civ INTRODUCTION 



neither unreasonable nor inappropriate "that American fishing vessels 

 should report, if proper conveniences and an opportunity for doing so are 

 provided. . . . Such a report, while serving the purposes of a notification 

 of the presence of a fishing-vessel in the treaty waters for the purpose of 

 exercising the treaty liberty, while it gives an opportunity for a proper 

 surveillance of such vessel by revenue oflScers, may also serve to afiford 

 to such fishing vessel protection from interference in the exercise of the 

 fishing liberty."' 



This requirement might be beneficial both to American fishermen 

 and the local authorities, but it should not be insisted upon if it would 

 interfere with the legitimate exercise of American fishing rights. There- 

 fore the Tribunal stated that the requirement should not exist "unless 

 reasonably convenient' opportunity therefor be afforded in person or 

 by telegraph, at a custom-house or to a customs official."' 



The distinction between a mere report upon entering the fishing 

 waters and formal clearance at a custom house involving delay and fric- 

 tion was observed, and it is fair to presume that the finding of the Tribu- 

 nal on this point sufficiently protects American fishermen in the exercise 

 of their liberty, while informing the local authorities of the presence of 

 American fishermen and enabling the authorities to prevent the abuse of 

 the treaty right. 



The question at issue, so happily decided by the Tribunal, was the 

 subject of much correspondence and no little friction between the two 

 countries. In Mr. Root's letter to Sir Mortimer Durand, dated October 

 19, 1905,' the distinction between fishing vessels as such and trading 

 vessels was carefully drawn, and from the difference thus noted Mr. 

 Root insisted that the treatment to be accorded to each should be dif- 

 ferent; that is to say, that American fishing vessels in the exercise of the 

 treaty liberty should not be subject to the formalities of reporting, entry 

 and clearing, which might properly be required from vessels engaged in 

 ordinary trade. The memorandxmi submitted by Sir Edward Grey, 

 dated February 2, 1906, takes issue with Mr. Root's classification and 

 insists that "the only ground on which the application of any provisions 

 of the Colonial Law to American vessels engaged in the fishery can be 

 objected to is that it unreasonably interferes with the exercise of the 

 American right of fishery." * 



Sir Edward then argues that the local regulations were both reason- 

 able and beneficial; that the payment of light dues "involves no 



^Appendix, p. $06; Oral Argument, p. 1450. 



'Appendix, p. 507; Oral Argument, p. 1450. 



'Appendix, p. 442; Appendix, U. S. Case, p. 966; Appendix,, British Case, p. 491. 



* Appendix, pp. 446, 449; Appendix, British Case, p. 494; Appendix, U. S. Case, p. 971. 



