ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1775 



and water and distress, goes on to say that right must not be abused, 

 and therefore the local jurisdiction expressly reserves the power to 

 make any regulations that may prevent its being abused. Obviously, 

 there the local jurisdiction is reserving power to do something which 

 the other side might perhaps consider unreasonable in relation to 

 its right. Otherwise they would scarcely have troubled to insert the 

 proviso ; but of course the local jurisdiction must always, in making a 

 grant of this kind, take care that it does not derogate from its grant, 

 but can only make reasonable regulations. But, apparently, the 

 framers of the treaty thought with regard to entering these bays 

 where the United States had no treaty rights, that perhaps it would 

 be desirable that their regulations should take a somewhat wider 

 range than where they had treaty rights. And so they expressly put 

 in this stipulation. It is aimed at preventing their drying or curing 

 or taking fish or any other purpose inconsistent with the objects of the 

 proviso, which of course would cover smuggling and was perhaps 

 mainly aimed at smuggling. 



There is no such express provision with regard to the treaty coasts, 

 but no one would pretend that you may not try to smuggle on the non- 

 treaty coasts, but you may try to smuggle on the treaty coasts. 



No one would pretend that was the intention. We must not push 

 the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio cdterius too far, because it is 

 quite clear that the State has done nothing and set nothing in the 

 treaty which would prevent it from taking whatever steps are neces- 

 sary to safeguard its revenue laws. Well, now, is there any danger? 

 That is the first question which this Tribunal must consider. Because 

 when you are dealing with implied terms, or with terms that depend, 

 not on the express words of the contract, but upon general provisions 

 of law, of course one looks a little more closely and a little more 

 widely at the facts, and you ask : " Is there any danger at all of 

 smuggling?" Well, now, can there be any doubt about that? Let 

 us just look at each step of the reasoning in relation to this point. 



It is not pretended that fishing- vessels are entitled to smuggle. It 

 is not denied, I should think, that fishing- vessels may I hope in rare 

 instances want to smuggle. Because fishermen are not in that re- 

 spect any better than the rest of mankind; and smuggling is one of 

 those things shall I say fiscal laws, or regulations of state ? 

 1074 which derive less protection from the public conscience than 

 almost any other kind of law. Persons of the most scrupulous 

 character with regard to general obligations of a State take a some- 

 what laxer view with regard to this particular class of restrictions 

 upon their action. And there is no doubt that fishermen I am not 

 saying a word against them ; far be it from me I do not think they 

 are worse* than the upper classes generally in this respect. Well, then, 

 could one deny for a moment that if there be no inspection, no restric- 



