QUESTION SIX. 77 



It is unnecessary, however, to go into this feature of the Question 

 here for it will be shown that neither of the two points relied upon 

 in support of the British contention is established by the evidence 

 presented in the British Case. 



The language of the treaty. 



Taking up first the meaning of the language used, it will be found 

 that upon this point the British Case, after analyzing some of the 

 phrases used in the treaty, for the purpose of showing that the mean- 

 ing now contended for can be read into it, reaches the conclusion 

 that " the word ' coast ' is used throughout the treaty as something 

 distinct from bays, harbors and creeks." No definition is furnished 

 of what a coast distinct from bays, harbors, and creeks would be ; or 

 where the line separating such a coast from bays, harbors, and creeks 

 would run, or where, for instance, the inner and outer lines of such 

 a coast would run with reference to St. George's Bay, Newfoundland, 

 which is upwards of thirty miles in width. 



It is not, however, the purpose of the Counter-Case to anticipate 

 the printed and oral arguments by entering upon an argumentative 

 discussion of the internal evidence furnished by the use of certain 

 words and phrases in the treaty. For the present it will be sufficient 

 to point out that the British contention that the word " coast ", as 

 used throughout this article, was intended to apply only to waters 

 outside of the bays, harbors, and creeks, is wholly destroyed by its use 

 in an entirely different sense in the phrase " from Mount Joli on the 

 southern coast of Labrador", where it distinctly refers to the land 

 adjacent to the water, and by the admission in the British Case that 

 " the word ' shores ' in Article one of the treaty is used to express the 

 same idea as ' coasts ' in the other parts of the Article." a 



The intention of the Parties. 



With reference to the intention of the negotiators of the treaty 

 to exclude American fishermen from the bays, creeks, and harbors 

 referred to, which, as above stated, is the other ground relied upon 

 in the British Case to support the novel interpretation now contended 

 for by Newfoundland, the only evidence which is cited on this point 

 in the British Case is of such an inconclusive and ambiguous char- 

 acter as to discredit the contention it is intended to support. 



<* British Case, p. 126. 



