291 



have been the subject of express stipulation, and would necessarily 

 have been accompanied with a description of the inland extent of the 

 shore over which such liberty w^as to be exercised, and whctlier in 

 settled or unsettled parts; but neither of these important particulars is 

 provided f)r, even by implication. And that, among other considera- 

 tions, leads us to the conclusion that American citizens have no right to 

 land or conduct the fishery from the shores of the Magdalene islands. 

 The word 'shore' does not appear to be used in the convention in any 

 other than the general or ordinary sense of the word, and must be 

 construed with relerence to the liberty to be exercised upon it, and 

 would therefore compromise the land covered with water as lar as could 

 l>e available lor the due enjoyment of the liberty granted." 



Will these learned gentlemen explain why the word ^^' shores'''' is used 

 in the convention in connexion with the right which we enjoy at these 

 islands, while the terms "cw/.s-/;" and "cw/sY^" are employed when de- 

 fining our rights at Newfoundland and Labrador? The reason is very 

 obvious to practical men. The Newfoundland and Labrador fisheiies 

 are c<?(/-fisheries : the principal Magdalene fishery is a Acm/io--fishery. 

 The ^^ shores" of the Magd<dene islands are not wanted for the purpose 

 of "drying and curing fish," as the crown law'yers seem to suppose, 

 but for using nets and seines. With all deference, then, their argument 

 is not sound. The right to use the implements emploj'-ed by British 

 subjects at these islands is indispensable to our success in the heiring- 

 fishery there. The herring is never split and dried like the cod, nor is 

 it cured on the shores of the Magdalenes. Hence there are no conclu- 

 sions to be drawn from a statement of the limitations of "drying and 

 curing" in the cod-fishery on other and distant coasts. Yet this is the 

 rcixsoning by which we are to be deprived of the right to land and fish 

 on the shores of the Macdalene islands. But I insist that the chanoe ot 

 the terms "coast" and "coasts" to "shores" was meant to give the 

 precise right which it is urged we cannot enjoy. To have said, in the 

 convention, that we might take fish on the camt and coasts of these 

 islands, as really is said when speaking of the cv.t^- fishery, would have 

 been a vain use of words; but since the Ae?T///^-tishery requires the 

 use o[ shores, and without the use of shores cannot be prosecuted in the 

 common way, the reason why the term was used in relation to that 

 fishery is too manifest to need further illustration. 



Still, as it is argued that, "it the liberty of linding on the shores ol 

 the Magdalene islands had been intended to be conceded, sucii an im- 

 portant concession would have been the subject of express stipulation," 

 &c., it may not be amiss to consider the suggestion. And I reply that, 

 if "a description of the inland extent of the shore over which" we 

 may use nets and seines in catching the herring is necessary, it is 

 equally nccessir}'- to define our rights of dr3dng and curing the cod 

 elsewhere, and as stipulated in the convention. Both are shore rights, 

 and both are left without condition or limitation as to the quantity of 

 beach and upland that may be nppropriated by our fishermen. It was 



Erociaimed in the House of Commons, more than two centuries ago, 

 y Coke — that giant of the liw — that "fhee fishing" included "all 

 ITS INCIDENTS." The thought may be useful to the Queen's advocate 



