C INTRODUCTION 



tion; namely, who fishes? Because, if the employer reaps the benefit 

 of the fishery he may well be considered as the fisherman whether he or 

 his servant draws the fish from the water. The contention that the 

 crew might be foreigners and man the ship, but that the person who 

 drops the Une or throws the net into the water and extracts the fish from 

 the water should be an inhabitant of the United States and could not 

 within the treaty be a non-inhabitant did not appeal to the Tribunal, 

 which squarely held that "the inhabitants of the United States while 

 exercising the liberties referred to in the said article have a right to 

 employ, as members of the fishing crews of their vessels, persons not 

 inhabitants of the United States." ' 



The Tribunal, however, seems to have been much influenced by the 

 British Argument that Great Britain could forbid aliens as well as its 

 subjects from serving upon foreign vessels within Newfoimdland waters. 

 For example, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that non-inhabitants 

 employed as members of the fishing crews of the United States vessels 

 derive no benefit or immunity from the treaty, and it is so decided and 

 awarded." In order to make this part of the award clear it is necessary 

 to quote a clause which, while not the actual holding of the Tribunal, 

 nevertheless is specifically mentioned as one of the reasons which led it 

 to pronounce the award; namely, "the Treaty does not affect the sover- 

 eign right of Great Britain as to aliens, non-inhabitants of the United 

 States, nor the right of Great Britain to regulate the engagement of 

 British subjects, while these aliens or British subjects are on British 

 territory."' 



In view of the first part of the award, that the United States may 

 employ non-inhabitants, it is not quite clear why the Tribunal decided 

 that such non-inhabitants so employed "derive no benefit or immunity 

 from the treaty," because were it not for the treaty they could not engage 

 in fishing within Newfoundland waters. 



This declaration, however, cannot be looked upon as general in its 

 nature, because the Tribunal was interpreting a particular treaty and felt 

 it necessary to define the status of aliens and the right of Great Britain 

 to regulate their conduct, as well as the conduct of British subjects. 



A distinction was drawn between the American who employs non- 

 inhabitants and the non-inhabitants actually employed; the first class 

 being protected by the treaty, the latter class deriving no benefit or 

 immunity from it. In other words, the American may employ the non- 

 inhabitant. He is protected by the treaty in his person and his property 



^Appendix, p. so6; Oral Argument, p. 1449. 

 'Appendix, p. $06; Oral Argument, p. 1449. 



