ABGFMENT OF STB WILLIAM EOBSON. 1683 



have seemed to be scarcely consistent until explained. I said the 

 United States cannot enlarge this agreement except by proof of some 

 international custom, which is the same thing as " practice." And 

 then, having established that, I said you cannot prove an interna- 

 tional custom, because when you go to international law to get your 

 custom, international law sends you back to your agreement, and 

 says you must depend upon that alone. 



In a few words I am going to take up the case of my learned 

 friends opposite on the footing that custom is sufficient, that inter- 

 national law would permit them (of course I do not agree with this 

 for a moment, I am doing it quite on the basis of an argumentative 

 hypothesis) that they may by international law enlarge the scope 

 of this agreement by proof of international custom. 



Then I ask them now: Where have they proved such a custom? 

 They have not even attempted to prove it. We all know how a 

 custom is proved. I have referred to that already. It is proved 

 by persons familiar with the particular trade or sphere of action 

 concerned coming and saying that, without any contract at all, we, 

 the persons in this trade, consider ourselves bound by this or that 

 course of business, this or that particular act. So that it is a law 

 for us without the document. 



No attempt like that is made on the part of the United States. 

 None. They said international law will help us. International law 

 depends upon practice. In other words, it is the same thing as in- 

 ternational custom. International custom enables us to enlarge this 

 contract by putting into it fresh terms. Very well, then I ask them : 

 How do you prove your custom ? Where do you prove it ? Give us 

 an instance. Easily done, if you have an international practice. 

 Give us a single instance of a case where a nation has submitted to 

 loss of its sovereignty except under some express written stipulation. 

 That is the case we want, in order to meet this case, because we have 

 no express stipulation here ; and the United States say we are going 

 to get it from custom. Very well, where is your custom? You can- 

 not get it by saying there have been a large number of treaties made 

 between nations in which servitudes have been established with this 

 as an accompaniment of the servitude expressly stated. That will 

 not help you, because, if there have been a large number of treaties 

 saying that servitudes may be so accompanied, so far from that being 

 a proof of custom, it is a proof against custom. It is proof that a 

 stipulation is necessary, proof that you must have a deed, and cannot 

 rely upon custom. Therefore, I ask them: Where have you proof? 

 Where have you thought of looking for it apparently? A 

 1018 single case of a nation voluntarily submitting to loss of sover- 

 eignty in the absence of a contract to that effect because it is 

 a custom, because international law by custom attaches that as a coil- 



