ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1899 



the parties came to this treaty, they used the most express words they 

 could find in the language to make that clear; that when the treaty 

 had been made, the United States at once proceeded to act upon our 

 construction of it, so far as bays on the western coast of Newfound- 

 land were concerned; and that later on, in those parts of the con- 

 troversy dealt with by Mr. Ewart, where the statesmen first came into 

 collision, Mr. Everett took a line similar to the argument which I 

 am urging. I am not going into that later controversy. I do not 

 think I need go into it. But I ask the Tribunal to bear this in mind : 

 Any reason which would deprive Great Britain of the " bays " which 

 are referred to in this treaty is a reason which would apply to bays 

 generally, and therefore is a reason which would deprive the United 

 States of the bays it claims. 



Then there is one point which I think, again, has not received the 

 attention it deserves, although it has been mentioned in the course 

 of the argument. It is that before the treaty Great Britain passed 

 various statutes showing that it was exercising complete jurisdiction 

 over the bay of the Miramichi and other bays as over its own terri- 

 tory ; so that if it were to lose these bays now, it would really be de- 

 prived of property for which, for over a hundred years, it has been 

 legislating as its own. The statutes are set out in the British Case 

 Appendix at p. 597 and some of the succeeding pages. They go right 

 away back to 1799, and I will only just mention them generally. Per- 

 haps I had better give the references, for the facility of the Tribunal 

 in finding them, when afterwards it comes to consider the point: 

 Page 597, British Case Appendix, 1799, 39 Geo. Ill, Chapter 5, sec. 

 1, deals with the bay and River Miramichi and its branches: 



" No net whatever to be set off any part of Fox Island, .... or any 

 other Island, Middle Ground or Shoal in the said Bay," 



dealing with the whole bay 



" excepting as is hereinafter permitted." 

 1149 So that there is legislation for the bay as a whole, saying: 



" You may only put your nets in this, that, and the other part 

 of it." 



Then section 2 is to the same effect. And then, on p. 603 of the 

 British Case Appendix, in the year 1810, is the statute of 50 George 

 III, chapter 5, which is a very important one. It is for erecting bea- 

 cons and buoys in the bays and harbours of Miramichi, Buctouche, 

 Richibucto, and Cocagne ; and it says, in section 2 : 



"That so soon as the said beacons or buoys shall be erected, and 

 the same certified to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, or major 

 part of them, to be apointed in manner herein before mentioned, there 

 be and hereby is granted unto His Majesty, his heirs and successors, 

 for defraying such expenses as may be incurred in erecting, repairing, 

 or replacing such beacons or buoys, that is to say, on all vessels enter- 

 ing the bay" 



