992 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



SIR JAMES WINTER : No distinction, but the very general statement 

 that they had the right to fish all over the coast and all around the 

 island and also to dry and cure their fish all over the island. That is 

 an exaggerated, unreasonable statement. It is made, not for the 

 purpose, I think, of directing anything against the Americans par- 

 ticularly. It had more to do, generally, with the protection of the 

 fisheries. I certainly would apply my observation in that way. We 

 submit, then, that we have brought the matter down to this 

 59G point that the clear and manifest intention of the parties is 

 what we contend for and that the words of the treaty expressed 

 fully and clearly not only the contention which we have set up out- 

 side of the treaty, but the actual intention of the negotiators them- 

 selves, and that anything that has occurred since could have no 

 material bearing on this question and ought not to be permitted to 

 come in. It may be that, later in the case, the Tribunal will be called 

 upon to deal with matters that have arisen since the making of the 

 treaty which point to a different interpretation of the words of the 

 treaty. I am not now about to enter into a discussion of any of these 

 matters for the reason I have given and for the further reason that 

 in opening the case for the United States this Question, No. 6, has 

 not been dealt with. If it had been dealt with more fully and if the 

 main grounds upon which the United States relied for their conten- 

 tion in the case had been submitted to the Court for argument it 

 would have been my duty to answer it, but, in the present position 

 of the case, I consider that it is sufficient to put before the Tribunal 

 what we might call a primd facie case leading up to the conclusion 

 that I have stated. If there be any argument adduced afterwards on 

 behalf of the United States relating to matters which may have 

 occurred since the making of the treaty, it will have to be dealt with 

 by subsequent speakers on this side of the case. 



I will conclude with a few general observations, relating par- 

 ticularly to one feature of the case to which great importance 

 appears to be attached by the United States Case and Argument, 

 and that is that Sir Robert Bond, the Premier of Newfoundland, 

 was the first to make the discovery of this construction of the treaty, 

 and that, further, during all the years from 1818 down to 1905, as 

 it is said, Great Britain had slept upon her rights, that she had these 

 rights and had never enforced or asserted them, and that, on the 

 contrary, the United States had openly and continuously exercised 

 and asserted their rights and they had never been disputed. I can 

 only answer that in a very broad and general way by saying that 

 although it may be quite true that Sir Robert Bond, in 1905, was 

 the first to call attention to this construction of the treaty, the reason 

 for that was that up to that time no occasion had arisen for an 

 examination into these words, that up to that time, as a matter of 



