74 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



Senator Root: They were different in respect of the necessity 

 in regard to which I am speaking now. In the maldng of temporary 

 and reciprocal fishing arrangements there is not the imperative 

 necessity for exemption from regulation that there is regarding a 

 right of this kind, and that is one of the reasons why many compe- 

 tent writers of authority do not apply the doctrine of ser\dtudes to 

 temporary treaties. 



The President: So your conclusion would be that the Ameri- 

 can fishermen, under the treaties of 1854 and 1871, were not 

 exempted ? 



Senator Root: No; I beg pardon. I do not think that. I 

 think they stood upon the same ground. I think they were ex- 

 empted from the power of legislation, but the urgent necessity for 

 exemption which appUes here did not apply to those treaties. I 

 shall take up the nature of the right hereafter, and of course the 

 right might have existed, although it might not have been necessary 

 for it to exist. If one were arguing the question whether the exemp- 

 tion existed under those treaties, one would not have the ground 

 of argument which I have just been urging regarding the treaty of 

 1818, that is all. 



The PREsmENT: There would be another basis? 



Senator Root: There would be another basis which applies 

 both to the treaty of 18 18 and to those, but this basis of argument 

 would be wanting. 



The Presddent: Yes. 



Senator Root : It might well be that one could find the exemp- 

 tion here and not find it there, although I think that it exists in 

 both cases. 



The President: In the American Argument it is in some place 

 expressed that the treaty of 187 1, in its grant of fishing rights, is 

 in effect the same as the treaty of 1818. 



Senator Root: Yes. I suppose that is designed to refer to 

 the terms of the grant. 



The President: Yes. It refers to the terms of the grant. 



