ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 269 



"But they cannot agree to renew the privilege, granted in the treaty 

 of 1783, of allowing the Americans to land and dry their fish on the unsettled 

 shores belonging to his Britannic Majesty," etc. 



As to everything without the maritime jurisdiction of the terri- 

 torial possessions of Great Britain there was no controversy, there 

 was agreement. As to the area of water within the maritime 

 jurisdiction, within the Hmits of British sovereignty, there was 

 controversy, and to that controversy this statement related. 



The President: As to the waters without, there was no con- 

 troversy; whereas, as to the waters within, there was controversy? 



Senator Root: Precisely. 



The President: How am I to understand that? I should 

 think that if, concerning the waters within, there was controversy, 

 this controversy would extend each way, and would, therefore, also 

 extend to the waters without, because what is not within is without 

 and what is not without is within. 



Senator Root: You will see-that they would be quite different 

 controversies. The controversies to which I refer was a controversy 

 as to whether, within those limits, whatever they were, we had the 

 right to fish or not. We said that within them we had the right to 

 fish because we had it before, that it was granted in 1783 and still 

 continued, notwithstanding the war. Great Britain said: Within 

 those limits you have no right to fish; you have the right outside 

 of them, but within them you have not, because your treaty grant 

 of 1783 is ended by the war. If there were a controversy about 

 where the limits were that would be quite a different controversy, 

 dependent upon facts and different rules of law. All I am addressing 

 myself to now is the proposition that the words of the renunciation 

 clause must be construed as applying solely to the matter which was 

 in controversy then, and that that controversy was solely about the 

 right to be exercised or not exercised within the territorial limits, 

 whatever those limits were, and I am about to proceed to the 

 further proposition that it follows that if we can ascertain what 

 those limits were, the limits of sovereignty, of jurisdiction, the mari- 

 time limits, the territorial limits, whatever those varying expressions 

 may be, we have an infallible guide to ascertain the meaning of the 



