ABGT7MENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1909 



from Mount Joli, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through 

 the straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly, indefinitely, along 

 the coast ; and, also, the liberty of drying and curing fish in any of 

 the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Labrador." 

 Thus they failed to agree upon the article as to fisheries, and that 



was the reason they failed to agree. There was a suggestion which 

 belongs to an argument that I have passed that they failed to agree 

 because the United States were insisting on giving something up. I 

 think I have disposed of that argument. They failed to agree be- 

 cause the United States were not getting something that they wanted, 

 not because they insisted upon renunciation. 



And then came the final form in which we practically accept their 

 contentions, and we give them the bays and harbours of Labrador, 

 we extend the area within which the right may be exercised from 

 Huntingdon Island indefinitely northward, and the treaty is 

 agreed to. 



They, on the other hand, consent to what was a very large abate- 

 ment of their claim they consent to forego the right to obtain bait, 

 which formed part of what I called our renunciation clause. I men- 

 tion it here because it has a bearing on Question 7. One cannot deal 

 with this question quite in water-tight compartments, and it is worth 

 while asking the Tribunal to keep in mind the fact that we refused 

 to let them have the privilege of obtaining bait, either of buying it or 

 fishing for it. That will have a lot to do with the next question. 



And thus the parties have come to an agreement. 



Now, what is the agreement to which they have come? Coast of 

 Newfoundland, coast and bays of Labrador for fishing ; and for dry- 

 ing and curing, bays of a particular part of the coast of Newfound- 

 land, namely, the southern part from Cape Ray to the Rameau 

 Islands. But not a word said about fishing in bays on the southern 

 or western coast of Newfoundland. It was not given, and it was not 

 renounced. It does not appear there in the grant or in the renun- 

 ciation. 



It was not necessary to renounce that which never had been 

 1155 granted. That renunciation applied only to the non-treaty 

 coasts; it did not apply to this coast at all, so that there was 

 no occasion to include that in the renunciation because the renuncia- 

 tion applied to something else. 



Now, this whole argument is an argument which, I submit, would 

 stand good and would be very difficult for the United States to meet 

 under the ordinary rules of construction but for the fact that we have 

 not maintained the claim. I have to face that fact we have not 

 maintained the claim. Why have we not maintained the claim? 

 We have not asserted it, because, really, it was a matter of so little 

 interest; and my difficulty attaching to this part of my case on 



