354 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



tions with Canada, and unless some disputed question of the basis 

 of right comes in I should think there would be no difl&culty. 



Sir Charles Fitzpateick: You see Newfoundland has a pretty- 

 extended coast line to look after. 



Senator Root: Undoubtedly, and I do not blame them for 

 wanting to be pretty careful. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: Do you think there is any very 

 serious objection to applying the same Hberal spirit that you have 

 manifested in connection with Questions 3 and 4 to No. 2? Is there 

 anything to be gained by leaving this question of the emplo3Tnent 

 of Newfoundland fishermen to imcertainty? 



Senator Root: Sir Charles, my difl&culty about that is that 

 when you come to pass on the question of the effect of these statutes, 

 you have to consider them in reference not to the question in No. 2 

 that may be a necessary preliminary to the consideration of them; 

 but you have to consider them specifically in reference to the ques- 

 tion in No. I. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: I am presupposing that is out of 

 the way. 



Senator Root: We have not presented that aspect of these 

 statutes. We have not presented these statutes at all. We have 

 not presented the relation between these statutes and the principles 

 that will be involved in your award imdoubtedly imder Question 

 No. I. We have not argued them, or put them in our Case, or our 

 Counter-Case, or our written Argument. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: It is exactly my embarrassment 

 that you have submitted all the statutes except the statute of 1906, 

 so that that question might arise hereafter. That is where the 

 difl&culty is. 



Senator Root: That was omitted from the enumeration of the 

 statutes because its effect has been suspended. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: When it comes into force the ques- 

 tion arises: What advantage is there to be derived from keeping 

 open that difl&culty when we want to settle all the difficulties ? 



