no FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



prohibit them from entering that territory and fishing. She could 

 no longer say to one, You may go, and to another. You may not. 

 She could no longer dispose of the entire opportimity for fishing, 

 as she had been able to do before. 



Now, these are limitations upon the sovereign powers of Great 

 Britain, and, while not extensive or alarming or a matter of practi- 

 cal disturbance of British sovereignty, the United States, in condi- 

 tioning her own inhabitants, saying. You may be admitted, and 

 you not, those who comply with the conditions may be admitted, 

 and others not, were entitled to exercise the same right of sovereignty 

 which Great Britain had theretofore been able to exercise, and had 

 exercised. So, sovereignty was limited. 



Now, there cannot be an impHed reservation in the grant of the 

 very thing that the grant excludes; that is to say, that when the 

 grant limited British sovereignty it excluded British sovereignty 

 from the field of operation commensurate with the right granted 

 according to its terms. It is not an exact use of words to call it an 

 impKed reservation. There cannot be any reservation implied of 

 a right which the essential quality of the grant is to exclude. There 

 is a limit to the grant, and beyond that limit sovereignty remains 

 intact, unimpaired, and you must go to the grant to find what the 

 hmit is. If you find a Hmit in the grant there can be no implied 

 reservation within it of any sovereign right, for to the extent of its 

 limits the grant must limit the sovereignty, or the sovereignty 

 must limit the grant. They cannot both Hmit each other. One 

 must be superior and the other inferior. The grant, to the extent 

 of the terms of the grant, is superior because it Umits the sover- 

 eignty, and when you have gone to the grant and found how far 

 the terms of the grant go and the extent to which sovereignty is 

 excluded, to that extent there can be no imphed reservation of 

 sovereignty whatever. 



The President : If it can be said on one side that there can be 

 no impHed reservation of sovereignty, can it not be said on the 

 other side that there can be no implied abdication of sovereignty ? 

 The consequence would be that one must stick to the words of the 

 treaty, and consider that it confers only that right which is expressed 

 by ipsissimis verbis of the treaty. 



