ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 113 



or, to put it in the other form, in having Great Britain exercise her 

 common right when she chooses, where she chooses, and as she 

 chooses, and having the United States exercise her equal common 

 right, not where and when and as she chooses, but where and when 

 and as Great Britain chooses. That is repugnant to the idea of 

 equal common rights held by equal, independent states. 



It is to be remembered that there are no limitations imposed 

 upon the subjects of Great Britain by any superior power. The 

 right of Great Britain is as ample and full to-day, after all these 

 statutes, and notwithstanding these statutes, as it was the day 

 after this treaty was made, when there were no regulations, no 

 statutes whatever, affecting the fishing upon this treaty coast. 

 The people of Great Britain, called subjects, who may exercise 

 Great Britain's right, are not different from the law-making power 

 of Great Britain. The laws are made by the Commons of England, 

 the ParUament. They are stated, in theoretical form, as though 

 made by the King, the traditional form coming down from great 

 antiquity when kings were supposed to hold by divine right the 

 power to impose laws upon the people. But that is no longer the 

 fact, and it was not when this treaty was made. If there be a 

 statute passed by Parhament, or by any agency authorized by Par- 

 liament, such as a Colonial Legislature or a Fish Commission, to 

 the effect that herring shall not be taken between October and April 

 in a particular place, that does not affect the right of the people of 

 Great Britain in any degree whatever. It is merely that they, of 

 their own will, impose upon each individual member of that organ- 

 ized society this Hmitation upon the exercise of the right. They 

 may repeal it to-morrow. There is still the right. The people of 

 Great Britain may determine to exercise their right or not to 

 exercise it — to exercise it in one way or another. It does 

 not affect their right, and it does not affect our right. We may 

 determine that we will not exercise our right; the United States 

 may forbid its citizens to take fish on the coast of Newfoundland 

 in October or May, or to take fish on Sunday or on Monday; 

 that is voluntary; it has no effect and can have no effect upon 

 the national right. The right persists, and the voluntary absten- 

 tion, the self-denying ordinance, has no effect whatever upon the 

 right of Great Britain and its subjects to take fish wherever they 



