138 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



right was exclusive. The British were refusing to assent to that, 

 but what Great Britain did do was to. say:. 



"The King, having entirely agreed with His Most Christian Majesty 

 upon the articles of the definitive treaty, wiU seek every means which shall 

 not only insure the execution thereof, with his accustomed good faith and 

 punctuality, but wiU besides give, on his part, all possible efficacy to the prin- 

 ciples which shaU prevent even the least foundation of dispute for the future.'' 



It was the execution of the existing treaty, and 

 "To this end," — 



that is, to the end of executing that treaty, 



"and in order that the fishermen of the two nations may not give cause for 

 daily quarrels, His Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures 

 for preventing his subjects from interrupting, in any manner, by their com- 

 petition, the fishery of the French, during the temporary exercise of it which 

 is granted to them upon the coasts of the Island of Newfoundland; and he 

 will, for this purpose, cause the fixed settlements, which shall be formed there, 

 to be removed." 



Judge Gray: That language, "by their competition," is not 

 in the treaty? 



Senator Root: No, sir, it is in that declaration; and, of course, 

 that language implies necessarily that there is competition, and that 

 there is a right of competition. There is no surrender of the right. 

 There is an agreement to do, for the purpose of executing the treaty, 

 precisely what Great Britain, in fact, did by the Act and Order-in- 

 Council of 1819 for the execution of the treaty of 1818, expressly 

 ordering her people in Newfoundland not to interrupt the exercise 

 of the treaty right by Americans. There is there on the part of 

 France no right whatever except the right granted in the same 

 words as the grant to the United States of 1783 and 1818, with a 

 promise on the part of the King of Great Britain to make that 

 right effective by prohibiting his subjects from interrupting the 

 exercise by their competition. 



They were quite well understood to be the same rights. I find, 

 on p. 229 of the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, 

 that the Governor of Newfoundland, writing to Sir John Pakington, 

 says, in the fourth paragraph: 



