426 MISCELLANEOUS 



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

 the West Coast? Further on the Premier would find, when reference 

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

 bors and creeks were used in addition, they might just as well have 

 been left out they were merely a lawyer-like repetition, having the 

 same meaning. He was surprised that the Premier, after having 

 made such a deep study of the case, and after having read that very 

 excellent summary, quoting facts and dates, did not see the futility 

 of his argument. 



The rights referred to in the treaty of 1818 were rights which had 

 remained from the time when the Americans were British subjects, 

 and such rights would not be taken away by doubtful words. The 

 meaning would have been clearly expressed. The parties would 

 have asked what was the general meaning of these treaties. The gen- 

 eral meaning had been the narrowing down of rights possessed by 

 the Americans when they were British subjects; but such narrowing 

 down would have to be done in plain language. The Premier had 

 again and again, that evening, used words which described the effect 

 of this treaty. lie had said that the general purpose of the treaty 

 was to limit the right, territorially, of taking fish. It was for the pur- 

 pose of preventing their taking fish in certain waters, but they were 

 allowed to fish in other waters. Originally they had had the right 

 to fish in all waters; but under the treaty of 1818 they were prevented 

 from fishing in certain waters, while still retaining the right in 

 others. In the waters where they were allowed to fish, their rights 

 were the same as they had always been. The right to fish on the 

 coast implied essentially the right to fish in the bays, harbors and 

 creeks, and that right was not to be taken from them because of the 

 fact that in one section was found the word " coast," and in another 

 place appeared " bays, harbors and creeks." That was too narrow an 

 interpretation. He, Mr. M., could not see how the Premier, with 

 such a history before him, and knowing the main object had been to 

 limit fishing rights territorially, could have arrived at such an inter- 

 pretation. There was another point which the Premier had alluded 

 to that evening. He had said that, admitting that the Americans 

 had the right to catch herring in Bay of Islands, admitting, for the 

 sake of argument, that they had that right, they had no right to land 

 upon the strand ; and he had further stated that it was necessary for 

 them to land, as they must use their nets from the land. He had 

 been informed by a practical man in the house that such was not the 

 case, as they could net the fish from their boats. The fact that the 

 Premier said that it was necessary to land, was an answer to his 

 argument. The right to do a thing drew to it the right to do every- 

 thing necessary for its performance. The Americans had the right 



