ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM BOBSON. 1689 



SIR W. ROBSON: Yes, I shall say a few words with reference to 

 that when I finish this part of my argument. 



JUDGE GRAY : I do not want to interrupt you. 



SIR W. ROBSON : Not at all ; it is an assistance to me. I think that 

 I will say as a few words upon the question of derogation from their 

 grant and also upon the question of limitation concerning the trans- 

 fer. Again, of course, I am bound to take the United States con- 

 struction of its own claim, from the printed pleadings, which, though 

 they are useful, do not bind the parties and which are generally ade- 

 quately and much better interpreted by the parties themselves when 

 they come to the oral argument. The oral argument puts the thing 

 beyond any doubt. Mr. Turner, in answer to some observation of 

 Mr. Justice Gray said, that the United States claim has gone to the 

 extent, as I understand it, of the right even to execute any modality 

 agreed upon. You see there is an exercise of sovereign rights', not a 

 limitation of our rights, but the exercise of rights by the United 

 States. Mr. Turner says, p. 1961 [p. 323 supra] : 



"And if the United States should find that any modality which it 

 might agree upon, and which it might commit to Great Britain to 

 execute, or which it might commit to the provincial authorities "- 



There is the United States acting as governor and lord of New- 

 foundland 



" was being unfairly executed to the detriment of its own citizens, 

 then it could insist upon as full a participation in the method of the 

 enforcement of the regulations as that to be exercised by Great Brit- 

 ain herself. I say that that is predicated and predicable both upon 

 reason and upon an almost unbroken line of authorities which I shall 

 present to this Tribunal upon this question." 



Then Sir Charles Fitzpatrick says: 



"That is a necessary consequence of your argument in your case, 

 is it"? 



Mr. Turner accepts that. He is bound to accept that. Really, as 

 I have said before, a mere limitation is of no use at all to the United 

 States. They are obliged to go to the full extent and say : We have 

 power to make regulations and} having made them, of course, in 

 accord with our partner in sovereignty, we are just as much entitled 

 as England itself is to see to their enforcement. When Sir Charles 

 Fitzpatrick put that question to him: "That is a necessary conse- 

 quence of your argument"? meaning only that it was the logical 

 point at issue, Mr. Turner said : 



"Why, sir, we do not shrink from that proposition at all. It is 

 a necessary consequence of the argument, of course that if we have 



a sovereign right there which we are exercising in our own right " 



92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 8 



