102 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



It will be perceived that the bays and harbors of the west coast of 

 Newfoundland were not included in this description of the waters of 

 Newfoundland not covered by the treaty coast of the treaty of 1818. 



Sir Robert Bond's novel interpretation discredited in Newfoundland. 



As pointed out in the Case of the United States, the novel inter- 

 pretation of the treaty now contended for by Newfoundland on this 

 point was first suggested by Sir Robert Bond, the Premier of New- 

 foundland, in his speech of April 7, 1905. He said in that speech 



I believe I am correct in saying that it is the first time that this 

 position has been taken, and, if I am correct, in my interpretation of 

 the treaty of 1818, the whole winter herring fishery of the West Coast 

 has been carried on for years by the Americans simply at the suffer- 

 ance of the Government of this Colony." 



This statement as to the novelty of Sir Robert Bond's proposed 

 interpretation was confirmed by Mr. Morine, the leader of the oppo- 

 sition in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, who spoke in reply 

 to Sir Robert Bond on the same day; but, instead of finding any 

 merit in this interpretation, he said that the very fact that such an 

 interpretation had not been taken since 1818 was in itself an answer 

 to Sir Robert Bond's contention, and " that however desirous the 

 House might be to accept that interpretation, because it would very 

 much narrow American rights and increase our own in our waters, 

 he did not think that any lawyer would for a moment believe 

 the Premier's point was well taken." Mr. Morine's speech, as pub- 

 lished in the St. Johns Evening Telegram of April 11, 1905, fe 

 printed in full in the Appendix to this Counter-Case, and the follow- 

 ing extract from it will show that the objections which have been 

 urged by the United States against the Bond interpretation were fully 

 shared by the leader of the opposition party in Newfoundland, 

 which, since this question was raised, has defeated Sir Robert Bond's 

 party: 



Now, the Premier had stated that he had arrived at an interpreta- 

 tion of the treaty of 1818, which he, the Premier, had never before 

 seen advanced, but which he was satisfied was a correct one, and for 

 which he had stated some reasons. He, Mr. Morine, would say that 

 however desirous the house might be to accept that interpretation, 

 because it would very much narrow American rights and increase 

 our own in our waters, he did not think that any lawyer would for 

 a moment believe the Premier's point was well taken. The very fact 

 that it had not been taken since 1818 was at once an argument and 



U. S. Case, p. 245. 



