Ivi INTRODUCTION 



matter, may not inaptly be termed a drag-net clause — namely, "any 

 other matters of a similar character relating to fishing"; but the expres- 

 sion "similar character" evidently refers to the time and manner of fish- 

 ing. Therefore the question submitted under Question I reduces itself 

 to the time and manner during which and by which American fishermen 

 may take fish off the treaty coasts of Newfoundland. The submission 

 presupposes that regulation of the time and manner may be necessary, 

 a point on which Great Britain and the United States were agreed. By 

 the form of the question the regulation is to be "reasonable." Great 

 Britain claimed the right to regulate the fishery according to its sover- 

 eign pleasure, and "without the consent of the United States." The 

 United States always admitted that the fishery should be regulated, for 

 an unregulated fishery might be synonymous with anarchy. The United 

 States also maintained that the regulation should be reasonable, for an 

 unreasonable regulation would defeat the purposes of regulation; but it 

 did not claim the right to determine for itself the reasonableness of any 

 regulation, because a common fishery was involved. The United States 

 might have been justified in asserting a right to regulate the fishery of 

 its inhabitants in so far as the exercise of their fishing rights did not 

 concern, involve, or affect British fishermen in the exercise of their 

 fishery. But in so far as the common fishery was involved, the United 

 States insisted upon a common regulation. In other words, the regula- 

 tion should be "by common accord," with the concurrence of the United 

 States in the enforcement of the regulations determined "by common 

 accord." The single issue involved in Question I is: Who is to deter- 

 mine the reasonableness of fishing regulations respecting the time and 

 manner of fishing, for it was admitted by both litigants that the regula- 

 tions should be reasonable. The contention of Great Britain was that 

 it could determine the question of reasonableness, not merely for its own 

 fishermen, but for the inhabitants of the United States engaged in the 

 fishery, whereas the contention of the United States was that the reason- 

 ableness of any regulation affecting inhabitants of the United States 

 should be determined by the United States and Great Britain by common 

 accord. 



A further examination of the form of submission shows that both 

 countries agreed upon the kind of legislation requisite for the fisheries. 

 For example, admitting that the regulations were to be reasonable, they 

 should be appropriate or necessary for the protection and preservation 

 of the fisheries, equitable and fair as between local fishermen and the 

 inhabitants of the United States, or, in the language of the American 

 contention, "reasonable in themselves and fair as between local fishermen 



