1686 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



SIR W. ROBSON: Of course the right to fish is not a sovereign 

 right. The right of exclusion is a sovereign right, and that right is 

 limited, in fact quoad particular persons it is abandoned ; I limit my 

 sovereignty to the extent of saying I will not exclude you. That is 

 a limitation, but of course that is not inconsistent with the full exer- 

 cise of the local jurisdiction when the favoured alien has come in. 



JUDGE GRAY: Then it becomes, in that view of it, confining your- 

 self to what you have just said, a question of the extent of the limita- 

 tion upon sovereign power? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. Of course every contract is a limitation, as 

 I have so frequently said. I am not standing here to say that Great 

 Britain has not subjected herself to any restriction or limitation. Of 

 course she has. Every man who makes a bargain with respect to his 

 future trade does that, but the difference between restriction and 

 transfer is vital ; under restriction, your favoured alien comes in, but 

 he comes in like a subject, and he is subject to jurisdiction. That is 

 what the United States never wanted. That is what they say they 

 are fighting against They want something more than mere restric- 

 tion of sovereignty. They want to have it established that when a 

 United States inhabitant comes in. not merely is the sovereign right 

 of Great Britain restricted to the extent that it cannot put him out, 

 but they say it cannot govern him when he is there in the exercise 

 of his right. Of course it would govern him in regard to certain 

 matters. He could not steal or do other things, which no inhabitant 

 of the United States is likely to do. He must behave himself gen- 

 erally. The United States say, that will not do for us. When we 

 have got him there, when you have, under the restriction attached to 

 your sovereignty, allowed him to come in, we want him still to re- 

 main independent of your sovereignty, and not only that, but if there 

 is any regulation required for him. it is the United States who are to 

 exercise it ; and further, we are going to decide what legislation may 

 be necessary for him in the exercise of his right; not only that, but 

 you have also given us the power legitimately to enter upon your 

 territory by armed forces, and ourselves to control our own citizen, 

 and not only control our own citizen, but to guard his right, which 

 involves the control of your citizens. So that there has In-en there" 

 something much more than a restriction, there has been in that view 

 a positive transfer of original sovereign authority from one govern- 

 ment to another. That is the position of the United States. When 

 they used language in their Case and in their Counter-Case they used 

 a good deal of language which was ambiguous, which treated a limi- 

 tation of sovereignty as though it were the same thing as a transfer. 

 Continually they did that. But in any such cases I find it difficult 

 to pick out passages which would quite suit my purposes, if I may 



