ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 565 



ISTow after some further negociatioiis which I have looked through 

 and wliich are not material for my purjiose a further document was sent 

 from the American Charge d'Affaires to the Buenos-Ayres Minister on 

 the 10th July 1832 and on page 188 there is this discussion about sov- 

 ereignty. 



We were told at one stage of this Argument the whole question in dis- 

 pute was as to whether the Argentine Kopublic had the right of sover- 

 eignty. At the bottom of page 180 that question is put on one side 

 showing it was not at the root of discussion. 



The following is the passage. 



But asain if the rights of Spain to these Islands were uudonbted, and if, again, it 

 be admitted hypotlietically that the ancient vice-royalty of the Kio de la Plata, by 

 virtue of the Revolution of the 25th of May, 1810, has succeeded in full sovereignty 

 to those rights would that admission sustain the claim wliich the province of Buenos- 

 Ayres, or in other words, the Argentine Republic, sets up to sovereignty and juris- 

 diction. 



Then again in page 189. 



But again if it be admitted hypothetically that the Argentine Republic did suc- 

 ceed to the entire rights of Spain over tliese regions and that when she succeeded 

 Spain was possessed of sovereign rights, the (luestiou is certainly worth examination 

 whether the right to exclude American vessels and American citizens from the fish- 

 eries there is incident to such a succession of sovereignty. The ocean lishery is a 

 natural right, which all nations may enjoy in common. 



This would not be necessary if they were discussing the quesition 

 simply of going on the land. 



The ocean fishery is a natural right, which all Nations may enjoy in common. 



Every interference with it by a foreign Power is a natural wrong. When it is 

 carried on within the marine league of f he coast which has been designated as the 

 extent of natural jurisdiction reason seems to dictate a restriction, if under pretext 

 of carrying on the fishery, an evasion of tlie revenue laws of the country may rea- 

 sonably be apprehended, or any other serious injury to the sovereign of the coast, 

 he has a right to prohibit it; but as such prohibition derogates from a natural right, 

 the evil to be api)rehended ought to ho a real, not an imaginary one. No such evil 

 can be apprehended on a desert and uninhabited coast; therefore such coasts form 

 no exception to the common right of fishing in the seas adjoining them. All the rea- 

 soning on this subject applies to the large bays of the ocean, the entrance to Avhich 

 cannot be defended; and this is the doctrine of Vattel, chiipter 23 section 291 wlio 

 expressly cites the Straits of Magellan as an instance fur the application of the rule. 



I point out in passing Mr. President that you will observe from the 

 point of view of the enunciation of the law if it be right — from the 

 point of view of authority the question of going into the territorial 

 waters becomes immaterial because, as was pointed out, they were only 

 justifying going within the marine league, that is to say going within 

 the distance of territorial waters for certain purposes : their real justiti- 

 catiou was fishing in the high seas. Now if you will turnover to page 

 190 I shall be able to conclude what I have to say in this matter. 



The treaty concluded between Great Britain and Spain, in 1790 already alluded to, 

 is to be viewed, in reference to this subject; because both nations by restricting them- 

 selves from forming settlements evidently intended that the fishery should be left 

 open both in the waters and on the shores of these islands, and perfectly free so that 

 no individual claim for damage, for the use of the shores, should ever' arise. That 

 case, however, could scarcely occur, for wliales are invariably taken at sea, and 

 generally without the marine league, and seals on rocks and sandy beaches incapal)le 

 of cultivation. The stipulation in the treaty of 1790 is clearly founded on the right 

 to use the unsettled shores for the purpose of fishery, and to secure its continuance. 



I need scarcely point out to this Tribunal, because the perusal of the 

 papers is sufficient, that the whole of this argument as to the whales 

 would have been out of place and altogether unnecessary if it was true 

 as suggested the only question was the right of going on shore. 



