AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL 493 



Art. XI. The present Agreement shall be deemed to be binding only when con- 

 firmed by the two Governments by an exchange of notes. 



In witness whereof this Agreement has been signed and sealed by His Britannic 

 Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, the Right Honourable James Bryce, O. M., 

 on behalf of Great Britain, and by the Secretary of State of the United States, EuHt; 

 Root, on behalf of the United States. 



Done at Washington on the 27 th day of January, one thousand nine hundred and 

 nine. 



James Bryce [seal.] 

 Elihu Root [seal.] 



And whereas, the parties to the said Agreement have by common accord, in accord- 

 ance with Article V, constituted as a Tribunal of Arbitration the following Members 

 of the Permanent Court at The Hague : Mr. H. Lammasch, Doctor of Law, Professor 

 of the University of Vienna, Aulic Councillor, Member of the Upper House of the 

 Austrian Parliament; His Excellency Jonkheer A. F. De Savornin Lohman, Doctor 

 of Law, Minister of State, Former Minister of the Interior, Member of the Second 

 Chamber of the Netherlands; the Honourable George Gray, Doctor of Laws, Judge 

 of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, former United States Senator; the 

 Right Honourable Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Member of the Privy Council, Doctor 

 of Laws, Chief Justice of Canada; the Honourable Luis Maria Drago, Doctor of 

 Law, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic, Member of the 

 Law Academy of Buenos-Aires; 



And whereas, the Agents of the Parties to the said Agreement have duly and in 

 accordance with the terms of the Agreement communicated to this Tribunal their 

 cases, counter-cases, printed arguments and other documents; 



And whereas, counsel for the Parties have fully presented to this Tribunal their 

 oral arguments in the sittings held between the first assembling of the Tribunal on 

 ist June, 1910, to the close of the hearings on 12th August, 1910; 



Now, therefore, this Tribunal having carefully considered the said Agreement, 

 cases, counter-cases, printed and oral arguments, and the documents presented by 

 either side, after due deliberation makes the following decisions and awards: 



Question I. To what extent are the following contentions or either of them 

 justified? 



It is contended on the part of Great Britain that the exercise of the liberty to take 

 fish referred to in the said Article, which the inhabitants of the United States have 

 forever in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, is subject, without the 

 consent of the United States, to reasonable regulation by Great Britain, Canada, or 

 Newfoundland in the form of municipal laws, ordinances, or rules, as, for example, 

 to regulations in respect of (i) the hours, days, or seasons when fish may be taken on 

 the treaty coasts; (2) the method, means, and implements to be used in the taking 

 of fish or in the carrying on of fishing operations on such coasts; (3) any other matters 

 of a similar character relating to fishing; such regulations being reasonable, as being, 

 for instance — 



(a) Appropriate or necessary for the protection and preservation of such fisheries 

 and the exercise of the rights of British subjects therein and of the liberty which by 

 the said Article I the inhabitants of the United States have therein in common with 

 British subjects; 



(b) Desirable on grounds of public order and morals; 



