1562 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



the right to dry and cure on the Magdalen Islands had been intended 

 it would have been specifically provided for, as it was on the southern 

 coast of Newfoundland and on the Labrador; and from that implica- 

 tion they properly draw the conclusion that there is no right to dry 

 and cure on the shores, but they jump at the conclusion that therefore 

 there is no right on the shores at all. The language of the treaty is 

 " on the shores of the Magdalen Islands." That is, to take fish upon 

 the shores, and we contend that the meaning of that phrase is to con- 

 duct fishing operations, even though it involves attaching a net upon 

 the shore, or landing a boat upon the shore to pull a net, or anything 

 that is confined to the work of fishing, -and does not involve the fur- 

 ther right of drying and curing; and we make the same contention 

 with regard to the coasts of Newfoundland, it being conceded that 

 the word " coast " has the same meaning as the word " shore." 



THE PRESIDENT: What would be the land covered with water? 

 How is the land covered with water to be distinguished from the sea? 



MR. ELDER: The law officers draw a distinction there which, I 

 fancy, means that the territory of the King runs under the water, 

 and that the waters flowing over it are what the American fishermen 

 get the right to use, because they are part of the territory of the 

 King, and they have the right to use them as far as possible, up 

 towards the shore. I am not sure that I have interpreted their mean- 

 ing correctly, but that is the inference I draw from it. 



JUDGE GRAY : There would be great tides laying bare large portions 

 twice every twenty-four hours and flooding them again ? 



MR. ELDER: Yes. With regard to the doctrine of interpretation 

 which is to be applied, we contend that the word " coast," as used 

 concerning the southern and western coasts of Newfoundland, is a 

 clear word in its meaning, and that the word " shores " is a clear 

 \vord in its meaning. Now, what is the doctrine to be applied, be- 

 cause, in another clause of the same sentence, the plural of the word is 

 used " coasts," where it is split up into coasts ? Are you to cut down 

 the word " coast," as it is first used, and say that it means less than 

 its real meaning? We say there is no such doctrine of interpreta- 

 tion as that. Our friends rely upon " Maxwell on the Interpreta- 

 tion of the Statutes," p. 397 : 



"ASSOCIATED WORDS UNDERSTOOD IN A COMMON SENSE," 



and the illustrations are given by the writer at p. 397 : 



" The word ' land,' which in its ordinary legal acceptation in- 

 cludes buildings standing upon it, is evidently used as excluding 

 them, when it is coupled with the word ' buildings.' If after impos- 

 ing a rate on houses, buildings, works, tenements and heredita- 

 ments " 



