88 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



British and American Plenipotentiaries of- the meaning of the word 

 " coast," as used in the negotiations, does not support the view ex- 

 pressed in the British Case that " the word ' coast ' is used throughout 

 the treaty as something distinct from bays, harbours, and creeks." 



Before passing from the consideration of these negotiations, it must 

 also be noted that in advancing the French claim as a reason for 

 attributing to the negotiators the intention of excluding American 

 fishermen from the bays, creeks, and harbors, within the three mile 

 limit, of the American treaty coast, the British Case overlooks the 

 fact that the French claimed an exclusive right of fishing, not merely 

 in the bays, creeks, and harbors, but in all the other waters of the 

 westi coast of Newfoundland as well. Inasmuch, therefore, as the 

 west coast of Newfoundland was included in the American treaty 

 coast under the treaty of 1818, it is evident that the existence of 

 this claim was not regarded by the negotiators as a sufficient reason 

 for excluding American fishermen from those waters altogether ; and 

 it is difficult to understand how the existence of that claim can 

 now be regarded as a reason for interpreting the treaty so as to 

 exclude American fishermen from any part of those waters. The 

 British Case also fails to make clear how the existence of the French 

 claim can be regarded as a reason for assuming that the negotiators 

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

 harbors on the portion of the southern coast of Newfoundland 

 and on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, which are included 

 in the American treaty coast, but have never been covered by the 

 French claim, or included in the French treaty coast. 



Evidence subsequent to 1818. 



Turning now to the period subsequent to the date of the treaty, it is 

 shown in the Case of the United States that the actions of the two 

 Governments during that period fully support the position of the 

 United States on this Question, and the course pursued by the British 

 Case in avoiding all reference to the actions of either Government 

 since the treaty was entered into, which bear upon the subject under 

 consideration, makes it unnecessary for the Counter-Case to review 

 at any length the evidence since 1818 which supports the contention 

 of the United States. 



It is appropriate, however, that the attention of the Tribunal should 

 be called to the fact that, soon after the treaty of 1818 went into 



