356 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



would have presented the material bearing upon it, and would have 

 argued it; but we did not. 



The President: Is not Question 2 framed in quite a general 

 way, so that we are asked whether the inhabitants of the United 

 States have a right to employ as members of the fishing crews of 

 their vessels every kind of persons not inhabitants of the United 

 States ? 



Senator Root: I think not. I think it is the right to employ 

 any persons. 



The PREsroENT: It is persons not inhabitants of the United 

 States. Is not that to be understood as every kind of persons? 

 There is no distinction between the different categories of non- 

 inhabitants. 



Senator Root: I think the limitation comes from two things: 

 the fact that the question relates to the competency of the employer 

 solely, and to the existence or non-existence of the status of inhab- 

 itancy. That is all the question relates to, and it excludes other 

 causes which might prevent the contemplated employee from 

 accepting emplojnnent and prevent the making of a contract. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: It would not, I suppose, be assumed 

 that if a foreigner — without mentioning any particular nationality 

 — were prohibited from entering the country, such foreigner could 

 be employed by an inhabitant of the United States in connection 

 with this industry ? 



Senator Root: Well, there is another question which is not 

 heard. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick : Is it not impliedly here ? He would 

 not be an inhabitant of the United States ? 



Senator Root: No; but it would not be his non-inhabitancy 

 of the United States, which is all that this question involves, that 

 would prevent his being taken in. It would be the existence of a 

 law that excluded that particular class of aliens. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be by reason of some 

 personal disqualification ? 



