ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLJAM BOBSON/. 1721 



but ncbody could doubt Che propriety and courtesy of the manner 

 in Avhich its acts were carried out. Mr. Alexander, who was on 

 board one of the ships, was of great assistance, and we do not desire 

 to revive a perfect!} 7 useless complaint, because, if the Tribunal decide 

 in our favour, well, that is quite enough, and the visit of the 

 " Grampus " and other ships becomes a very unimportant question. 

 We do not want damages. There are no damages. I believe that 

 Mr. Alexander behaved in a very proper and courteous manner. 

 He certainly did not do anybody any damage whatever. Therefore, 



I said that we dropped it. 



1041 THE PRESIDENT : Is the action of Mr. Alexander to be con- 

 strued as a concurrence in the enforcement ? 



SIR W. ROBSON: I think it was claimed as such. Therefore, of 

 course, in my view, it would not be a legal act, but, after all, what 

 we want is an opinion for the future. We do not care to rake up 

 events which are now unimportant. I mean that if this Tribunal 

 tells us what the rights and obligations of the two countries are, its 

 decision will be observed, and we do not need to trouble about acts 

 which preceded the full and complete knowledge in regard to our 

 rights that we hope the Award of this Tribunal will give us. So 

 that we do not trouble the Tribunal about that event at all. 



The United States, of course, as they are quite entitled to do, do 

 not quite take that view. They have set out a large number of 

 executive, or mainly legislative Acts, of course followed by executive 

 acts, as far as Parliamentary Acts are followed by executive acts, of 

 which they complain. The document is probably now before the 

 Tribunal, and I think it will be found that really they cover all the 

 regulations which, we say, were made within our jurisdictional rights, 

 and which the Americans say we have not the right to make. That 

 will be decided really by the answer to Question No. 1. That is to 

 say, that if Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the United 

 States, then all our acts of jurisdiction, of course, would be vitiated 

 by the absence of their consent. But suppose the Tribunal decided 

 that no such regulation was proper without their consent, there is no 

 occasion to have enquiries, or further litigation over the matter lasting 

 months. There would be no need for it because the incident would 

 have been decided by whatever answer is given to Question No. 1. 

 However, the United States, quite within their rights, put forward 

 all these different grounds of complaint, but they put them forward 

 as though they had something to do with this arbitration. I submit 

 that they are just the same thing. It is really asking the same 

 question as Question No. 1, but asking it over again with reference 

 to all these different statutes and regulations that we have put before 

 the Tribunal. However, as they put them forward as an inde- 

 pendent ground of enquiry, we beg to ask for a full exposition of the 

 92909 S Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 10 



