ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM EOBSON". 1815 



It goes on to say: 



" and that no such distinction was intended to be made." 



I think that, as long as the other side admit they not only admit 

 but they assert, that the phrase which contains the word " bays " 

 was taken from the treaty of 1783, put into the treaty of 1818, and 

 there retained the same meaning as it had in .the treaty of 1783 

 that carries my argument a very long way. It carries the argument 

 a very long way, and the same proposition is reaffirmed in the 

 speeches of Senator Turner and Mr. Warren both. 



So that now, I hope, I may treat this as agreed. I am not without 

 my fears that the distinguished statesman and lawyer who follows 

 me will try to get out of these admissions, because I think he will 

 find them slightly inconvenient in the course of his argument. 



I am now going to deal with the treaty of 1783, and construe it 

 as the parties understood it at that date. The line of my argument 

 is going to be this : I am going to take up the clause in the treaty of 

 1783, construe it as at that date; then I am going to ask whether 

 anything happened between 1783 and 1818 to give it any different 

 meaning in 1818 to what it had in 1783. 



I am going to show that nothing had happened to give it any dif- 

 ferent meaning, and that it meant the same thing in one treaty as in 

 another; and yet it may be said I am undertaking an unnecessary 

 task, because the United States admit it, and the reason why I am 

 undertaking the task is this, that I shall show so conclusively in 1783 

 that bays were included in our jurisdiction, that I think and hope 

 Senator Root will find it rather difficult to get over the construction 

 in 1783. I anticipate that he will begin to say: Oh well, something 

 had happened in the meantime to give it a different meaning in 

 1818. Well, if he does, I hope the Tribunal will bear in mind both 

 this admission in the United States Argument, and the argument 

 I am about to present, because I want to make it quite clear that in 

 the construction which I have endeavoured to put on the words in 

 1783 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : What words ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : " Bays and creeks of his Majesty's dominions." 

 And, I say the word " bays " meant the same thing in both treaties, 

 the same bays that were given in the treaty of 1783 are renounced in 

 1818, and in 1783 the bays that were given were all bays, and in 1818 

 all bays were renounced. In 1783 the word " bays " was used in its 

 geographical sense, meaning everything which we have got here upon 

 the map before us is a bay, without an idea in the head of a singk 

 framer of that statement, that anything such as a 6-mile bay existed, 

 or ever had existed, or ever would exist. My course is easy from 1783. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : And I understand your submission to 

 be that " coast " did not include " bays " at that time? 



