ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1839 



very large bays, whereas the bays of Labrador appear to be small 

 bays. Might not that have been the reason that they mentioned the 

 bays of Nova Scotia as separate entities, whereas they considered the 

 bays of Labrador only as parts of the coast ? 



SIR W. ROBSON : I think that might very well be the reason, Sir. 

 Of course, that accords with my argument. It may have occurred in 

 accordance with the suggestion of the learned President. Somebody 

 may have said: " Really, what are bays and banks of Nova Scotia; 

 do they need special mention? We are not mentioning them in the 

 case of Labrador; we are not mentioning them lower down when we 

 are dealing with drying and curing ; why mention them ? " That 

 may have been the reason, and then somebody else says: "We had 

 better mention them." Another says : " Well that may be using a lot 

 of words for no good purpose ; " and someone else says : " No, we must 

 put them in here ; Nova Scotia is rather important ; we do not much 

 mind about Labrador whether we get the bays or not, but we must 

 not have any doubt about Nova Scotia; put them in." My reason- 

 ing, there, I submit, is unanswerable at this distance of time when 

 you cannot call the parties before you. I am not saying what their 

 motives were; I am only saying that their motives were such as to 

 show that they considered these very words ; that they were not run- 

 ning, as a lawyer's clerk does a conveyance, very often putting in a 

 whole host of words to make sure that he gets in everything, 

 1112 whereas, unknown to himself, he very often leaves out the most 

 important thing and does more harm than if he had used more 

 simple phraseology. 



THE PRESIDENT: Is this note on folio 493 taken from the American 

 edition of the Proceedings of Congress? 



SIR W. ROBSON : I suppose it will be. Folio 493 must relate, of 

 course, to the Proceedings of Congress. This note is taken from the 

 American reprint of the Proceedings of Congress. 



THE PRESIDENT: It is not an addition to this Counter-Case? 



SIR W. ROBSON : No, it is part of the original document. 



JUDGE GRAY : Of the document from which these paragraphs 1, 2, 

 and 3 were taken? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes, Sir ; that is to say, that the whole of p. 12 is 

 a copy, with the omission of the immaterial passages, of that which 

 appears in the Proceedings of Congress. We have sent for the book. 

 I have not seen it myself, but I have no doubt it will show r that. Now, 

 to come to pp. 28 and 29 of the British Counter-Case Appendix, we 

 there find another useful instance of the use of the word " shore." It 

 begins at the bottom of p. 28, and it is an extract from a report of a 

 Committee of Congress dealing with the fisheries. It says : 



"Another claim is the common right of the United States to take 

 fish in the North American seas, and particularly on the banks of 



