1682 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



We have it under consideration, however, and will be at any time 

 ready to conform to any further expression on the part of the 

 Tribunal. 



THE PRESIDENT : Thank you. Sir. 



THE PRESIDENT: Now, will you kindly continue, Mr. Attorney- 

 General ? 



SIR W. ROBSON: With regard to the particulars of objection put 

 forward by the United States, which the learned senator has 

 1017 been kind enough to hand to us, I might say that I have not 

 had an opportunity yet of considering them. Their considera- 

 tion may perhaps be delayed. 



THE PRESIDENT : Oh, of course. 



SIR W. ROBSON: Resuming my argument, I may say that the arti- 

 cle in the Treaty of Paris, of which Sir Charles was kind enough to 

 remind me, was a good instance of a negative servitude, and also a 

 very good instance of the care with which such a servitude is accom- 

 panied in order to leave no doubt whatever as to the extent and the 

 way in which it may limit sovereignty. This is a capital instance of 

 that. The King of Great Britain concedes the Islands of St. Pierre 

 and Miquelon in full right to His Most Christian Majesty, to serve 

 as a shelter to the French fishermen, and so on. This is a cession of 

 territory for a particular purpose. And, His said Most Christian 

 Majesty engages not to fortify the said islands, and so on. so that it 

 is an instance of a negative servitude, and to erect no buildings upon 

 them, but merely for the convenience, and so on, and to keep a guard 

 of fifty men only for the policing, leaving other rights of course 

 intact. 



That is a very fair instance of what I am demanding in this case, 

 explicit documentary stipulation as the only basis upon which any 

 claim for either limitation or transfer of sovereignty can be based. 

 That is really the substance of my argument. 



Well, I think I have sufficiently argued the proposition which I set 

 out to establish, namely, that you cannot affect the .sovereignty of a 

 nation except by a written document, and if your written document 

 is in any way defective I should not say defective, that is not a 

 very happy choice of term but if your written document merely 

 establishes a right or grant or liberty, without purporting to diminish 

 sovereignty, further than by such limitation as is necessarily . \- 

 pressed in the " liberty " itself, that you cannot seek to add terms to 

 your agreement by any international practica That is what I said. 

 Because your agreement must be express and complete, and you can- 

 not seek to enlarge its scope, or add to its provisions, by referring to 

 any international practice whatever, because the international law 

 says that for the consequences of a servitude you must look only to 

 your agreement, international law will not make an agreement for 

 you. So that I state two propositions, which at first sight might 



