ARGUMENT OF SIB WTT.T.TAM ROBSON. 1751 



giving. It is at p. 544 of the British Case Appendix, and it is in 

 regard to the right of drying fish. Section 4 : 



"And in order to obviate any doubts that have arisen, or may arise, 

 to whom the privilege or right of drying fish on the shores of New- 

 foundland does or shall belong, under the before mentioned Act," 



The Act of 1699 which I have read 



"which right or privilege has hitherto only been enjoyed by His 

 Majesty's subjects of Great Britain, and the other British dominions 

 in Europe;' 1 '' 



Even colonists had not enjoyed the right of drying fish on the 

 shores of Newfoundland. The first statute was passed in 1699. We 

 are here, in 1775, seventy-six years afterwards, and, during all those 

 seventy-six years, the right of drying fish on the coast of Newfound- 

 land had been enjoyed only by British subjects. There had been no 

 inshore fishing during that time. I dealt with that point on the 

 other question. They had had no inshore fishing rights at this place; 

 they had been fishing on the banks, and whether they employed for- 

 eigners or not, it does not matter to me. The treaty of 1783 was 

 made only eight years after the amending statute of 1775 was passed, 

 which declared that only British subjects had enjoyed this privilege. 

 So, I think, I have made good the proposition that I laid down this 

 morning, that there is no foundation for suggesting that in 1818, 

 when this privilege was given the conditions of the fishing industry 

 were such that the grantees, the inhabitants of the United States, 

 were entitled to expect that they would be allowed to employ 

 foreigners. 



When one looks at the conditions it is obvious that they were not 

 such, and that they were opposed to any such right. Even if they 

 had been granted the full rights attaching to the fishing industry, 

 if, instead of a mere liberty to take fish, they had been told in express 

 terms: You have a right to pursue the merchandise and trade and 

 art of fishing, with all its mercantile accompaniments in those waters, 

 they still could not have said that the industry imported or meant 

 that it could be carried on with the aid of foreigners. No such 

 practice is apparent in the documents or in the evidence. 



But, of course, as we know, it was not such a grant as that. It was 

 not a right to carry on the whole trade of fishing. It was a strictly 

 limited portion of that right, given perhaps grudgingly, given be- 

 cause a strong appeal was made by the United States Commissioners 

 on personal grounds; that is to say, on behalf of a meritorious class 

 whose livelihood was placed in peril; and then, just one part of the 

 trade was enfranchised, so to speak; that is the mere act of catch- 

 ing. We will not let you do anything else; you shall not pursue 

 your trade ; you shall not buy or sell ; one thing you shall not do is to 



