ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 369 



voyage, she must go to that port, and go directly to the port. She 

 cannot stop, she cannot hover, she must go to the port and she must 

 make entry, and she must subject herself to those regulations and 

 provisions of law which are appropriate to the supervision of trading 

 vessels. The real question is whether, when the vessel has dis- 

 charged its function as a trading vessel, and is completely through, 

 it can then abandon its trading function and take a cargo for the 

 return voyage by catching fish. 



That is what the practical question comes down to. There is 

 no question about the mingUng of the two at the same time. And 

 I repeat that it was a matter of considerable surprise that Great 

 Britain should have wished to include this question in the Kst that 

 was submitted to the Tribunal. It is explained by these letters 

 and telegrams passing between the government of Newfoimdland 

 and the government of Great Britain, to which. I have now referred, 

 but which, at the time, we did not know of. 



Judge Gray: It does not give the trading vessel, does it, Mr. 

 Root, the right to buy bait if there is a statute forbidding the sale 

 of bait to any foreign vessels, registered or fishing ? 



Senator Root: Certainly not. No such question is raised 

 here. I wish again to put in a guard against waiving or giving up 

 any possible consequences of your agreeing with the British theory 

 of our rights, as a result of your decision on Question i. It is 

 possible, if you go with the British view under Question i and say 

 that our exercise of the right is a matter so common with the exercise 

 of the right of the Newfoundlanders that we must be subject to the 

 same right of restriction and modification that they are subject to, 

 you must also say that we must have, as we insist, all the privileges 

 and opportimities that are connoted by the obligation. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: That does not arise here. 



Senator Root: I wish always, in what I say about the effect 

 of this question, to file a caveat against being understood as saying 

 or implying that that may not be a consequence of your award 

 under Question i. But this question does not in any degree what- 

 ever touch the question whether Newfoundland can be compelled 

 to trade with us, or whether Newfoimdland is not perfectly at 



