ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1639 



There is a very important historic event in the history of mari- 

 time dominion, that England admits as against an independent nation 

 that she has no right whatever to exercise jurisdiction in the high 

 seas, which meant, of course, off these banks here which are off the 

 Island of Newfoundland. 



Now, that was what Mr. Adams was strenuously contending for. 

 It was in reference to that right we had all the eloquent and justifi- 

 able language used by the American negotiators during that period. 

 Their language has been continuously applied to these rights which 

 are in question before this Tribunal. Why, these rights were a trifle. 

 There was nothing in them. They scarcely used them. They did not 

 trouble about them. These were a very, very small thing indeed as 

 compared with what America was really fighting for, what she won, 

 to the benefit of mankind, the right to have treated as a part of inter- 

 national law the privilege of fishing in the high sea off the coasts of 

 that continent. 



Great distinction was made between the " right " and the " liberty." 

 The word " liberty " was carefully selected. Mr. Adams himself 

 points out in a letter, which I daresay we all remember, the " common 

 right " which is not to be interfered with by any special jurisdiction, 

 and then he speaks of a " liberty " as referring to a special jurisdic- 

 tion. When we are dealing with rights on the high seas, there we do 

 acknowledge their rights ; we do not grant them. 



In 1783 it was agreed that the United States should continue to 

 enjoy unmolested its " right " on the banks. There was no grant of a 

 right to fish on the banks. 



But now, instead of a right, when we come to the inshore fisheries, 

 then we come to words which are words of grant, " that the inhabit- 

 ants of the United States shall have liberty " (those are words of 

 grant) "to take fish" within 3 miles. 



I say that the use of the word " liberty " shows that an exercise of 

 jurisdiction was intended, and not a transfer of jurisdiction. 



If it had been desired to transfer jurisdiction, nothing was easier 

 than to find appropriate words for that purpose. What would the 

 words be ? They would not have been a grant of a liberty to inhabit- 

 ants or persons. They would have been a grant of a share in the 

 fisheries to a Government. If England had wanted to make the 

 United States Government its partner, so as to confer on it the rights 

 of jurisdiction which it is seeking here to do, it was quite an easy 

 thing to do. Words appropriate for that purpose would have come 

 to the minds of every one of these negotiators of that treaty without 

 the least difficulty. They would have said that the United States shall 

 henceforth share with Great Britain the ownership and dominion of 

 that fishery, for that is the way the United States now want to read 

 the treaty. Their statesmen would have had no difficulty whatever in 



