BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHEB CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. - 497 



it has therefore to be inferred that its meaning is to be gathered 

 alone from its context and the circumstances that attended its adop- 

 tion. On a former occasion I have contended that the Treaty of 

 1818 did not grant to American fishermen the right to take fish in 

 the harbours between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands, and I see no 

 reason whatever to change that view. On the contrary, the more 

 closely I have studied this question the more convinced am I as to 

 the correctness of the position. I submit that if the question is to 

 be decided on the words of article 1 of the Treaty of 1818 and with- 

 out reference to what may be advanced as the conduct of the parties 

 thereunder, and according to rules of construction which govern an 

 English court of law in the interpretation of a contract, there is 

 ample justification for the view that I have expressed, viz, that the 

 article conveys no such right. There is a prima facie presumption 

 that the word " coast " is used throughout the article in the same 

 sense, and as, in the expression " coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks," 

 it obviously does not include " bays, harbours, and creeks," it would 

 follow that it does not include them when used in connection with 

 Nfld. It may be observed that while the word is used in connection 

 with Newfoundland in the singular, it is used in connection with the 

 Labrador both in the singular and plural, and it is only as used in 

 the plural that it is contrasted with " bays, harbours, and creeks." 

 I am ready to admit that but for the difficulty arising from the ex- 

 pression " coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks " a right to fish on the 

 coast would prima facie mean a right to fish on any part of the 

 coast, including bays, harbours, etc., but it seems to me that the con- 

 struction of the article evidences that there was abundant reason for 

 inserting that expression, and I think that if the words of the article 

 be taken by themselves the interpretation that I have placed upon 

 them is free from doubt. It may possibly be held that the expres- 

 sion is ambiguous, and that when an ancient document is ambiguous 

 the conduct of the parties thereunder must be referred to for the pur- 

 pose of explaining the ambiguity, and that this principle is peculiarly 

 applicable to treaties. Granting this to be correct, what has been 

 the conduct of the parties ? The conduct of the parties has been that 

 the Americans (1) have been accustomed to visit the bays, harbours, 

 and creeks of the west coast to obtain cargoes of herring, not by the 

 capture of such fish by the crews of their vessels, but by purchase; 

 their vessels have never been manned with the necessary crews or 

 equipped with the necessary appliances to enable them to catch fish, 

 and they have ever relied upon Newfoundland fishermen to supply 

 for cash such bait fishes as they required. (2) Newfoundland fisher- 

 men have at all times supplied American vessels visiting the " bays, 

 harbours, and creeks " for herring or other fish with the desired 

 quantities for cash or barter. 



If, then, I am correct in the opinion that the construction to be 

 placed upon article 1 of the Treaty of 1818 is that which I have 

 advanced, provided that the words of the article be taken by them- 

 selves, a reference to the conduct of the parties thereunder has only 

 the effect of strengthening my position. Again, over one hundred 

 years prior to the Treaty of 1818, namely, in 1713, Great Britain 

 had entered into a treaty with France granting certain privileges 

 of fishing upon the west or treaty coast of this colony. Subsequently, 



