328 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



It is a question of the employer's right, and it points to inhabitancy 

 or non-inhabitancy of the employe as the sole test of the employer's 

 right to make the contract of employment, nothing else. Have 

 I, an inhabitant of the United States, purposing to exercise the 

 treaty right, the right to make a contract of employment with a 

 person who is not an inhabitant of the United States ? That is 

 the question. 



Upon the other side, a multitude of quite different questions 

 might arise, regarding the right of this, that, or the other, or any 

 number of persons to accept emplo3anent. Those questions must 

 be resolved not by treaty between Great Britain and the United 

 States, but by those laws which govern the persons who are 

 contemplating acceptance of the employment. If a Frenchman is 

 offered employment by an inhabitant of the United States for the 

 purpose of this industry, he must regulate his conduct by the laws 

 of his country. If a British subject is offered employment, he must 

 regulate his conduct by the laws of his country, and so through 

 the whole range of non-inhabitants. The two questions are quite 

 distinct. The question of what right we, of the United States, 

 have under this treaty to employ non-inhabitants, and the infinite 

 number of possible questions which there may be as to the right 

 of other people of the earth under their laws to accept such an 

 emplo)mient. 



There is a rather leading case in the United States, which Mr. 

 Justice Gray will recall, the Terre Haute Railroad case, which 

 illustrates this. Two railroad companies had made a contract of 

 lease. The question as to the validity of the lease went up to the 

 Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court held 

 that one of those companies had, under its charter, corporate 

 power to make such a contract. It held, however, that the other 

 of the companies had not under its charter the corporate right 

 to make such a contract, and declared it invalid. There were two 

 quite separate and distinct questions, which illustrate this question 

 here — the two entirely separate, and distinct classes of question 

 which may arise regarding the making of a contract of employment 

 by an inhabitant of the United States with a non-inhabitant in 

 respect of taking part in this fishing industry. This question 

 relates solely to the right under the treaty of the inhabitants of 



