AKGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDEB. 1571 



above that which it had in 1818. And when they came to state their 

 claim of the coast that was opened to the United States this is 

 Part II of the printed Case of Newfoundland which begins on p. 546 

 of the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the United States, chapter 1, 

 and then on p. 547, the second paragraph from the bottom they 

 say: 



"A reference to the accompanying map will show that the coast, the 

 entire freedom of which for fishing purposes has thus been ac- 

 quired " 



That is, by the Treaty of Washington 



" by the United States for a period of twelve years, embraces that 

 portion extending from the Rameau Islands on the southwest coast 

 of the island eastward and northwardly to the Quirpon Islands. 

 This coast contains an area of upwards of 11,000 square miles, in- 

 cluding admittedly the most valuable cod-fisheries in the world. 

 Fish of other descriptions, namely, herring, capelin, and squid, which 

 are by far the best bait for the successful prosecution of the cod- 

 fisheries, can be taken in unlimited quantities close inshore." 



So that at that time, when they had every reason for showing the 

 largest amount of advantage obtained by the United States under 

 the treaty of 1871 over what it had under the treaty of 1818, 

 they begin with the end of the United States rights and go 

 951 around to where they began at the other end, recognising dis- 

 tinctly that the United States already had the entire treaty 

 coast, with all its bays, harbours, and creeks, and that the United 

 States should not be called upon to pay for anything on those coasts 

 because nothing was added on them by the Treaty of Washington. 

 If not included under the treaty of 1818, then the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington would have given us the bays, and Newfoundland would have 

 been entitled to compensation for them. It was concerning the con- 

 duct of the Newfoundland Counsel in that Arbitration that Sir 

 Robert Bond explained that they were lawyers, and were doing the 

 best they could. 



I must go back just for an instant to say that Canada, in that same 

 Halifax hearing, admitted squarely our rights so far as their coasts 

 were concerned. 



This is part of the Canadian Case at p. 538 of the Counter-Case 

 Appendix of the United States, third paragraph : 



" The Convention of 1818 entitled United States citizens to fish 

 on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, but denied them the privilege 

 of landing there. Without such permission the practical use of the 

 inshore fisheries was impossible. Although such permission has 

 tacitly existed, as a matter of sufferance, it might at any moment 

 have been withdrawn, and the operations of United States fishermen 

 in that locality would thus have been rendered ineffectual. The 

 value of these inshore fisheries is great" 



