ARGUMENT OP SIB WILLIAM ROBftON. 1835 



according to this suggestion ; if you are in an indentation, if you are 

 in a curve, still you follow the line of the coast, and you give to the 

 adjacent territory 3 miles from that line, wherever you are, whether 

 3 T ou are in a curve or in the open coast. 



Now, the effect of that is to delete or remove the word "bays" alto- 

 gether, and though of course it is a point very well worthy of consid- 

 eration, yet the point is one which has the general presumption 

 against it. At present I say no more.than that. 



One assumes that if a word is used it is there for some purpose 

 material to the intention of the parties. You assume that. It is not 

 always the case, as every lawyer knows. The verbosity of the law is 

 one of its Aveaknesses. Very often persons try the very worst of all 

 means to get at lucidity, namely, the multiplication of words, so that 

 you may perfectly well have words which are not really effective; 

 and may I make this observation ? it is more common to find these 

 superfluous words in documents written by lawyers than it is to find 

 them in documents written by men of business. I need not say that 

 I speak with the greatest respect of the profession of which I am a 

 humble, but now beginning to be a somewhat aged, member ; but, still, 

 a man of business sitting down to write a letter or make a contract 

 is much more likely f to use too few words than to use too many. 

 And here you have a document prepared by careful and experienced 

 laymen. The chances are for the moment I say no more the 

 chances are that every word which found its way into that document 

 was a word to which somebody attached importance. 



Well, now, how shall I best show the Tribunal that the words 

 "bays, creeks, harbours and inlets" were used with a serious and 

 practical intent? 



They appear at a very early stage in the negotiations. 



At the time at which I shall proced to deal with them, which will 

 be when the negotiations for the treaty of peace were considered, the 

 position of the parties was of course that there would be no occa- 

 sion among them to differentiate between " coast " and " bay." 

 When the United States were asking for the right of fishery they 

 were asking, as Dr. Lohman very well pointed out to me, for the 

 right of fishery as a whole. When they wanted to fish on our coasts 

 they wanted to fish in our bays as part of our coasts. There was no 

 occasion whatever for them to differentiate there between " coast " 

 and " bay " none. And, at that point, I am in accord with the 

 suggestion made to me by the Tribunal, namely, that when the words 

 come into controversy they are being used in a very general sense, 

 and with little important meaning so far as the distinction between 

 " bay " and " coast " is concerned. Why were both words used when 

 the one word " coast " would have sufficed? This is rather a useful 

 enquiry. When the United States Continental Congress were asking 



