1684 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



sequence to the mere establishment of a right? There is no such 

 case. 



So that even if the first part of their argument were right, if they 

 succeeded in inducing 'this Tribunal to accept the fact that they could 

 thus enlarge the contract by mere practice of States, outside the con- 

 tract, they fail to do it. 



I watched closely, of course, that side of the case of the United 

 States which depends on the facts. I have analysed it so far as it 

 depends on argument and principle, but when I come to that part of 

 their case which depends on facts, on proof of particular instances, 

 it does not exist. They have put in a few treaties, not very many. 

 in which servitudes were established. That is to say, in which one 

 State gained some right on the territory of another State. They 

 have put in those cases, but they have thought it unnecessary to go 

 further and say in that very case where no express term affected 

 sovereignty or transferred sovereignty, that the State nevertheless 

 submitted to have its sovereignty transferred because it is liw. That 

 is the way to prove international practice. They have never proved 

 it, not in a single instance. 



States may have parted with their sovereignty, as in the case to 

 which Sir Charles was kind enough to call my attention in the Treaty 

 of Paris. It was not a question of parting with sovereignty, be- 

 cause France was obtaining a cession of the Island of Miquelon, and, 

 they may have been content to forego their sovereignty. But, they 

 have never done it without knowing it- never. 



Now, that is really the case the United States has got to establish 

 against us. 



Lord Bathurst did not know he was parting with English sover- 

 eignty. Lord Castlereagh did not know. Lord Castlereagh was a 

 man who extended English sovereignty in directions which some 

 people have since regretted. He certainly was not a man very will- 

 ingly to forego the sovereign rights of England if he knew what he 

 was doing. Not one of these statesmen can be said to have known 

 that he was injuriously affecting the complete undivided sovereignty 

 of Great Britain over any part of its territory. 



JUDGE GRAY: Will you pardon me, Sir William. Do you under- 

 stand that the position of the United States in regard to that branch 

 of the argument which treats of servitudes, to contend that there 

 must have been by the grant of this liberty a transfer of sovereignty 

 from Great Britain to the United States? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes, Sir. 



JUDGE GRAY : And that the United States have a right, you think 

 they contend, to exercise a sovereignty in British territorial waters 

 which theretofore could only have been exercised by Great Britain? 



