respect to the relations of Great 

 Britain and France in regard to the fishery; 



(d) Because if the consent of the United States were requisite for 

 the fishery a general veto would be accorded them, the full exercise of 

 which would be socially subversive and would lead to the consequence of 

 an unregulatable fishery ; 



(e) Because the United States cannot by assent give legal force and 

 validity to British legislation; 



(/) Because the liberties to take fish in British territorial waters atid 

 to dry and cure fish on land in British territory are in principle on the 

 same footing; but in practice a right of co-operation in the elaboration 

 and enforcement of regulations in regard to the latter liberty (drying 

 and curing fish on land ) is unrealizable. 



In any event, Great Britain, as the local sovereign, has the duty of 

 preserving and protecting the fisheries. In so far as it is necessary for 

 that purpose, Great Britain is not only entitled, but obliged, to provide 

 for the protection and preservation of the fishei-ies, always remembering 

 that the exercise of this right of legislation is limited by the obligation to 

 execute the Treaty in good faith. This has been admitted by counsel 

 and recognized by Great Britain in limiting the right of regulation to 

 that of reasonable regulation. The inherent defect of this limitation of 

 reasonableness, without any sanction except in diplomatic remonstrance, 

 has been supplied by the submission to arbitral award as to existing 

 regulations in accordance with Arts. II and III of the Special Agree- 

 ment, and as to further regulation by the obligation to submit their 

 reasonableness to an arbitral test in accordance with Art. IV of the 

 Agreement. 



It is finally contended by the United States : 



That the United States did not expressly agree that the liberty 

 granted to them could be subjected to any restriction that the grantor 

 might choose to impose on the ground that in her judgment such restric- 

 tion was reasonable. And that while admitting that all laws of a gen- 

 eral character, controlling the conduct of men within the territory of 

 Great Britain, are efl'ective, binding and beyond objection by the United 

 States, and competent to be made upon the sole determination of Great 

 Britain or her colony, without accountability to anyone whomsoever; 

 yet there is somewhere a line, beyond which it is not competent for Great 

 Britain to go, or beyond which she cannot rightfully go, because to go 

 beyond it would be an invasion of the right granted to the United States 

 in 1818. That the legal effect of the grant of 1818 was not to leave the 

 determination as to where that line is to be drawn to the uncontrolled 

 judgment of the grantor, either upon the grantor's consideration as to 

 what would be a reasonable exercise of its sovereignty over the British 



