INTRODUCTION Ixxix 



but by that close and thorough interpretation which results from the 

 examination of a concrete case. It is, therefore, not improbable that 

 GreatBritain may have consented to theiorm of the submission, namely, 

 that local legislation in the matter of the manner and time should be 

 reasonable, because of the correspondence and experience had in the 

 interpretations of the Treaties of 1854 and 1871, which were, as has been 

 repeatedly said, identical in terms of grant with the Convention of 1818. 



Finally, a suspicion or fear that the law involved favored in principle 

 the American contention may have influenced the negotiators and must 

 assuredly have influenced British counsel in the admission that the Treaty 

 of 1818 was a limitation upon British sovereignty to such a degree that 

 the question of reasonableness was not to be determined alone by Great 

 Britain. As the Tribunal based its judgment on the form of submission 

 and the admission of counsel, it is necessary to examine the reasons 

 which either did or might be supposed to influence the admissions upon 

 which the award of the Tribunal was predicated. 



The United States has consistently maintained from the Treaty of 

 Versailles of 1783 to the present arbitration that the right to take, dry, and 

 cure fish within the British dominions of North America was more than 

 a permission or a license; that it was a permanent right of a territorial 

 nature, similar in its consequences to the establishment of a boundary 

 between Great Britain and the United States, unaffected by war, sub- 

 ject to modification and regulation by consent of the United States and 

 to loss by renunciation or conquest. If this view be correct, the War 

 of 1812 suspended the exercise of the right within British jurisdiction, 

 but did not abrogate it, and the right would revive without express stip- 

 ulation or agreement of the parties. 



The British Government has consistently considered the liberty to 

 take, dry, and cure fish within British jurisdiction as a commercial privi- 

 lege or license, temporary in its nature, subject to the vicissitudes of war, 

 and subject likewise to British regulation in its exercise, provided that 

 the regulation be not inconsistent with the terms of the treaty, which is 

 admitted to be a restriction upon British sovereignty. It would prob- 

 ably be more correct to say that Great Britain considered the Treaty 

 of 1783 and its successor, the Convention of 18 18, as a restriction upon 

 the exercise of sovereignty rather than upon sovereignty itself, because 

 a restriction upon the exercise would leave sovereignty intact and by 

 virtue of the sovereign power rules and regulations might be issued 

 even although they were inconsistent with the provisions of the treaty. 

 The American contentions, on the contrary, regard the treaty as con- 

 veying to the United States the right to take, dry, and cure fish, and to 



