ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSOtf. 1617 



why I think the Tribunal have heard so much about regulations and 

 know so much about them. That is the reason why I ventured, at 

 the risk of repetition, to begin my argument by reinforcing the ne- 

 cessity for regulation, a necessity which has an important bearing 

 upon every feature of the case. I use it now to show that you could 

 not get on without regulation. With the angry competition of these 

 fishermen for the best place the maintenance of order would be im- 

 possible without strict regulations. With the different kinds of im- 

 plements, by way of traps, and pounds, and purse seines that could be 

 used there, it was essential for the preservation of the fishery that there 

 should be regulations, and there must have been regulations. I turn 

 with interest to find what is the attitude then of Mr. Turner about 

 that. What does he suppose happened after the treaty of 1783 was 

 passed? Does he suppose that the colonies, having the possession of 

 these inshore fisheries, stopped the regulations? Does he suppose 

 that after the treaty was passed the colonies said: Now, we must 

 regulate no more? He cannot suppose such a thing. There must 

 have been regulations old ones that were continued, new ones that 

 were imposed in order to meet any new difficulties. You cannot 

 expect the new ones to be numerous, because the fisheries were 

 978 old and the laws which had been passed in regard to them 

 had not been found ineffective, but they were now in operation 

 in regard to all the fisheries that the United States took by that 

 treaty. 



Again, Mr. Turner said: I do not look at the regulations which 

 touch what I now call the non-treaty coast, because we are here con- 

 cerned only with the treaty coasts. But there was a fallacy in that. 

 In 1783 all the coasts were treaty coasts, so that the United States, 

 from that period till 1818, or till 1812, was enjoying the right of 

 fishing under that treaty, and in the exercise of that right it was 

 being subjected to local jurisdiction. So that the question of non- 

 treaty coasts has no application in 1783. At that time they were all 

 treaty coasts, and any regulation made with regard to any part of 

 the coast from 1783 to 1812, when war broke out, is notice to the 

 United States that the fishing right that they enjoy under the treaty 

 is a right subject to the local jurisdiction. 



The United States assert repeatedly that their liberty in 1818 is a 

 continuance of the liberty which they had enjoyed antecedently. 

 They say, in 1818 : We will not have what you are giving to us now 

 put under any conditions different from those under which we en- 

 joyed the old right. They thought they were maintaining a point 

 in their favour. They were certainly obliging me by assisting me in 

 my argument, because that is just what I am contending here. In 

 1818 they took the new liberty under the same conditions as those 

 under which they had enjoyed the right conferred upon them in 



