ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1701 



belong to a nation. It must be permanent, and it must be one terri- 

 tory made to serve the purposes of another territory. As to the first 

 of those three parts of his definition, I need say nothing. I contend 

 that it does not belong to a nation. It simply applies to the persons 

 who may exercise it, having made a contract in relation to their 

 benefit. 



With regard to the third, that it must be one territory serving the 

 uses of another, that is gone, because it is not a territory serving any 

 use at all ; or rather it is a territory serving a use, not, however, the 

 use of another territory, but of a Sovereign. 



And now. with regard to the third factor in the definition, that it 

 must be permanent. One would think there, at all events, one was 

 on safe ground. I could not quite find out where he got, except by 

 implication, his statement that it must be permanent; because one or 

 two writers speak of temporary servitudes. So I turned to the 

 United States Argument, and turning to the United States Argu- 

 ment I do get some light on the subject; but it is an illusive light, 

 which increases my difficulties. For instance, let us see about the 

 permanence of the servitude. We have two cases in two treaties, 

 1854 and 1871, where this liberty was granted for a definite 

 1029 and limited time. In one case I think it was for twelve years ; 

 it does not matter what the other case was. Now, I wondered, 

 in looking for the United States definition of servitude, whether they 

 would regard these two temporary liberties as being servitudes. Be- 

 cause, if they are. then Mr. Turner must reform his definition, and 

 knock out the reference to permanence. 



Well, the United States Argument decides the matter for us, be- 

 cause on p. 57 of the Argument, it says: 



" With reference to the first article of the reciprocity treaty of 1854' 

 between the United States and Great Britain, printed in the British 

 Case, the United States takes the position that by that article "- 



That was the fishing article, the article relating to fishing rights 

 " a mutual servitude was created," 



To anyone in search of light on the definition, that rather increases 

 the darkness. Then, on p. 59, there is a paragraph : 



" It is interesting in view of the present controversy, and it also 

 throws light on the meaning of article 27 of the Treaty of 1871," 



Article 27 was, I think, the article relating to the freedom of Lake 

 Michigan 



" to note the care observed by the two nations in safeguarding 

 national sovereignty when dealing with the rights granted respec- 

 tively by articles 26 and 28 of the same treaty." 



Article 26 deals with the navigation of the River St. Lawrence, 

 and says it shall remain free and open forever to the commerce of 



