AEGUMBNT OP SIR WTT.T.TA.M EOBSON. 1713 



ishment in the history of nations, and in the credit and position that 

 nations have among each other. 



There is no nation now so great as to be able safely to flout the 

 opinion of the world none. On no Continent can we find any 

 Power, in spite of its army and navy, strong enough to do that, and 

 yet retain any sense of security. A nation who, having put its hand 

 to a treaty, proceeded forthwith to evade, to belittle it, to 

 1036 defeat it by regulations, technically within its jurisdiction 

 and power, but in reality aimed at lessening the right with 

 which, for good consideration, it had just parted such a nation 

 would undoubtedly suffer; even if there was not the respect of the 

 world to be considered, there is its own respect. Therefore it is a 

 mistake to say that there is no remedy, because international law 

 provides no sanction of the kind to which we are accustomed as law- 

 yers, when we are appealing to our Courts of Justice, because behind 

 the judge stands the sheriff, behind the Court there are all the forces 

 of the executive government. Therefore, I think, it is erroneous to 

 say that because an international contract gives no remedy, is not 

 backed up by any sanction of the kind known to us in daily life in 

 our own country, that therefore it is a barren right. I think that 

 view does not do justice to the power and scope of what we call inter- 

 national law. 



But, even if there were no remedy, even if Mr. Turner's contention 

 were to be taken as true to its fullest extent and in its most literal 

 meaning, still we must not here mix up the two questions of " inter- 

 pretation " and " breach." 



I venture respectfully to submit that the sole point you have to 

 consider is that of interpretation. The question of the remedy, the 

 question of the breach, is another matter upon which this Tribunal, 

 great as it is, can really pronounce no judgment. 



Of course in practice, as it happens in this particular case, Great 

 Britain has I think even removed this difficulty, by the submission 

 which it makes to this Tribunal, and which perhaps any great State 

 would be unwilling to make to any other State, namely, it has ex- 

 pressed its willingness to submit the question of the reasonableness of 

 its regulations to this Tribunal, which, of course, diminishes very 

 much the difficulty that Mr. Turner anticipated. But, I am putting 

 that out of the question for a moment, because of course, after all, 

 we have to treat this as a question of construction, and Mr. Turner 

 might urge, and did urge I think, that you must, if possible, construe 

 the contract so as to give a remedy. That, I think, is a very reason- 

 able observation. That is to say, if, in the terms of the contract, 

 it is certain, and is shown that the parties have had in mind, not 

 merely a definition of their mutual obligations, but they have also 



