1622 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



JUDGE GRAY: What is the date of the report of the Attorney- 

 General ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : 1855. 



THE PRESIDENT: May I ask, were there not perhaps old French 

 regulations which had to do with the regulating of the fisheries in 

 Old Canada, including Cape Breton and New Brunswick? 



SIR W. ROBSON : I have no doubt that there would be. I have not 

 searched nor directed any search to be made, but I have no doubt 

 that before 1763 there would be French regulations when France 

 was the governing power in Canada. I have made no such search, 

 but if the President thinks it necessary, we will endeavour to discover. 



THE PRESIDENT: It is perhaps not material, but it would be inter- 

 esting. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock. 



[Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, the Tribunal took a recess until 2 o'clock 

 p.m.] 



981 AFTERNOON SESSION, JULY 25, 1910, 2 P. M. 



THE PRESIDENT : Will you kindly continue, Mr. Attorney-General ? 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SIR WILLIAM ROBSON : I was dealing 

 with the speech of Mr. Turner in relation to the case put forward by 

 Great Britain on the regulations that had passed. There are very 

 few observations which I need make further upon it. I think I 

 have indicated my case on that head sufficiently. Mr. Turner thought 

 that the only material statutes were those which related to the treaty 

 coasts. Well, by that means he eliminated from his argument a great 

 many regulations which I think I have shown to be very material, 

 and that really makes a sufficient reply to the answer that he gave to 

 our case. 



What do these regulations establish? What propositions may I 

 lay down as having been proved up to this point in my argument? 

 Of course, when I say that I have proved them, I mean I am dealing 

 here with the evidence put forward by the learned counsel who pre- 

 ceded me, and endeavouring to give it point and application in some 

 legal proposition. My contention is that on the case as far as it has 

 gone, I submit I have shown that this fishery was always a regulated 

 fishery. That is my first position. Next, that it was always enjoyed 

 as such, so far as it was enjoyed by the United States at all. The 

 citizens of the United States enjoyed it as a regulated fishery when 

 they were British subjects. They enjoyed it as a regulated fishery 

 when they were subjects of an independent State, from 1783 to 1812, 

 and they enjoyed it as a regulated fishery in the later period down 

 to the present time. 



So that if these propositions are accepted by the Tribunal, the 

 whole case on antecedent right is not merely gone, but, if it remains, 

 it remains as an argument in my favour. It remains to show that, 



