I20 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



are to be exercised subject to the laws and regulations of the coun- 

 try in which they are to be exercised ? Counsel for Great Britain 

 have placed great stress upon this, and Sir Robert Finlay put it as 

 being a matter of conunon imderstanding that such rights are sub- 

 ject to regulation. The Attorney-General went farther and said 

 [p. looi]: 



"The United States would nof suggest that the captain of the ship would 

 be entitled to say: Oh, my right to come here is territorial, you have not given 

 me a mere ordinary trading obligation, you have given me a right to enter 

 your gates, to stop on your soil, or in the water that covers yoiur soil, and 

 because it is territorial I am a specially privileged person. 



"Such a contention as that would never be dreamed of, nor wotild it 

 be dreamed of on the part of the commercial traveler who comes also under 

 treaty. He comes there to compete with our own tradesmen and manufac- 

 turers in the sale of goods. He has a right to enter the gates of our terri- 

 tory, a right to remain there, a right to claim the protection of our laws, 

 and he also would be entitled to say, You have put no restriction upon 

 my right, look at your treaty. There are hundreds of these treaties passing 

 continually under the observation of the lawyers who have to advise gov- 

 ernments in trading countries — himdreds of such treaties. We do not find 

 any restriction saying, for instance, that a trader is only to trade on six 

 days a week. The commercial traveler might say, I am not a Sabbatarian, 

 I do not want a day's rest, your population may want a day's rest, I do not, 

 and my treaty says I am to trade. Everybody knows that the commercial 

 traveler, putting up such a claim, would be derided. Nobody would suggest 

 for a moment that such an obligation as that fails to carry with it all the 

 laws which will attach to the exercise of local jurisdiction." 



That is a full statement of the view. My observation does not 

 agree with that of the Attorney-General regarding the interpretation 

 of treaties. To begin with, under the condition of international 

 law and practice as it was in 1818, the general, practically the 

 universal, rule, in treaties granting trade and travel rights, was to 

 include an express reservation of the right of municipal regulation 

 and control. 



If we turn to the treaties in our own record here — the Jay 

 Treaty (British Case Appendix, p. 20), the treaty between Great 

 Britain and the United States of 1794. It begins on p. 16. I read 

 from the last paragraph in Article 13, in which trading rights in 

 the East Indies are given. That paragraph is: 



