AKGUMENT OF SIB. WILLIAM ROBSON. 1641 



therefore, in this particular case, the framers of the treaty, who 

 seem to have understood their law better than many framers of 

 treaties, adopted a form which is only appropriate where you are 

 dealing with individuals, subject to some sovereign or common law. 

 They did not adopt the form which would be essential to establish 

 the right of the United States, namely, a grant to the Government 

 itself. If they had intended to give the Government anything they 

 would have not merely made an agreement with the United States, 

 but they would have said : You are to have a share in the fisheries. 



Mr. Turner argued throughout as if the fact that the United States 

 had entered into the agreement made the United States Government 

 a beneficiary under the agreement. Not at all. The United States 

 entered into the agreement in order to secure a benefit for its indi- 

 vidual citizens, or a particular class of them. That is why. And, if 

 the United States Government had wanted a benefit for itself it 

 would not have only made itself a party to the treaty, which it did, 

 but it would have made itself the grantee under the treaty. It would 

 not have talked of a " liberty " for its citizens to fish. It would have 

 demanded a right for the Government to own a share in the fishery, 

 in such degree and in such manner as that it might give that " lib- 

 erty " to its own citizens by virtue of its own sovereign authority or 

 ownership. 



So that the whole form of the treaty rebuts and excludes the con- 

 tention of the United States. 



Of course, as I need scarcely say, it is not a mere matter of form. 

 That form is vital. There you have got a right given and expressed 

 in proper words. The United States want some other right which is 

 not expressed at all, and in order to do what they have to do to this 

 unfortunate treaty, they have to read right out the word " liberty ; " 

 they have also got to read out the words " inhabitants of the United 

 States ; " they have to read out the word " liberty " and insert " fran- 

 chise," or " ownership ; " and then they have to delete the words " in- 

 habitants of the United States " and insert " the Government of the 

 United States ; " and then they have to strike out altogether the words 

 " in common with British subjects." They were introduced appar- 

 ently as a mere gaiety of expression. No meaning apparently is 

 attached to them by the United States at all. 



Now, they are vital words. They are the vital words. They are 

 the words which are used in their popular and ordinary signification, 

 and they are conclusive. " In common " means " upon the same terms 

 as," subject to the same jurisdiction. After these years of controversy 

 I defy anyone to use language which on the whole shall express 

 better the contention of Great Britain than the words actually used. 

 You could not get better words. 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 5 



