ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1925 



is, not what the question says, but a different question, namely, ' Is 

 there anything in a particular document to disentitle us? '" That is 

 how they are putting it. I say that is not the question at all. 



All that this Tribunal have, in my respectful submission, got to do 

 with this question is to call upon the United States to show the title 

 which they here allege. That is the first thing they have to do. 

 Where is the title by which you say you claim commercial privileges ? 

 If you show that title, you are entitled to an affirmative answer. If 

 you do not show that title, then Great Britain is entitled to a nega- 

 tive answer to this question. And I say that they cannot show, and 

 do not try to show, any title. Instead of meeting the burden cast 

 upon them by the question, they wish to alter the question altogether. 



I say the burden is cast on them, and they have certainly not as yet 

 attempted to meet it. All they have done is to show their motive 

 for putting the question, and it is a motive which evinces a desire on 

 their part simply to get an answer with which they will endeavour 

 to discredit the perfectly valid municipal legislation of Newfound- 

 land in regard to bait; in other words, to get an answer which they 

 can use to undo the intention of the framers of the treaty, who ex- 

 cluded them from the right to purchase bait. 



There, after all. is all that can be said upon the question, and I do 

 not propose to trouble the Tribunal further, because the argument, I 

 think, if considered, is conclusive. 



There is one point on which I desire to say a word before I sit 

 down. It is in regard to a question that was put to me from the 

 Tribunal in relation to the second question in regard to fishing by 

 inhabitants, as to which, I think, my answer may give rise to some 

 misapprehension. I was asked whether Newfoundlanders had the 

 right to employ foreigners. I said they had. And I was asked 

 whether that might not be a discrimination if it were forbidden to 

 the United States. I said there were circumstances under which it 

 might perhaps be regarded as a discrimination. Well, that may give 

 rise, and I believe it has given rise, to some misapprehension as to 

 the view I take of the rights of Newfoundland. I certainly do not 

 intend, and I think I have not said anything which should seem to 

 cast the slightest doubt upon the rights of Newfoundland, to do as it 

 thinks fit with regard to the rights of foreigners. Whatever New- 

 foundland chooses to do in the exercise of its sovereign rights cannot 

 enlarge the liberty of the United States. That liberty can only be 

 enlarged by the action of Newfoundland itself. And, supposing that 

 Newfoundland did choose to employ foreigners, which is a very 

 unlikely contingency, not one of a practical character worth troubling 

 this Tribunal about, but, supposing it did as, of course, I suppose 

 in some sense the United States inhabitants themselves might be 



