QUESTION SIX. 103 



an answer. If there had been anything in that interpretation it 

 would not have been left to the discovery of a layman in the year 

 1905, almost 100 years after the making of the treaty. And further- 

 more, the fact that this interpretation hud not been acted on for 

 upwards of one hundred years would be a sufficient answer. In 

 fact, if there had been, originally any meaning in such a petty inter- 

 pretation of the words, the advantage had long been lost by the 

 custom in usage of the two countries. The fact that such an inter- 

 pretation had never been made before, but left until that date to be 

 discovered by a layman, however eminent, would agree with the con- 

 tention that there was nothing in it. The statesmen of the United 

 States, Canada or Great Britain had never placed such an interpre- 

 tation upon it. The interpretation of the Premier as to rights of 

 the Americans was based on the fact that in one place the treaty 

 referred to the rights on the Newfoundland coast between Ramea 

 and Quirpon; and later on, when speaking of Labrador, it said not 

 only coast, but further added the words bays, harbors and creeks, 

 words which had not been put in with reference to Newfoundland. 

 The Premier would argue, from the fact that the word coast if fol- 

 lowed by the words bays, harbors and creeks, when referring to 

 Labrador, the right to fish on the coast of Newfoundland, did not 

 imply the right to use the bays, harbors and creeks of the said coast. 

 Now^ he Mr. M., would like some seafaring man to show him the dif- 

 ference between the coast and bays; where the coast ended, and the 

 bays commenced. What was the coast from Cape Race to Burin? 

 Was it not Placentia Bay? And was not the Bay of Islands part 

 of the West Coast? Further on the Premier would find, when ref- 

 erence was made to the right to cure or dry fish in certain bays, har- 

 bors and creeks and coasts, that it was especially recognized that 

 the bays, harbors and creeks were part and parcel of the coast, and 

 the right to fish upon the coast therefore included the right to fish in 

 all the bays, harbors and creeks thereof, inasmuch as the coast was 

 made up of bays, harbors and creeks. To argue that the Americans 

 were to be deprived, under the treaty of 1818, of the right of fishing 

 in any of the bays, harbors and creeks of the coast, because only 

 the coast itself was mentioned, was to argue falsely. The larger 

 word included the smaller the word coast included bays, harbors 

 and creeks, and though, when referring to the Labrador coast, the 

 words bays, harbors and creeks were used in addition, they might 

 just as well have been left out they were merely a lawyer-like repe- 

 tition, having the same meaning. He was surprised that the Pre- 

 mier, after having made such a deep study of the case, and after hav- 

 ing read that very excellent summary, quoting facts and dates, did 

 not see the futility of his argument. 



By way of explanation of why Great Britain consented to present 

 to this Tribunal a contention which was discredited even in New- 

 foundland, it must be noted that Sir Robert Bond, in the negotia- 

 tions with Great Britain, with reference to the modus vivendi of 

 1907, made his consent to certain proposals conditional "on the 



U. S. Counter-Case Appendix, p. 425. 



