1634 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Exactly; and in the very next sen- 

 tence. 

 988 SIR W. ROBSON : Yes ; I am much obliged : 



"Another question which it is supposed will also be for her 

 consideration is, how far she will consider it just or proper that 

 France should be allowed to drive or order away vessels or the United 

 States from a coast which is clearly within the jurisdiction and sov- 

 ereignty of Great Britain." 



That sentence helps to attach my meaning to the words " under 

 her." I am rather disposed to agree with Mr. Justice Gray that if 

 the words are quite isolated from the other passages, and from the 

 immediate context, they are open to the observation that they might 

 have that more limited application. But when one comes to them as 

 part of a correspondence showing this language, then I think I am 

 justified in saying that it shows the general sense in which the framers 

 of the treaty were themselves construing it. It was a title derived 

 from Great Britain, not from antecedent ownership; and it was a 

 right which was held under Great Britain, because the representa- 

 tives of the United States were insisting upon it as being within her 

 jurisdiction; and because it was within her jurisdiction they claimed 

 from her compensation in case the title was not made good. 



I do not wish to lay too much stress on any word. It may be that 

 I am laying a stress on the word " under " there which it would not 

 of itself carry. I do not mean to do so. But when one looks at the 

 correspondence as a whole, can there be any doubt about it that these 

 gentlemen who framed the treaty of 1818 thought that the effect of 

 such a document was to leave sovereignty intact? 



THE PRESIDENT: Is not the question, Mr. Attorney-General, 

 whether the words "under her" signify only derivation of title, or 

 whether they imply also some sort of subordination ? 



SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. 



THE PRESIDENT: The meaning attributed to them by Mr. Justice 

 Gray is more of a derivation of title; and is there not in the next 

 following sentence, in the postscriptum of Mr. Rush, something 

 which could be interpreted in the sense of a derivation of title? 

 Because he speaks there of the "eviction" of the United States by 

 France. And this term " eviction " is used in cases of eviction from 

 property, in consequence of default of title of the previous owner. 

 Is not that something which tends to support the interpretation of 

 Mr. Justice Gray? 



SIR W. ROBSON : One recognises that the other construction is pos- 

 sible, but it struck me, and I think strikes me still, as involving 

 subordination. The other interpretation may be arguable, but I 

 think what it really means is: "We are asking compensation." 

 Why ? Because we are under you. You are our sovereign, to whom 



