1738 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



SIR W. ROBSON : It is given for purposes of profit. 



DR. DE SAVORNIN LOHMAN : Yes. 



SIR W. ROBSON: But my observations, of course, all go to show 

 this : how strictly limited was the sphere within which that profit may 

 be made. The right that is given them is one which is carefully dif- 

 ferentiated from an ordinary trading right. For instance, it is not 

 the sort of right that would be given to a nation where we allow them 

 to come and trade generally, or allow them to carry on a particular 

 trade. We did not say that in the treaty of 1818; we did not say: 

 " You may come and carry on the trade of fishing." We said : " You 

 may come and catch fish which you may sell by way of trade." And, 

 of course, for this purpose the distinction there is material. You 

 may make a profit on the fish you sell ; do what you like with them ; 

 but you shall not come here and treat your fishing right as if it 

 were a trading right. That is the way I should put it. I think, 

 perhaps, that is the clearest way of stating it. Your fishing right is 

 not to be treated as a trading right. We will not let you buy your 

 raw material, we will not let you buy your implements of trade 

 we will let you have nothing of that kind ; we will give you a simple 

 privilege of entry, fishing, and return. 



THE PRESIDENT: That is an economic right. 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes, meaning a right to make money ; that is all. 

 In calling it a trading right or economic right, all these names are 

 accurate in a sense, but they must be strictly limited to the right 

 itself. I am jealous of the introduction of general terms not found 

 in the treaty, lest, having got in your general term, there may be 

 deductions drawn from it in excess of the words of the treaty itself. 

 It is not an assistance, but it is, I think, a danger, when one has a case 

 of difficult construction, to begin looking about for synonymous term< 

 or equivalent terms. Because few terms are exactly equivalent and 

 continually, in changing the term, one is importing, without knowing 

 it, a new element which proceeds to be an element of confusion. For 

 instance, the moment you get the word " trade " instead of the word 

 " fish " there is a new idea brought into the grant, and they have to 

 be carefully severed. They have to be watched and disassociated 

 from the construction or they begin to be mischievous. That is why 

 I think you cannot treat trade here as synonymous with fishing. All 

 you can say is this: You have a right given to a person which he ex- 

 ercises in the way of a trade. You may say that he exercises it as <\ 

 part of his trade; it is his subsistence; but he is not allowed, under 

 that right, to exercise the whole of the trade. He is not allowed to 

 exercise his trade in its general sense, because he is not allowed to 

 use any implements that he chooses. Among the disabilities upon 

 the exercise of his trade are those that I have just pointed out. When 

 he is in his shop, buying and selling, he may not buy his raw mate- 



