ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 229 



''want something more than mere restriction of sovereignty. They want 

 to have it estabUshed that when a United States inhabitant comes in, not 

 merely is the sovereign right of Great Britain restricted to the extent that 

 it cannot put him out, but they say it cannot govern him when he is there 

 in the exercise of his right.'' 



So, we are all agreed and it is to be taken as a law of this case 

 that this contract, whether it be a real right, in our view, or whether 

 it be obligatory, in the view of Great Britain, does restrict the 

 sovereignty of Great Britain. 



Now, there is a restriction of sovereignty, and from that restric- 

 tion follows a binding obligation which limits the power of Great 

 Britain to deal with the right which she has contracted away. 



There is a second difference — this one as to result. If this be 

 a real right, as we think it is, the United States would have a right 

 of control over the conduct of its citizens in the exercise of the real 

 right in this territory, and laws made to govern the time and 

 manner in which they exercise that right would be laws which, for 

 their vahdity, reqtiired the assent of the United States. They 

 would be invaUd, as affecting its citizens, but for the assent of the 

 United States. The law-making power of Great Britain would not 

 be "competent," to use Lord Sahsbury's language, to make what 

 would be a law binding upon the citizens of the United States with- 

 out the assent of the United States, as an element in the law making. 



On the other hand, if the treaty creates an obligatory limit 

 upon Great Britain, if the Kmitation of her sovereignty is a hmita- 

 tion created by perpetual obligation, and if the exercise of the sov- 

 ereign power of Great Britain in that territory makes a law which 

 oversteps the limit of her obligation, which she was bound in the 

 contract not to make, that is a wrongful exercise of her sovereignty, 

 from which this Tribunal is bound, if it can see it, to restrain her, 

 because this Tribunal is to enforce the obligation wherever the 

 obligation is. I hope I make the distinction clear. 



The President: Very clear. 



Senator Root: The practical result would be that if you say 

 this is an obligation which prevents Great Britain from rightfully 

 making certain laws, then, while Great Britain would have the 

 sovereign power to make the laws, she would be precluded by 



