454 MISCELLANEOUS 



depend upon a treaty gift of 1783 for the right to these fisheries 

 than we depend upon it for the enjoyment of our right to our ter- 

 ritory or our independence." Mr. Adams contended on behalf of 

 the Americans that they owned these fisheries as much as the day they 

 declared war. But the British contended that the Americans fished 

 under treaty rights and as war abrogates existing treaties the rights 

 ceased on the declaration of war. 



Mr. Dana says further, " She (Britain) expressly waived all right 

 to exclude us from the Magdalen Islands and from the southern, 

 western and northern shores of Newfoundland." 



Great Britain expressly withheld all claim to exclude the Ameri- 

 cans from these sections. Now, sir, as far as the word coast was 

 concerned, the Premier's interpretation was based on the fact that 

 when reference was made to Labrador the words bays, harbours 

 and creeks were used in addition. Why were these words added with 

 respect to Labrador and not when referring to the rest of the island. 

 He, Mr. M., thought, nevertheless, that he saw a reason. Looking at 

 the Governor's instructions they would find that he was made Gov- 

 ernor of the coast of Labrador and all the adjacent islands. Now 

 almost all the adjacent islands are a narrow fringe along the shore, 

 and the word coast is meant to include the outer edge of the islands, 

 and it would hardly occur that the Governor would exercise juris- 

 diction over the outer edge of the islands and not over the bays and 

 harbors of these islands. He would, de facto, exercise jurisdiction 

 over them also. He, Mr. M., took it, however, that the reason for 

 using the words bays, harbors and creeks as well as word coast, in 

 connection with Labrador, was because of the peculiar nature of that 

 coast, which is made up almost totally of inlets and small islands, 

 and about the coastline of which there might be exceeding doubts. 

 If the Premier would look at the treaty of 1818 he will find that 

 they were excluded, not only from coming within three miles of the 

 coast, but also from coming within three miles of harbors, bays and 

 creeks. If the Premier were right in thinking that the coastline 

 only came to mouths of bays and harbors and does not enter them 

 there was no meaning in putting in three miles from bays. There 

 would be no meaning in putting an exclusion clause with reference 

 to bays as well as to coasts. But because the coastline follows 

 around the shores of the bays it was necessary to have this exclusion 

 clause inserted, or otherwise they would be able to enter bays which 

 were more than six miles wide. The Americans contended that 

 three miles from the coast of a bay meant three miles from the shore 

 around the bay, and if the bay was more than six miles wide they 

 had the right to enter till they came to where it narrowed down to 

 that limit. But the British contention was that it meant not only 

 three miles from the coastline but three miles from a line drawn 

 from headland to headland across the mouths of bays. But if the 

 words harbors and headlands were not there, you could come up to 

 the shore, because shore is low water mark and the treaty of 1818 

 gave the Americans the right on our northern coast to take fish of 

 every kind up to low water mark. No cry of patriotism was going 

 to prevent him, Mr. Morine, from interpreting the bill as it should be 

 interpreted, ^o cry of patriotism could make him support a meas- 

 ure based on a misconstruction as to its meaning. It was no patriot- 

 ism; it was foolishness, childishness. It was criminal to pass an act 



