1680 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



have against you all the presumptions of law. And therefore, if you 

 really want to have your servitude so that you can exercise it freely, 

 and without interference from the servient state, you must have 

 special treaties to regulate it ; because you can exercise no right at all 

 unless you can point to a written stipulation in its favour. 



Then Hall says: Servitudes 

 " are the creatures not of law, but of compact." 



That is a short and picturesque way of putting the point that I am 

 endeavouring to submit. You must not range through international 

 lawyers to find out what your rights are if a so-called servitude has 

 been created. That is not the sphere within which you must look for 

 the definition of your power. You must look to your compact. 

 " Servitudes are creatures not of law, but of compact;" and as such 

 they are very strictly construed. 



I shall now take, quite hypothetically, this question of custom but 

 perhaps as I have reached a new point, the Tribunal would prefer to 

 take a recess at this moment. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : If during the adjournment you have a 

 moment of leisure, I should like to have you look at paragraph 6 of 

 the Treaty of Paris, on p. 8 of the British Case Appendix, as a very 

 good type of what would be called a negative servitude between 

 individuals. 



SIR W. ROBSON : I am much obliged to you, Sir. 



| Thereupon, at 12 : 5 o'clock P. M., the Tribunal took a recess until 

 2 o'clock P. M.] 



1016 AFTERNOON SESSION, TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1910, 2 P.M. 



THE PRESIDENT : Will you kindly continue, Mr. Attorney- General ? 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SIR WILLIAM ROBSON: May I just make 

 an observation now, with regard to the particulars of objection on 

 the part of either Great Britain or the United States, as to any execu- 

 tive or legislative Act of which they complain. 



We handed in particulars of objection to certain acts of the United 

 States in sending vessels of war to these waters for the purpose of 

 preserving order. 



It seems to me it is not worth while, for Great Britain at all events, 

 to trouble the Tribunal with any such question. It depends upon the 

 answer to be given to Question No. 1. If Question No. 1 is answered 

 in favour of Great Britain, then nobody would deny that the sending 

 of warships to these waters was not legally justifiable, although 

 quite honestly and courteously done, and not intended really as an 

 attack on the sovereignty or self-respect of Great Britain; still we 

 need not trouble about it further, it is not worth while discussing, it 

 is done; it is a mere historic incident, whichever answer is given to 

 the question. 



