ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM EOBSON. 1921 



do so." Our position is : " If you like to put this question you must 

 prove it ; or, if you like, both of us may put the question, but it rests 

 with the United States to prove it." One only needs to look at the 

 question to see who is asking it. Are they entitled to have commer- 

 cial privileges? It is they who are asking for commercial privileges, 

 not we who are begging leave to give them. It is they who are asking 

 for them, and I say : " You must prove it by your agreements by 

 yourself in proper form ; to make your question good you must make 

 it intelligible first and then prove it." Perhaps I might continue 

 a little later, because clearly I ought not to leave the argument in its 

 present position without saying anything further upon it, and there 

 are one or two words that I want to add generally before I close. 



THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn until a quarter past 2 

 o'clock. 



[Thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock P.M., the Tribunal took a recess until 

 2.15 o'clock P.M.] 



AFTERNOON SESSION, TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1910, 2.15 P.M. 



THE PRESIDENT: Will you please to continue, Mr. Attorney-Gen- 

 eral? 



THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SIR WILLIAM ROBSON : I think the diffi- 

 culties which have arisen in connection with this question, will really 

 vanish when one comes to look at the question strictly, and ask what 

 is the obligation of each party in relation to this question. The 

 question asks whether the United States are entitled to have certain 

 privileges which they say are accorded by some agreement they do 

 not produce. 



The burden of proving that they are so entitled rests of course on 

 them. They are asking the Tribunal whether they, the United States, 

 have got a title to certain privileges. They must convince the Tri- 

 bunal that they have that title. It is not for us, Great Britain, to 

 show that the United States have got the title they claim. It is for 

 us, when once that title is produced, to criticise it and contest it. 

 We say there is no title and they cannot produce it; and therefore 

 they cannot get an affirmative answer to this question in their favour. 



We are quite content that they should put the question to the 

 Tribunal, and we join with them in putting the question to the 

 Tribunal, but we say that the answer can only be one way. We say 

 the United States have got what lawyers describe as the onus of proof 

 cast- upon them, the burden of proving their case lies on them. And 

 it is for us to say that they have not fulfilled, that they have not met, 

 that obligation of proving their case. 



Now how do they prove their case? They have no proof at all 

 absolutely none. They do not show any title; and when they come 



