ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM BOBSON. 1699 



Mr. Turner says: 



" I should say so, Sir." 



Then the President says: 



"And in 1818 there were how many States? Were there only these 

 ancient thirteen States, or were there more? " 



Mr. Turner goes on say there were more. I think there were no 

 more in 1818 than in 1812; but there very soon began to be many 

 more. So that, really, was fatal to the praediality of his servitude; 

 because there was no limit. There is no measure to the burden upon 

 a territory, except by the needs of the other territory that enjoys the 

 servitude. But if you may add indefinitely to the other territory, if 

 you may double it, and treble it, and quadruple it, you are then 

 adding to the burden of the servient territory to an extent which is 

 unendurable, and could never have been intended. 



Well, Mr. Turner felt that difficulty ; and he took time to consider. 

 He said, on p. 1829 of the record [p. 300 supra], a little later, that 

 the United States exercised the right in respect of the original thir- 

 teen States. That was his next step. 



That, however, he felt he had better be careful about; because, how 

 are you to distinguish between the thirteen States and the subsequent 

 forty-five States I believe there are more still, now? Is everybody 

 to be warned that he must not fish in Newfoundland unless he lives 

 in New England, or in one of the original thirteen States? That 

 could not have ben intended, and Mr. Turner did not like that. So, 

 I think then it was at p. 1829 [p. 300 supra] he said : 



" I assume the servitude right would not be enlarged by the fact 

 that the separate colonies which individually had a right to this 

 servitude, formed themselves into a Union, but that the composite 

 Government which they had thereby formed, exercised identically 

 the same right for identically the same territory." 



That was how he tried to get over the difficulty put to him, that he 

 was enlarging the burden upon the servitude territory. " Oh, no," 

 he said, " it is the same burden. The government is enlarged, but it 

 can only exercise its right in respect of the original territory." Well, 

 that was to be considered, and it was considered, and then, on 

 1028 p. 2130 [p. 351 supra], Mr. Turner comes back with the con- 

 sidered reply of the United States to that difficulty. And he 

 says : 



" I point out also that the prcedium dominans here is not some 

 particular part of the United States which may have been a part of its 

 territories at the time of the grant of 1818 ; that prcedium dominans 

 is the sovereignty of the United States in its relation to its territory 

 generally. Now. that may not be a very perfect conception, I do not 

 say that it is. but that is the conception upon which the institution 

 is treated in international law at the present day, and the position 



