ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1853 



All I have to do to show that fishing rights are subject to the State 

 is to show that the place where they fish is part of the territory of a 

 State. That is undoubted. If I am right in putting these bays 

 into these territories I have in that case complete control over the 

 fishing rights in every bay long before I come to 1818, before I 

 come to 1783; and in 1783 I have given those rights to the United 

 States given them all, in every bay along the coast. And later we 

 shall see how they come to be renounced, and why renounced, not at 

 the suggestion of the United States, as Mr. Rush and Mr. Gallatin 

 thought in their letter, or said in their letter, but at the suggestion 

 of Great Britain. 



The question of Dr. Lohman is : 



" Did not at that time, before 1818, the disputes between the two 

 powers rather refer first to the right of fishing on the coast, taken 

 in a general sense, without making any distinction between coasts 

 and bays . . .?" 



Well, I say the distinction is there politically, geographically, and 

 is acted upon for all territorial purposes, including the right of fish- 

 ing. That was this treaty that I have just read, where the two 

 nations combined to respect the territorial jurisdiction of each over 

 these embayed waters. 



THE PRESIDENT: Your conclusion, if I understand you well, Mr. 

 Attorney-General, concerning article 25, is this: That although con- 

 cerning fishery rights there is no special distinction made, this dis- 

 tinction is made concerning territorial rights in general, and as fish- 

 ing rights are included in the territorial rights, you come to the con- 

 clusion that this distinction applies also to fishing rights ? 



SIR W. ROBSOX : Yes, Sir, I am much obliged to you. That exactly 

 states my point exactly. That is how I connect my argument with 

 the fishing rights which, otherwise, might seem to be rather remote. 

 That is the link between what I call the territorial and the fishing 

 aspect of a bay. The moment I establish that, territorially, the bay 

 is mine, I have then established not only that I have a right to the 

 fish, but that I have a right to turn anybody out of it. 



DR. DE SAVORXIX LOHMAN : Do you not think, Sir William, that 

 there is a difference when there is a fishing treaty, and in that fishing 

 treaty no mention is made of a territorial right? Does it not make 

 a difference in explaining the article? 



SIR W. ROBSON : I am much obliged, Sir. Of course, if there is a 

 treaty relating to fishing, it is a treaty relating to one of the terri- 

 torial rights. 



DR. DE SAVORNIN LOHMAN : Yes. 



SIR W. ROBSOX : Certainly. Of course, the adjacent State I call 

 it adjacent; that is the State owning the land on each side of the 

 bay may part with any of its territorial rights over the waters, or 



