1804 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



bays, so there was no dispute, then, as between coasts and bays 

 none. 



But the distinction between coasts and bays, though not illustrated 

 in any disputes between the parties at that time, was, I shall show, 

 clearly known to all. known to every one of them, and admitted in 

 explicit terms by every one of them, and in no single case contra- 

 dicted. 



In fact, I think my evidence on that will go very far. Then, as to 

 the other part of the question, the disputes relating to the landing on 

 the shores, of course that was a matter of negotiation, of bargain. 

 But I shall show this: that the distinction between coasts generally 

 and bays as component parts of coasts because I am not pretending 

 that a bay was something which was not part of a coast, that is to 

 say, there is a coast around the bay, as there is a coast running around 

 the rest of the territory but the distinction between coasts and bays 

 was indicated and acted upon in both the two material treaties. 

 Although a bay is a component part of a coast, it may be specified and 

 dealt with separately and independently for a particular purpose. 

 The bay was so specified, and it was so dealt with under the treaty of 

 1783. You have your right of fishing given generally on the coasts. 

 You have your right of drying and curing given specifically on the 

 unsettled bays and on all the coasts. On the whole of the coast you 

 have your right of fishing given, and then a particular component 

 part of the coast, namely, the bay, is picked out for a special pur- 

 pose the right of drying and curing. In the same way, you have a 

 very explicit distinction between the two in the treaty of 1818. There 

 it is very remarkable. And at a later period of my argument I hope 

 I shall show that it is conclusive. You deal with coasts generally in 

 Article 1 of the treaty of 1818, you give rights of fishing on the 

 coasts generally. I pass for the moment the point as to whether that 

 includes bays. I am leaving Question 6 alone for the moment. You 

 give a right to fish on coasts generally, and then, by the same article, 

 you deal with bays; you give bays in one case, and you do not in 

 another. You give bays in the case of Labrador for the right of 

 fishing; you do not give them at least I saj you do not; perhaps a 

 different view may be taken of this you do not give them specifi- 

 cally, at all events, on Newfoundland. But there is a still more 

 marked distinction. It is suggested that bays, harbours and creeks 

 are added to the word " coasts " as being a summing-up of the com- 

 ponent parts of the coasts; so that the word " coasts " may be treated, 

 as in an equation, as meaning coasts, bays, harbours and creeks. 

 1091 They may not or may mean the same thing. I am not con- 

 cerned. It does not matter to me to say they do not. The 

 word "coast" may be used quite generally to include bays, harbours. 

 and creeks, or, instead of using the word " coast," you may divide it 



