4 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



liberty which by the said Article r the inhabitants of the United States have 

 therein in common with British subjects; 



" (b) Desirable on grounds of public order and morals; 



" (c) Equitable and fair as between local fishermen and the inhabitants 

 of the United States exercising the said treaty liberty, and not so framed as to 

 give unfairly an advantage to the former over the latter class. 



"It is contended on the part of the United States that the exercise of such 

 hberty is not subject to hmitations or restraints by Great Britain, Canada, or 

 Newfoundland in the form of municipal laws, ordinances, or regulations in 

 respect of (i) the hours, days, or seasons when the inhabitants of the United 

 States may take fish on the treaty coasts, or (2) the method, means, and 

 implements used by them in taking fish or in carrying on fishing opera- 

 tions on such coasts, or (3) any other limitations or restraints of s imil ar 

 character — 



"(a) Unless they are appropriate and necessary for the protection and 

 preservation of the common rights in such fisheries and the exercise thereof 

 and 



" (b) Unless they are reasonable in themselves and fair as between local 

 fishermen and fishermen coming from the United States, and not so framed as 

 to give an advantage to the former over the latter class; and 



"(c) Unless their appropriateness, necessity, reasonableness, and fairness 

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

 the United States concurs in their enforcement." 



The Tribunal will already have observed, of course, that instead, 

 of framing the question, the makers of the special agreement, the 

 compromis, have stated separately the contention of each party, 

 and have asked the Tribunal to say to what extent these conten- 

 tions are justified. It may fairly be inferred that neither party 

 to the agreement was willing to state the question in terms of 

 the other's choosing; and that, therefore, there are two separate 

 statements. An examina,tion of the statement of the contentions 

 indicates the reason. The two parties approached the subject of 

 the first question from different points of view. Great Britain 

 approached it from the standpoint of her sovereignty. The United 

 States approached it from the standpoint of her granted right. 

 Great Britain states the question as a question relating to the 

 exercise of her sovereign rights. The United States states the 

 question as relating to the inviolability of her granted right. And 

 the two approaching the subject thus from different points, there 

 comes a line between the two, and it rests with the Tribunal to 

 draw that line. 



