ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 221 



for those four purposes on what we call the non-treaty coast, all 

 those laws were binding upon the Americans who went in there, of 

 course. 



Now, to take a circular issued with express reference to one 

 thing, hmited in express terms to one thing, take the language of 

 it and carry it over and apply it to something else, cannot add 

 much strength to a case. 



The President: And American fishermen fishing in these 

 waters without violating any of these regulations for the preserva- 

 tion of the fisheries would be punishable for the act of fishing itself, 

 without having violated any of the acts concerning the preservation 

 of the fisheries ? Woiild the boat of an American fisherman have 

 been forfeited if he had fished in non-treaty waters, without having 

 violated any one of these regulations ? 



Senator Root: He could not fish in non- treaty waters without 

 violating. 



The President: Yes, but if he did? 



Senator Root: Fishing would be a violation. 



The President: Fishing would be a violation, yes. Without 

 violation of regulations and with violation would be slightly dif- 

 ferent, I think, in that case. The principal ofEense would be the 

 fishing. 



Senator Root: Yes, but that of itself would be a violation. 



The President: That of itself would have been a violation. 

 Therefore it would not have been necessary to have a penalty 

 attached to fishing, under certain drcimastances, because the fish- 

 ing itself would have been pxmishable. 



Senator Root: Certainly, fishing itself would be pimishable. 

 There were provisions relating to boats "preparing to fish" as 

 leading so directly to the act itself as to amount to a substantive 

 offense in itself. We may readily conceive quite appropriate regu- 

 lations to prevent the privilege of shelter, repair, wood, and water, 

 from being abused by fishing; regulations qmte consistent with 

 those, but necessary to prevent the abuse, and designed for that 



