ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1653 



sented to both Houses of Parliament, and I read only one sentence 

 from it quite sufficient to show what I want. It deals entirely with 

 this question of whether the award was good or not, and says : 



"Accordingly the sum appropriated by Congress to meet the 

 Award is, by the 'Appropriation Act,' ' placed under the direction of 

 the President of the United States with which to pay the Govern- 

 ment of Her Britannic Majesty the amount awarded by the Fisheries 

 Commission, lately assembled at Halifax, in pursuance of the Treaty 

 of Washington, if, after correspondence with the British Government 

 on the subject of the conformity of the Award to the requirements of 

 the Treaty, and to the terms of the question thereby submitted to the 

 Commission, the President shall deem it his duty to make the pay- 

 ment without further communication with Congress.' ' : 



It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of England in Fortune 

 Bay. It is a long letter, and goes on discussing whether or not the 

 award is in conformity with the terms of the treaty. 



THE PRESIDENT: I suppose, Mr. Attorney-General, this document 

 has been communicated to counsel for the United States? 



SIR W. ROBSON : I think so. I am told it has. 



Then Lord Salisbury wrote in answer to the letter of the 28th 

 September, and said of course there was no intention on the part of 

 Great Britain to limit in any way the rights of the United States 

 (United States Case Appendix, pp. 657 and 658). He says, on 

 p. 658 : 



" I hardly believe, however, that Mr. Evarts would in discussion 

 adhere to the broad doctrine which some portion of his language 

 would appear to convey, that no British authority has a right to pass 

 any kind of laws binding Americans who are fishing in British 

 waters; for if that contention be just, the same disability applies a 

 fortiori to any other power, and the waters must be delivered over to 

 anarchy. On the other hand. Her Majesty's Government will readily 

 admit what is, indeed, self-evident that British sovereignty, as 

 regards those waters, is limited in its scope by the engagements of 

 the treaty of Washington, which cannot be modified or affected by 

 any municipal legislation." 



That is the position we take to-day. I cannot anticipate that with 

 regard to these principles any difference will be found to exist be- 

 tween the views of the two Governments. Now, says Mr. Turner, 

 that was treated as a disavowal of the claim to jurisdiction on the 

 part of Breat Britain. It was a mere assertion of the position from 

 which we had never varied, and, upon that disavowal being commu- 

 nicated to the United States Government, the United States Govern- 

 ment paid the money under the Halifax Award. 



So that the incident is put before the Tribunal as if the United 

 States had said : We won't pay this money which has been awarded 

 against us unless you disavow your claim to jurisdiction over Ameri- 

 can fishermen, and Lord Salisbury had given the disavowal, and the 

 result is that the money was paid. 



