ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 305 



Arbitration AgTeeraent, in the event of a decision being given by the Arbitrators 

 against the claim of exclusive jurisdiction put forward on behalf of the United 

 States. 



There was Lord Salisbury a^-aiii repeatiug in liis instnictioiis to the 

 Commissioners that meauinf;- and that construction wliich he liad always 

 put and which we have always put upou that section. I do not find 

 that anywhere on the part of the United States that construction has 

 ever been questioned. On the contrary, I find it, as I understand, 

 ado]»ted by Mr. Wharton in the United States Ajipeudix Volume I, 

 page 358, near the foot of the page, where he says: 



In your note of February 29, you state that Her Majesty's Government has been 

 informed by tlie British Commissioners that so far as pelagic sealing is concerned 

 there is no danger of serious diminution of the fur-seal sjiecies as a consequence of 

 this year's hunting, and upon this ground Lord Salisbury places his refusal to renew 

 the modus of last year. His Lordship seems to assume a determination of the Arbi- 

 tration against the United States and in favor of Great Britain, and that it is already 

 only a question of so regulating a common right to take seals as to preserve the 

 species. 



Is not that a plain intimation by Mr. Wharton that he adopts pre- 

 cisely the same view? He says his lordship in taking that view seems 

 to assume a determination of the Arbitration against the United States 

 and in favor of Great Britain — that is, on the question of rights — and 

 that it is already only a question of so regulating a common right to 

 take seals as to preserve the species. 



Of course there could be no question of common right until the 

 exclusive rights had been decided against the United States and in 

 favor of Great Britain. We say that the view which we have always 

 taken is consistent not only with the words but with the avowed inten- 

 tion of the parties so far as we can gather it otherwise. " My learned 

 friend also points me to the conclusion of the Case of the United States, 

 at page 303, where they seem to take the same view, and perhai)s more 

 strongly, because it is in a more considered document than any other I 

 have referred to: 



Second. That should it be considered that the United States have not the full 

 property or property interest asserted by tliem, it be then declared and decreed to 

 be the international duty of Great Britain to concur with the United States in the 

 adoption and enforcement against the citizens of either nation of such regulations, 

 to be designed and prescribed by the high Tribunal, as will effectually prohibit and 

 prevent the capture anywhere upon the high seas of any seals belonging to the said 

 herd. 



Is not this again their own statement of that as the construction 

 which they at that time took to be the construction and meaning of 

 that clause, that if the decision was in favor of Great Britain and 

 against the United States, then they claimed regulations; but never so 

 far as we know, until their written argument, has there been a claim of 

 regulations in addition to the claim of right, either of property or of pro- 

 tection, which they set out in the fifth clause. 



Then we come a little nearer the question as to the construction of 

 the treaty itself Of course it is always to be remembered — and I am 

 sure 1 need not cite anything in the shape of authority for a mere state- 

 ment of law of that sort — that every document, treaty, agreement or 

 statute, is to be construed with reference to all the surrounding circum- 

 stances, which include the circumstances out of which the treaty arose, 

 and the subject-matter with which the treaty deals. Our books are full 

 of cases in which words absolutely comprehensive, absolutely includ- 

 ing everything, are nevertheless restricted to certain subject matter, 

 because they are found in such a context as to show plainly that that 

 was the only thing that could have been intended when the words were 

 B s, PT XIV 20 



