cii INTRODUCTION 



consent previously had of the Unitfed States. The third question, while 

 similar to the first, deals with the more specific question whether Ameri- 

 can fishermen can be subjected, without the consent of the United 

 States, "to the requirements of entry or report at custom houses or the 

 payment of Ught or harbor or other dues, or to any other similar require- 

 ment or condition or exaction." The first question went to the nature 

 and extent of the American fishing right as such. The second question 

 presupposes the existence of the right to take, dry, and cure fish within 

 Newfoundland waters. The third question considers whether regula- 

 tions not necessarily or exclusively related to fishing as such may be 

 imposed upon American fishermen without the consent of the United 

 States. That is to say, whether an American fishing vessel before 

 beginning to fish should make formal entry or report at custom houses, 

 whether such vessels should pay light, harbor, or other dues as a condi- 

 tion precedent to remaining in Newfoundland waters, and finally, 

 whether American fishing vessels should be subjected to other similar 

 requirements or conditions or exactions, which, however beneficial and 

 proper in themselves, are not necessarily involved in the taking, drying, 

 and curing of fish. Questions I and III are, therefore, distinct, and while 

 they both involve the right of the local sovereign to regulate American 

 fishing vessels within Newfoundland waters, they are yet so distinct as 

 to justify separate treatment. 



If the right of the United States to fish within Newfoundland waters 

 be a servitude, and if one of the consequences of a servitude be exemption 

 from restriction in the exercise of the right granted, imless the right to 

 regulate be expressly reserved, it would follow that the right to fish being 

 granted specifically should not be subjected to rules or regulations which 

 clog its exercise without the consent of the grantee. The United States 

 in its printed argument took this view, but also argued the question 

 elaborately upon general principles.' The Tribunal was evidently 

 impressed by the general contention of the United States, because the 

 award is favorable to the American position. 



"The requirement," it says, "that an American fishing vessel should 

 report, if proper conveniences for doing so are at hand, is not imrea- 

 sonable, for the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion. There should 

 be no such requirement, however, unless there be reasonably con- 

 venient opportunity afforded to report in person or by telegraph, 

 either at a custom-house or to a customs official. 



"But the exercise of the fishing liberty by the inhabitants of the 

 United States should not be subjected to the purely commercial formali- 



' U. S. Argument, pp. 99-100, 101-112. 



