ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 77 



there is an implied reservation of the powers of sovereignty and our 

 grant is subject to it, Americans must be subject to the same 

 restrictions by law as British subjects are; and that is what Great 

 Britain says. The power of Great Britain over our treaty must 

 be commensurate with her power of legislative control. If the 

 treaty grant is subject to the sovereign power, the sovereign power 

 cannot be subject to the treaty grant. One must be controlling 

 or the other. The proposition of Great Britain is that her sover- 

 eignty is controlling and, therefore, not the treaty grant. 



Every government, of course, considers itself under a certain 

 obligation to be reasonable, to be fair, to be just; but it is an im- 

 perfect obligation. It is to be reasonable, to be fair, to be just 

 according to its own conception of what is reasonable and fair and 

 just. It is a law unto itself. That is sovereignty. And the sub- 

 jection of the government to the law or reasonableness is a sub- 

 jection to its own will, controlled by its own idea; and if the grievous 

 situation of the traders of Newfoundland makes it reasonable that 

 limitations should be imposed or impairment visited upon any 

 fishing privilege or right upon the coast, that is competent to 

 government. The standard to be applied to us is the standard 

 to be applied to British subjects, we are told; we are subject to 

 regulation because they are subject to regulation, because our 

 right is subject to the sovereign right which regulates them; and 

 if our right is subject to the sovereign right of legislation, then there 

 is nothing unreasonable in imposing such limitations upon our 

 right as, in the exercise of their sovereign judgment, they see fit to 

 impose. It is not unreasonable for them so to limit and restrict 

 our right as to subserve the whole interests of the Colony of New- 

 foundland or the British Empire. If our right is subject to their 

 sovereignty, it is no impairment of our right for them to say: "No 

 herring shall be taken upon the west coast for six months, for six 

 years, for sixty years" or "no cod-fish shall be taken upon the 

 south coast." They can do what they did do in the treaty of 1857 

 with France, which did not take effect, because the Newfoundland 

 legislature never passed the necessary legislation to make it applica- 

 ble; a treaty concluded and ratified, and effective as between Great 

 Britain and France, but never becoming apphcable for lack of 

 legislation. There they did give France, in express terms, the 



