ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1905 



French are not to be interrupted by the competition of British 

 fishermen. 



Now, that is a curious phrase. It might mean that British fish- 

 ermen might go and fish there, but must keep out of the way of 

 the French, or it might mean, as the French contended, that they 

 must not compete with the French, they must not go there at all 

 while the French were there. Now, these English law officers gave 

 that opinion first. 



Then, the opinion was referred back to them, and it was suggested 

 that they had changed it. I venture to say that they did not change 

 it at all. ' Unfortunately, I have not got the reference before me, 

 but it is within the memory of the Tribunal, that the only difference 

 they made was a very reasonable and proper difference. I will 

 paraphrase their words. They said : Perhaps we expressed ourselves 

 too widely when we said that the user of the coast was exclusive to 

 the French, that they alone might enjoy it, because the British may 

 go there, but they may not go there while the French are there, 

 if by so doing they interrupt the French, so we ought not to have 

 said that the British could not go there at all. But, what we do 

 say is that the British right of going there is practically useless, 

 worthless, because the French are there while the fishing season is 

 on, and as the English may not go there so as to interrupt the French, 

 it is a barren right, if I may borrow a phrase from Senator Turner 

 it is a barren right, it is no good to them ; they may go, but they may 

 not fish while the French are there. So that there was really no 

 contradiction. I only referred to the matter, not because it is of 

 the least importance, but in order to clear the memory of my prede- 

 cessors from the suggestion, one peculiarly disagreeable to any 

 lawyer, that they would change an opinion at the request of a client. 



Well, that, I think, clears up all I have to say on Question 5. I 

 pass from it gladly, leaving it in the hands of the Tribunal. And 

 I venture to say that the British case is proved here with a degree 

 of fullness that really cannot be exceeded. You cannot add to it. 

 I cannot imagine a contract where words are clearer^ and where, 

 when you come to look at the cirumstances under which they were 

 used, their meaning is more undeniable. When you come lastly to 

 look at the way the words were interpreted by the persons who used 

 them, then the argument is perfectly clear, for, in this case, bays 

 were understood in 1823 by the men who made that treaty, to be 

 the private territorial property of the State whose coasts they in- 

 dented. 



Now, then, I pass to Question 6, and there the argument will be 

 really very short. I have covered most of the ground already, because 

 I have dealt with all the documents I shall have to refer to in dealing 



