ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 15 



to be made upon the sole determination of Great Britain or her 

 colony, without accoimtability to anyone whomsoever; granting 

 that there is somewhere a line beyond which it is not competent 

 for Great Britain to go, or beyond which she cannot rightfully go, 

 because to go beyond it would be an invasion of the right granted 

 to the United States in 1818; was the legal effect of the grant of 

 1818 to leave the determination as to where that Hne is to be drawn 

 to the uncontrolled judgment of the grantor, either upon the gran- 

 tor's consideration as to what would be a reasonable exercise of 

 its sovereignty over the British Empire, or upon the grantor's 

 consideration of what would be reasonable towards the grantee ? 



Or, was the legal effect of the grant to establish a right which 

 by its own terms drew the line beyond which the grantor could not 

 rightfully go with statutes modifying or restricting the right, or the 

 exercise of the right, without consulting the grantee whose rights 

 were to be affected ? 



I have said, in stating this question, that it was whether the 

 line was to be drawn upon the uncontrolled judgment of the grantor, 

 either upon what would be a proper exercise of the grantor's sov- 

 ereignty over the British Empire, or upon what would be reasonable 

 towards the grantee, as coming imder both heads, both branches, 

 in both aspects, imder the category of uncontrolled judgment. 



It seems that no argument is necessary to sustain that. 



I must, however, revert to the statement of the British conten- 

 tion, which appears to impose upon Great Britain in express terms 

 the limitation of reasonableness. 



That certainly does impose a limitation. And the Hmitation 

 is the hmitation of what is reasonable. It is, what is reasonable, 

 what is appropriate or necessary for the protection and preservation 

 of the fishery, what is desirable on grounds of pubhc order and 

 morals, what is equitable and fair as between local fishermen and 

 the inhabitants of the United States, and so on. And so Sir Robert 

 Finlay, in his most comprehensive and able argument, assumed 

 it to be, at one point in the argument; for he says "it never has for 

 one moment been contended by Great Britain that regulations of 

 the kind indicated there giving a preference to British fishermen as 

 against fishermen of the United States would be defensible. The 

 liberty given by the treaty carmot be taken away by regulation, 



