ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1605 



The first report was made in 1872 by the United States Commis- 

 sioner, Mr. Baird. I will just give the reference, British Counter- 

 Case Appendix, p. 181, in case the Tribunal wants it. But I can 

 state generally what they have already heard, as to the effect of that 

 report, which Sir Robert Finlay dealt with. The United States 

 Commissioner was appointed in order to enquire into the diminution 

 of the fisheries which had become serious, which had become a matter 

 of national concern. Apparently the fish had not been living up to 

 Professor Huxley's opinion of them, and they had been going down 

 at a very great rate. The Commissioner said that the decrease was 

 due to traps and pounds. 1 do not stop to enquire what they are; 

 they are things referred to in the Newfoundland statute, and the 

 other statute. And he says that the use of these things must be 

 regulated, and above all there must be a close-time. He 

 971 says that it is desirable that the several States of the United 

 States should pass these regulations. Apparently there is no 

 authority on the part of the United States Government to deal with 

 regulations for all the maritime States. I am glad that the Tribunal 

 has the great good fortune to have among its members one who can 

 speak with authority on any question affecting the United States 

 law, and therefore I speak with great diffidence. I have read the 

 United States constitution there may have been subsequent amend- 

 ments but I understand that the question of fishery regulation is 

 not among the subjects there given over to the central power. And 

 Mr. Baird, in 1872, conscious of that, says that he wishes the States 

 to make regulations ; but if they will not or can not be got to agree, 

 then he recommends that the central power should forbid the land- 

 ing of mackerel or other fish caught by any of the prohibited means, 

 or caught during the spawning season; showing how important he 

 thought it was that there should be this close-time, which is one of 

 our disputed regulations. It is a regulation which the United States 

 say touches the very matter of the time and manner of fishing, and 

 therefore they will not agree to it; therefore they will not acknowl- 

 edge our power with regard to it. Now Mr. Baird says that is what 

 you must have; he says regulation of all these traps, &c., and the 

 close-times, is not a merely expedient matter, but a vital matter. 



There is a still more striking report issued later by the Deputy 

 Minister of Fisheries for Canada who gives (the Tribunal will re- 

 member it was read) a most graphic account of the result of non- 

 regulation upon the United States fisheries. He sets out in a sched- 

 ule (I only mention this by way of reminder) to his report the 

 report by Professor Browne Goode, which, in the most emphatic, 

 and. I was almost going to add picturesque, terms, deals with all 

 these difficulties, and explains how they must be dealt with. He is 

 a United States man, although the report appears as an appendix 



