ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM EOBSON. 1879 



a lawyer has made a settlement for his client he fights for all he is 

 worth against the other side, and at last he has to turn round and 

 explain to his client why he has made the settlement. He sometimes 

 then has to lay a little extra stress on slightly different arguments, 

 and to vindicate his own sagacity for giving something up. That 

 was the position of Messrs. Rush and Gallatin. And so they said: 

 " Look what we have got, anyhow. Our renunciation opens the seas 

 as far as the 3-mile limit." They say: "We have got that." I am 

 rather astonished to find them laying so much stress on that, because, 

 according to the argument of the United States, in 1806 they had 

 already got that. They say that in 1806 Great Britain had consented 

 to a 3-mile limit; so they were not getting very much in 1818, when 

 the renunciation clause included it. 



There is still one more reference just to show that it was con- 

 tinued (British Case Appendix, p. 79). I had better give all the 

 references on this renunciation point. Mr. Bagot is writing again 

 to Mr. Monroa I read from the end of the second paragraph on 

 that page: 



"His Royal Highness will be willing that the citizens of the 

 United States should have the full benefit of both of them," 



That is, these concessions about the coastal fishing 



" and that, under the conditions already stated, they should be ad- 

 mitted to each of the shores which I have had the honour to point 

 out." 



The conditions already stated being exclusion from the bays ex- 

 press renunciation. " You must consent to the renunciation, and you 

 shall have the other advantages which have been mentioned." 



Now I come to the conferences, and I can deal very shortly with 

 this, I hope. 



On the 28th July, 1818, we have the instructions to the United 



States Commissioners sent out by Mr. Adams (p. 304 of the United 



States Case Appendix) in which he authorises them to assent to 



this renunciation. It is under the heading " fisheries " to Messrs. 



Gallatin and Rush, and I read from the second paragraph : 



1137 " The President authorizes you to agree to an article where- 

 by the United States will desist from the liberty of fishing, 

 and curing and drying fish, within the British jurisdiction generally, 

 upon condition that it shall be secured as a permanent right, not 

 liable to be impaired by any future war," 



It was a very important statement to put before this Tribunal that 

 the United States had offered this renunciation. I do not wonder 

 that it produced a very striking effect. Naturally, it would tend to 

 make any judge construe such a clause very strictly indeed. He 

 would say : " It is quite clear, when people are offering to renounce, 



