i8o FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



any occasion for negativing the inference that would be drawn 

 from the fact that they did put one restriction in. 



Then they proceed in dealing with the third branch of the treaty 

 right, that which relates to the entrance of the American fishermen 

 into bays or harbors on what we call the non-treaty coast, although 

 one of my friends on the other side has justly remarked it was 

 all treaty coast, for the purpose of shelter and repairing damage, 

 purchasing wood and obtaining water, to impose there an express 

 reservation of the power of restriction: 



"They shall be under such restriction as may be necessary to prevent 

 their taking, drying, or curing fish therein or in any other manner whatever 

 abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." 



That is an express reservation of the power of future restriction by 

 regulation limited to the specific purposes that are designated here. 



So these negotiators did not merely refrain from imposing upon 

 the grant of right to have the inhabitants of the United States 

 enter this territory, and exercise the liberty of taking fish, those 

 restrictions which they themselves put upon the ordinary rights of 

 trade and travel and residence in the treaty which they reproduced 

 in the fourth article of this convention of 1818 — they did not 

 merely refrain from attaching to this grant the reservation of the 

 right of municipal legislation which they attached to that grant, but 

 as to the two of the three branches of the rights they granted, they 

 dealt with the subject of restriction. As to one they included an 

 express restriction; as to the other they included an express reser- 

 vation of the power of future restriction, limited to a specific 

 purpose. 



Now, what must be the inference ? Why is it ? I put the ques- 

 tion with great earnestness to your Honors. Why is it that these 

 negotiators treated the two different kinds of rights, the kind of 

 right which was described in the treaty of 1815 that they reproduce 

 in Article 4, and the kind of right which was the subject of this 

 specific grant, so differently ? 



Let me answer first, narrowly, out of the mouths of the men who 

 were concerned in the transaction, and then I will answer broadly 

 according to my general view of the underlying basis;of-the different 

 treatment. 



