AEGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM BOBSON. 1609 



The United States have not yet admitted in the course of their 

 argument that regulation is a vital necessity. They may admit it 

 later on. They have not precluded themselves by anything they 

 have said from making that admission, but they have not admitted it 

 yet, and we are entitled therefore to be very careful and cautious in 

 regard to the way in which we deal with it at present. 



Well, I now come to another matter which I think is preliminary 

 perhaps to a strict examination of the words of the treaty itself, 

 which I hope to be able to deal with soon. 



I want to look for a moment at the nature of their antecedent right 

 upon which so much stress has been laid. I confess that I can 

 scarcely justify myself on the ground of relevancy or materiality, 

 because I do not see what the question of antecedent right has to do 

 with the construction of the alleged servitude, and it is upon the 

 servitude alone that the United States now formally base their case. 

 However, as I have said, I have to be followed by Mr. Root, and I 

 do not know how any part of the argument to which we have listened 

 may be used by that very eminent advocate, and therefore I must 

 not neglect it. 



What was the nature of their antecedent rights ? 



I can deal with it very briefly, and I think with very few ref- 

 erences. 



Each colony, before the revolution, had a right to regulate its own 

 fishery, without control from any other colony. Of course, some of 

 the colonies were what we call Crown colonies. Newfoundland did 

 not get its Legislature until 1834. They were regulated by the central 

 Government through a local governor, who stood in the place of 

 course of the Executive Assembly, or governing power of the other 

 colonies, to which charters had been given, and to which a larger 

 measure of local freedom was allowed; but each colony was quasi- 

 sovereign, I will say, of its own sea-board. 



There were two of the colonies, and think only two it does not 

 matter whether two or more in which there was undoubtedly by 

 statute a general right of fishing given to British subjects. For in- 

 stance, in the charter of Massachusetts. The Tribunal will have seen 

 it. There, in 1691, a new charter was given. The English Kings 

 had been very fond of giving away public rights by way of exclusive 

 monopolies, to their favourites, and they had undoubtedly, in some of 

 their colonial charters, not foreseeing the great future that lay before 

 these territories, acted in the spirit of their times somewhat inconsid- 

 erately, and had given monopolies which were very detrimental to the 

 subjects of the rest of the Empire. For instance, in New Plymouth 

 and New Hampshire we had a colony there under a charter empower- 

 ing it to sell its fisheries to a syndicate; but there were at least two 

 of the colonies where a more beneficial rule prevailed. In Massachu- 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 3 



