ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM BOBSON. 1677 



SIR W. ROBSON : I should say, in such a case as that, the official of 

 the State " B " who came into the territory of the State "A" of course 

 retains his personal obligation to the State to which he belongs; 

 but the moment he enters the territory of "A" he comes under the 

 jurisdiction of "A." 



THE PRESIDENT: He comes under the jurisdiction of "A." 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes ; and he must even exercise all his rights of 

 ownership under the jurisdiction of "A," because "A" has given him 

 his right touching the land which he is entitled to appropriate, but 

 "A" has not said : " When you come on that land, I am going to give 

 you extra-territoriality." He has not said that. Of course he might 

 say it, by treaty and in that case he is bound. 



THE PRESIDENT : Of course. 



SIR W. ROBSON : It may likewise say to the railway guard : " The 

 moment you come on to this territory you bring your national rights 

 with you, and are judged by them, and not by mine." I do not know 

 of its having been done, but that is exactly the right which the 

 United States is seeking to attach. I say that the railway officer of 

 the nation " B " comes on to the territory of "A" and becomes for the 

 time being a citizen of "A," is subject to the laws of "A." For in- 

 stance, if no provision is made to the contrary, it would be the right 

 of "A" to say to " B " : " Now you are sending here on to this terri- 

 tory dangerous commodities " 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Your contention, briefly, is that a State 



may part with a share of the public domain, either in favour 



1014 of a citizen of that State, in favour of the citizen of a foreign 



country, or in favour of the Government of a foreign country? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: But in all those three aspects, with 

 respect to the property within the territory of the country granting 

 it, they are all in the same situation ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : In the same situation. They are just like other 

 persons who also have got the rights of ownership in the same terri- 

 tory; that is to say, they are subject to the local jurisdiction. It is 

 the essential difference between dominium and imperium, which, as 

 one of the learned arbitrators has just pointed out, has to be con- 

 sidered. The State may, as national government and sovereign, grant 

 rights of a private character, either to its own citizens, as Sir Charles 

 suggests, to the citizens of another county, or to the government 

 of another country. But, having done it, it has not thereby dimin- 

 ished its own power of government, either over its own citizens or 

 over the citizens of another country, or over those who exercise on 

 behalf of the Government of another countr} 7 a right given to that 

 Government. That general sovereignty is a thing wholly apart and 

 not affected by the grant of particular territorial rights, as the United 



