1742 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



ward be engaged in war, so that he might carry his experience into 

 fleets hostile to ours. 



[Thereupon at 12.2 p. M., the Tribunal took a recess until 2 

 o'clock, P. M.] 



AFTERNOON SESSION, THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1910, 2 P. M. 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SIR WILLIAM ROBSON (resuming) : Dr. 

 Drago has drawn attention to the fact that a " citizen " of the United 

 States might be an inhabitant of some other place, and my learned 

 friend Sir Robert Finlay makes on that the observation which I 

 think useful, that the right was given to " inhabitants," rather than 

 given to " citizens," because, after all, it was intended only for fisher- 

 men. The " citizen " might be an " inhabitant " or might live else- 

 where. But, the persons in the minds of the framers of the treaty 

 were the particular class of fishermen. And, one notices in the later 

 treaties I think in the treaty of 1854 I am not sure about 1871 

 also in that of 1871 I am reminded, that the persons referred 

 1054 to as the beneficiaries under the treaty of 1818, that is the 

 persons who are entitled to the benefit of the right, are called 

 " fishermen." They are referred to not as " inhabitants of the United 

 States," but as "American fishermen." That is the expression used. 

 So that really it was persons who in the United States gained their 

 living by taking fish. That has a useful bearing, like every circum- 

 stance, however small. If one happens to be right, everything is in 

 one's favour. 



The fishermen are referred to in a way which shows they were not 

 thinking of the fishing trade generally. 



For instance, a person might not, as I have already pointed out, 

 buy his raw material there, he might not sell his fish there, no right 

 is given to the fishing trade. The dealer in fish who lives in Glouces- 

 ter and makes a living out of fish as merchandise, no benefit what- 

 ever is given to him. It is not the fishing trade of the United States 

 that is made to receive any privilege. It is only a particular class 

 of persons who in regard to their trade receive a limited advantage 

 in regard to a part of that trade. That is the whole measure of the 

 right given. The fisherman, as I say, cannot sell a herring in the 

 territory itself, has no such right. He can only catch his fish there. 



And, I regard the taking of fish, perhaps I may not be expressing 

 the same opinion as Sir Edward Grey expressed, but for my own part 

 I respectfully submit (I am obliged to take the view which appears 

 to me to be right), that I think all the persons on the ship engaged 

 in fishing come within the definition of persons taking fish and must 

 be inhabitants of the United States. Sir Edward Grey, in a diplo- 

 matic controversy, took rather a different view. Of course I am 



