ARGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1561 



or forwarded, at all events. The Assembly of Nova Scotia had 

 asked the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a case stated in 

 which quite a number of questions were propounded. One with re- 

 gard to the headland theory and in regard to the proper delimitation 

 of bays has been called to the attention of the Court very frequently, 

 but the fifth question that was presented to them, which is not the 

 fifth question presented here, appears on p. 1046, United States Case 

 Appendix, with reference to the right to land on the Magdalen 

 Islands. Perhaps I had better read the question : 



" Have American citizens a right to land on the Magdalen Islands, 

 and conduct the Fishery from the shores thereof by using nets and 

 seines ; or what right of Fishery do they possess on the shores of those 

 Islands and what is meant by the term shore." 



Palpably the wise men of Nova Scotia at that time understood that 

 the bays were included because the important part of their question 

 is, whether the right to take fish included the right to land on the 

 shores so as to aid in the fishing by the landing of nets or anything 

 of that kind. Then, coming to the answer of the law officers of the 

 Crown, which appears on p. 1048, United States Case Appendix, sec- 

 tion 5, we find this: 



945 " With reference to the claim of a right to land on the Mag- 



dalen Islands, and to fish from the shores thereof, it must be ob- 

 served, that by the Treaty, the liberty of drying and curing Fish (pur- 

 poses which could only be accomplished by landing) in any of the 

 unsettled Bays, etc., of southern part of Newfoundland, and of the 

 coast of Labrador is specifically provided for ; but such liberty is dis- 

 tinctly negatived in any settled Bay, etc., and it must therefore be in- 

 ferred that if the liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalen 

 Islands had been intended to be conceded, such an important conces- 

 sion would have been the subject of express stipulation, and would nec- 

 essarily have been accompanied with a description of the inland extent 

 of the shore over which such liberty was to be exercised, and whether 

 in settled or unsettled parts, but neither of these important particu- 

 lars are provided for, even by implication, and that, among other con- 

 siderations leads us to the conclusion that American citizens have no 

 right to land or conduct the Fishery from the shores of the Magdalen 

 Islands. The word ' shore ' does not appear to be used in the Con- 

 vention in any other than the general or ordinary sense of the word, 

 and must be construed with reference to the liberty to be exercised 

 upon it, and would therefore comprise the land covered with water, 

 as far as could be available for the due enjoyment of the liberty 

 granted." 



That is to say, it is as far as a vessel fishery could be conducted ; as 

 far as it could go. I want to say at this point, because it comes in 

 this connection, that the United States does not concede that the 

 opinion of the law officers of the Crown is correct upon that proposi- 

 tion. It is based, as you will see, not upon any infirmity in the mean- 

 ing of the word " shore," but is based upon the implication that if 



