228 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



Great Britain could not order, regulate, control, limit, or restrict 

 the right that had passed to us because it was not hers. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: The property had passed from her? 



Senator Root: It had passed. She had no more right to do 

 that than one would have the right to continue ordering any piece 

 of property that he had conveyed away. On the other hand, if 

 this is to be regarded as not creating a real right, but as creating 

 an obligation, Great Britain is prevented from exercising control, 

 limitation, or restriction over the right which passed by her obliga- 

 tion, and therefore the obHgation is such that it excludes her from 

 doing that thing. We are all agreed that the contract, whether 

 creating a real or an obligatory right, did limit British sovereignty. 

 Great Britain, by her Attorney-General, quotes the words of Lord 

 Salisbury, in which he says that: 



"British sovereignty, as regards those waters, is Umited in its scope by 

 the engagements of the Treaty of Washington, which cannot be modified 

 or affected by any municipal legislation." 



And the Attorney-General says: 

 "That is the position we take to-day." 



He further says: 



"I cannot anticipate that with regard to these principles any difference 

 wiU be found to- exist between the views of the two governments." 



The Attorney- General says further in his argument that: 



"That right of exclusion is a sovereign right, and the right is limited, 

 in fact quod particular persons it is abandoned; I limit my sovereignty to 

 the extent of sayijig I wiU not exclude you. 



"Judge Gray: Then it becomes, in that view of it, confining yourself 

 to what you have just said, a question of the extent of the limitation upon 

 sovereign power? 



"Sir William Robson: Yes. Of course every contract is a limitation, 

 as I have so frequently said." 



He says further: 



"They" — 



the United States — 



