ABGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM EOBSON. 1727 



THE PRESIDENT : Would these motives of humanity and regard for 

 these fishermen who had changed their nationality last for ever to 

 following generations ? 



SIR W. EOBSON: At all events, we were content to put it upon a 

 durable basis. I am only putting it the way it is put to us first. 

 Of course. I am not importing a claim to humanity as if it were 

 necessary to my argument at all, but am simply showing how the 

 United States puts it. Where is there any pretence here in the 

 documents accompanying the treaty that they were to have the right 

 to enlarge the privilege so as to go to persons who are not inhabitants, 

 who had no such claim on the consideration of the British Govern- 

 ment, and who are not likely to use their money in purchase of 

 British goods, because neither on humane nor on economic considera- 

 tions would a foreigner be included ? 



THE PRESIDENT: What was the subject-matter of the privilege con- 

 ferred upon the inhabitants of the United States ? Was it the right 

 of entering British territory, or was it the right of taking fish? 



SIR W. ROBSON : It was the right of entering and taking fish. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In the treaty they speak only of the right 

 of taking fish, of course. 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. 



THE PRESIDENT : Not of the right of entering. 



SIR W. ROBSON: Well, they could scarcely get the fish without 

 going to the ground. 



THE PRESIDENT: Of course. 



SIR W. ROBSON : However, that would be an implied necessity. 

 But it is the right let us keep to the words strictly; it is of im- 

 portance here, because this is, as I am proceeding to show, not a right 

 that ought to be enlarged except on very clear grounds. No right 

 ought. But when you come to look at all the circumstances attending 

 the grant of this right, this right least of all should be enlarged, 

 except on the clearest grounds. This is only a collateral point. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: There is where the whole question 

 turns: What is the right? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Is it not a right, practically, to trade, 

 that was given to them to come in and take fish for purposes of 

 trade ; and all that is ancillary to that is to be considered as conveyed 

 with it? 



SIR W. ROBSON : They are entitled to come in and take fish for the 



purpose of selling. That may be called trade. I do not know 



1045 that it hurts me to use the word " trade," but still it is not 



trade. In a case of this kind one had better keep to the words. 



It is rather dangerous to say one word is synonymous with another. 



If one word is synonymous with another and is not in the treaty, 



