ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 115 



Great Britain, or is it rather that the inhabitants of the United 

 States may take fish from British waters in common with the 

 subjects of Great Britain ? 



Senator Root: It is a right in common of both states, because 

 it is a right held in common for the inhabitants or citizens of both. 

 They use the general expression that they shall have the Uberty in 

 common. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: I thought you said that the property 

 in. the fish, in so far as there can be property in it, and in so far as it 

 is in the territorial jurisdiction of England, would be vested in 

 British subjects, subject to your right. 



Senator Root : After the fish had been taken. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: But until such time as the fish are 

 taken, who has jurisdiction over the fish ? 



Senator Root: Great Britain has jurisdiction over the water 

 and over the vessels and over the land. I do not know that they 

 have any jurisdiction over the fish. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: And over the taking of the fish? 



Senator Root: Yes, it has over the person who takes the 

 fish. 



The President: Is there anything in the treaty which says 

 that the right of the United States and the right of Great Britain is 

 a right common to both states, so that the right of one state is equal 

 to the right of the other state according to the subject-matter ? 



Senator Root: I think it follows necessarily from the fact that 

 the right which they have is expressed to be a common right. Great 

 Britain, under that clause of the treaty, has the right to have her 

 subjects exercise the Hberty, and the United States acquires the 

 right to have her subjects exercise the Hberty, and that hberty is a 

 liberty that they are to have forever in common. 



The President: The Court will adjourn until a quarter-past 

 two.i 



'Thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock, the Tribunal took a recess until 2.15 p.m. 



