ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 97 



Senator Root: But so far as the method and time and manner 

 of exercising that liberty, and the conditions upon which they 

 shall exercise it are concerned, they are dependent upon their own 

 government. They take no right from Great Britain. They take 

 the right from their own government, which received from Great 

 Britain the power to give them that right. 



The President: In this respect, the exercise of this industry 

 would be different from the exercise of any other industry in British 

 territory? If American subjects exercise any other industry in 

 British territory, they are dependent upon the British laws con- 

 cerning this industry; and with respect to the fishing industry, 

 they are not dependent upon the British regulations concerning 

 this specific industry ? 



Senator Root: I will show, I think with great distinctness, the 

 reason of the difference, in a very short time. There is a clear 

 and distinct line to be drawn. I indicated yesterday one element 

 of difference. 



The President: The perpetual and unilateral character of the 

 grant was one difference? 



Senator Root: That was the difference upon which I based 

 my submission that for the preservation of this- kind of right it is 

 necessary to have freedom from control, while for the preservation 

 of the other kind of right it is not. That is one difference, and I 

 shall presently come to the further differences. 



It follows necessarily from what I have said regarding what the 

 right was that passed to the United States imder the contract, 

 that there was in it no element of a transaction between Juristic 

 persons. Upon that both parties here are fully agreed, and the 

 statements by counsel are quite unequivocal. I turn to one by the 

 Attorney-General, who says [p. 1020]: 



"No, we did not part with tiie right to fish; . . . We consented not to 

 exercise our sovereign right of exclusion against them for that purpose.'' 



That is the Attorney-General's description of what was done. 

 The very full and frank statements by the counsel for Great Britain 

 as to the limitation upon their sovereignty, which have character- 



