ARGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1553 



on the non-treaty coast where there is no communication with the 

 shore. That concludes what I have to say on Questions 3 and 4. 



[Thereupon, at 12 o'clock the Tribunal took a recess until 2 

 o'clock p. m.] 



940 AFTERNOON SESSION, FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1910, 2 P.M. 



THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly continue, Mr. Elder. 

 MR. ELDER (resuming) : Question 6 reads as follows: 



" Have the inhabitants of the United States the liberty under the 

 said article or otherwise to take fish in the bays, harbours, and creeks 

 on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends 

 from Cape Eay to Eameau Islands, or on the western and northern 

 coasts of Newfoundland from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands, or on 

 the Magdalen Islands? " 



The contention of Great Britain is that under the first clause of 

 the treaty which granted the liberty of fishing, no right of access to 

 the bays of the south or west coast of Newfoundland are included, 

 nor to the bays on the Magdalen Islands. 



To put it the other way, they say that all the United States did get 

 was the right to a strip of water 3 miles wide. Outside was the open 

 sea, where of course anybody could fish, and on the inside were the 

 bays where we could not fish. So that practically we got a meagre 

 right, because I do not suppose it is contended that that 3-mile strip 

 is of peculiar value, while the bays, of course, are of the greatest 

 value. 



In using the word " bays," I understand the British contention to 

 be that we are excluded from the large bays or bodies of water known 

 as bays in 1818, at the time of the Treaty. 



We do not concede that that is the meaning, but, as is elaborately 

 argued under Question 5, contend that the word " bays " had a dis- 

 tinct and definite meaning in 1818, that is jurisdictional or territorial 

 bays which are 6 miles wide or less at the mouth. At the same time 

 I propose to discuss this question just as broadly as the British claim 

 puts it. 



I ought, perhaps, to say at this point that Mr. Ewart felt that a 

 passage which was taken from the printed Argument, on Question 6, 

 with regard to the treaty of 1818 being taken from the treaty of 1783. 

 and being in some particulars " a Chinese copy " of it, was of service 

 to him in his Argument concerning the question of bays under Ques- 

 tion 5. We do not feel that it is, and it having arisen under Ques- 

 tion 6, I take the liberty of answering it at this point. 



The negotiators of that treaty unquestionably had the treaty of 

 1783 before them, they use those peculiar words " without previous 

 agreement with the possessors, proprietors or occupies of the ground,'' 

 which are copied from one treaty to the other. The general struc- 



