ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 255 



at the precise time when the letters were written, but historically; 

 they show what it had been from the beginning; and without 

 detaining you to read these letters, I will hand them in, with your 

 permission. 



Now, I wish to say a word about the practical application of the 

 American view of the right conferred upon us by this treaty, and of 

 the way in which the line should be drawn. 



Our view is, I need hardly say, that the terms of the treaty 

 itself, which give to the inhabitants of the United States the Uberty 

 to take fish of every kind, and reserve no right on the part of 

 the sovereign, whose sovereignty is limited, to prohibit taking at 

 such time as the United States chooses, or in such manner as it 

 chooses, furnished the line which is to be drawn, with the entire 

 field of general sovereignty open and covered by Great Britain. We 

 say that in either view, either the view of a real right or the view 

 of a binding obHgation, when Great Britain comes to the subject- 

 matter of the right, she must stop; that furnishes the Une. When 

 she comes to the subject-matter of the right, she is prohibited by her 

 contract, by her grant to us (and it is a part of the limitation of her 

 sovereignty), that she must not say this right shall not cover the 

 taking of fish except at such time as she thinks desirable, or it shall 

 not cover the taking of fish except in such manner as she thinks 

 desirable. If she does think it is desirable to restrict and modify 

 the exercise of that right, because it is a right that she has given to 

 us, she must say to us it is desirable, and we must agree upon the 

 limitations upon our right. It is our view that this furnishes 

 practicable, convenient, equitable, and beneficent guide for the 

 conduct of this business hereafter by the two nations. That if 

 we cannot agree, then under Article 4 either party can appeal to the 

 Tribunal which is constituted under this new treaty, or under Article 

 4 either party can appeal to the method which I hope your Honors 

 may be able to prescribe to the satisfaction of both parties for 

 perhaps a simpler and less expensive proceeding. And, from this 

 point of view, I want to repeat what I said the other day, bearing 

 upon our view, that the best thing for all parties is to have a definite 

 line, the definite line that the treaty itself establishes, instead of 

 reading into the treaty this perfectly vague and indefinite idea that 

 Great Britain can go just as far as she thinks reasonable, just as 



