ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM ROBSON. 1637 



the three persons who conducted this correspondence with France, 

 and who there laid down every one of the propositions in relation 

 to this very coast for which I am now humbly contending. 



That brings me to the words of the treaty itself, and I feel almost 

 inclined to apologise for having detained the Tribunal so long over 

 what, after all, is not the treaty itself, but simply a matter bearing 

 upon and explaining the treaty. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Where did that controversy arise? In 

 what particular portion of the coast of Newfoundland were the 



American vessels when they were ordered away ? 

 990 SIR W. ROBSOX: In the bays. I think in the three bays: 

 St. George's Bay, the Bay of Islands, and Port-au-Port. That 

 becomes material in another question. Question No. 5. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : I beg your pardon. 



SIR W. ROBSON : American vessels were fishing in those three bays, 

 and the French ordered them out, so that it is worth remembering 

 this in relation to the later point, they claimed the right to fish in the 

 bays which now they are saying are open sea. They never said then 

 to France, you have no right to turn us out of these bays, because 

 these bays are open sea. We do not depend upon Great Britain for 

 our grant here. They might have said that. They did not. How- 

 ever, that is germane to a later question. 



I come now to the words of the treaty, and here, in my humble 

 submission (and I say it needs some justification for offering it) all 

 'this argument is really made superfluous by the plain English words 

 that are used in this treaty. 



I submit to the Tribunal that the framers of the Treaty used the 

 most appropriate words they could find in the language, expressly to 

 subject the inhabitants of the United States to the sovereign juris- 

 diction of Great Britain in relation to Newfoundland and this right. 

 The words they used were, first of all, in reference to the inhab- 

 itants: That they should have the liberty in common with British 

 subjects. Each word of the treaty is consistent with each other word 

 of the treaty, in order to express and enforce the construction for 

 which I am contending. 



First of all it is a " liberty." If they had wanted to convey a por- 

 tion of sovereignty, they could not find a word so inappropriate as 

 the word " liberty/' There was, as the Tribunal will remember, a 

 great dispute as to when they should use the word " right " and when 

 they should use the word " liberty." I am not going to trouble the 

 Tribunal with references to it, because you are all so familiar with 

 the way in which that dispute keeps turning up again and again in 

 the different letters, but, it is a dispute which has a very important 

 and useful bearing upon this argument. 



