ARGUMENT OF SIE WILLIAM ROBSON. 1919 



THE PRESIDENT: There is one passage in article 1 which troubles 

 me, and I should like to hear what your view of it is : 



"And, whereas, differences have arisen as to the scope and meaning 

 of the said article, and of the liberties therein referred to, and other- 

 wise in respect of the rights and liberties which the inhabitants of 

 the United States have or claim to have " 



SIR W. ROBSON : These words, I say, of course are to be construed 

 according to the general scope of the document itself : 



"And, whereas, differences have arisen as to the scope and mean- 

 ing of the said article," 



That is; article 1, regarding the fishing rights alone 



" and of the liberties therein referred to," 



In article 1 



" and otherwise in respect of the rights and liberties which the in- 

 habitants of the United States have or claim to have in the waters 

 or on the shores therein referred to!" 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Claim under what title? 



SIR W. ROBSON: I should say they claim 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Article 1? 



SIR W. ROBSON : Mainly under article 1, and possibly under other 

 documents, if there are any. But what are the rights they claim? 

 They are not trading rights. They are rights in the waters or on 

 the shores which are not trading rights. Obviously 

 1161 they are connected with the class of right which is men- 

 tioned in article 1. Just think what an enormous scope 

 would be given to the jurisdiction of an international arbitration if, 

 when it is called upon to deal with territorial questions relating to 

 rights in the waters or in the territory of a particular nation, it is 

 asked to pronounce upon the scope and effect of documents which 

 are not only not produced, but which we have never even dreamed of 

 looking for. Just by accident for this purpose we have in the Ap- 

 pendix the legislation of Newfoundland forbidding the sale of bait. 

 We do happen to have it there, but we certainly did not put it there 

 with any idea that it would affect Question 7, because we never for 

 a moment supposed that the words " or otherwise," which are to be 

 construed with such limitations as might be necessary to bring it 

 into accord with the general scope of the document, meant trading 

 rights. 



Trading rights have never been the subject of discussion between 

 us. They have been the subject of conflict, but there has never been 

 any claim on the part of the United States that they were entitled to 

 have trading rights. I never heard such a suggestion, certainly dur- 

 ing the period in which, as a Law Officer of the Crown, I have been 

 concerned, in a subordinate capacity, with these questions. I never 



