AKGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1645 



That is sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Lords 

 of the Admiralty. And in 1870, (United States Case Appendix, p. 

 597) Mr. Edward Thornton, for England, sends this letter to Mr. 

 Fish, United States Secretary of State : 



" Sir : In compliance with instructions which I have received 

 from the Earl of Clarendon, I have the honor to transmit for your 

 information copy of a letter addressed by the Admiralty to the 

 Foreign Office inclosing copy of one received from Vice- Admiral 

 Wellesly Commanding Her Majesty's naval forces on this Station, 

 in which he states the names of the vessels to be employed in main- 

 taining order at the Canadian Fisheries and forwarding a copy of 

 the instructions which were to be issued to the commanders of those 

 vessels." 



This enclosure appears on p. 600 of the same volume, and it is the 

 letter I have just read from Mr. Cardwell. So, in 1870, a copy of 

 Mr. Cardwell's letter was sent to the American Secretary of State, 

 just a year before the treaty is made in 1871, pointing out the mean- 

 ing which we are attaching to the words " in common " in the treaty 

 of 1818, words which, of course, were continually the subject of con- 

 sideration as the relations of the two countries became delicate from 

 time to time in the absence of proper treaty regulations between 

 them. The United States made their treaty in 1871, with a knowl- 

 edge of the meaning that we attached to these words. They insert 

 them in the treaty of 1871 with that knowledge, and Mr. Boutwell 

 issues subsequently his circular with that same knowledge. In 

 dealing with the words " in common " it is important to observe 

 that the United States construe them just as we construe them. 



It is suggested in the pleadings of the United States that they are 

 words of some special and peculiar technical import. I do not know 

 what that peculiar, technical import is. I think they are ordinary 

 words used in their popular sense. I shall deal shortly with the 

 supposed technical import of the words. I do not think they have 

 any. They are words used by the inhabitants of both countries in 

 speaking of the same thing and used in exactly the same sense. They 

 were so used in 1871. What are some of the other uses of these words, 

 because, after all, the best way to test the words is to see how they 

 have been used. I am not going to define them, because anyone who 

 knows the meaning of English knows the meaning of these words. 

 They could only be defined by other English words, which might 

 be treated as equally ambiguous, but they are words common to 

 every language. In every language there are words of equivalent 

 meaning, such as on the same terms or under the same conditions, 

 and if you are using them in relation to the political status you say 

 under the same jurisdiction. 



But let us look at the other instances of the user of these words 

 between these parties, which fully disposes of the suggestion that the 



