1924 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



title. In fact, what they want to have the opportunity of saying 

 to Newfoundland is that it is a breach of the treaty to enforce the 

 Bait Act. That is what they want some answer which will enable 

 them to put up that argument ; and I would ask anybody I would 

 ask one of my learned friends on the other side of the room: Can 

 they seriously contend for a moment that the Bait Act was not within 

 the competence of Newfoundland ; that it is not a perfectly legitimate 

 Act? It is just as legitimate as their Tariff Bill, -which keeps out 

 Newfoundland fish; just as legitimate. And it will exist after this 

 Award is passed, forbidding any country to purchase bait in New- 

 foundland waters. Why, then, do they want an answer to this ques- 

 tion which, as Mr. Elder says, is aimed at their getting bait? Because 

 they want to use the Award of this Tribunal against the validity 

 of the Bait Act. They want to try to get an opinion of this inter- 

 national Tribunal so as to try to cast a doubt or slur upon a measure 

 of municipal legislation. They want to say that that Bait Act is a 

 discrimination against them. It is not. 



JUDGE GRAY : Of course, Sir William, you recognise the facts that, 

 whatever may be, according to you view, the infirmities of this 



question, it was framed by both sides ? 

 1164 SIB W. ROBSON : Yes. 



JUDGE GRAY: And submitted to this Tribunal? 



SIR W. ROBSON : We do not know who framed it. 



JUDGE GRAY : It is framed by both sides. 



SIR W. ROBSON : It is put before the Tribunal by both sides. 



JUDGE GRAY : Oh, yes. 



SIR W. ROBSON: It is put before the Tribunal by both sides, for 

 answer; and we ask the Tribunal to answer it. We ask the Tri- 

 bunal to say, " No." The United States agree with us in putting this 

 question before the Tribunal, and they ask for an affirmative answer. 

 We say, in answer to their case, " You do not make out any case for 

 an affirmative answer." That is the position. No matter who actu- 

 ally framed the question, it is here, by consent of both parties. W*; 

 ask that it shall be answered as much as the United States ask it. 

 We desire the Tribunal to take it into consideration as much as they 

 do. It is the request of both parties with which the Tribunal is 

 dealing. But now, when we come to deal with the question, we say 

 this question ought to be answered in a particular way; because the 

 burden of getting the affirmative is cast on the United States, and 

 they do not meet that burden. If they want a declaration that they 

 have a title to a particular thing, they must prove their title; and 

 the moment they are called on to prove their title, they say: "Oh, 

 no ; we are not going to prove a title at all. We are not going to sub- 

 mit any documents to prove a title. What we mean by the question 



