1810 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



there, without obtaining wood or water; we may have an abundance 

 of wood and water, but we want to rest there, protected by its head- 

 lands, or protected by some other favourable circumstance attached 

 to a bay. So, therefore, we will take the right" to do what? To 

 go within 3 miles of the coast? That is not what they say. " We 

 will take the right to enter the bay " showing that when they have 

 used the word " coast " and " bay " as a component part of a 

 coast they introduced the word " bay " specially, specifically, in 

 order to show that it is to be treated by itself. Although geographi- 

 cally part of the coast, yet the coast-line is to pass in front of it; 

 and they say : " Now, let us cross that imaginary coast-line ; let us 

 enter the bay, and when we get inside the bay we promise you that 

 we will not do anything except shelter or repair, or ask for wood 

 or water on the land, if we want it." In other words : " We go into 

 that bay, treated as a unit treated as a distinct component part 

 and, treating the bay in that way, we will take the right to enter it, 

 and, having got into it, we will obey your laws and will not fish in 

 it." They will not fish " on " the bay. The expression there means 

 really " in the bay." But they say : " We will not enter the bay ; we 

 will not fish on the coast or on the bay." I say that, although it 

 makes no difference and serves the purpose as it is, perhaps the more 

 accurate and usual way of saying it would have been " on the coast " 

 or " in the bay." But they have said quite enough : " We will not fish 

 on the coast; we will not fish on the bay; and not only will we not 

 fish on the bay, but we will not enter the bay except for those 

 purposes." 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Pardon me, Mr. Attorney-General, but 

 before you leave that, may I make this observation: If the parties 

 had used the word " coasts " alone, you say, then it would be a pos- 

 sible construction of that clause of the treaty that the Americans 

 would be excluded from the 3-mile limit from the shore. If the 

 parties intended to avoid that, and to exclude the Americans from 

 the bays, harbours, and creeks, what words would they have used? 



SIR W. ROBSON: Well, they would have been more skilful in the 

 English language than I am if they could have found any other than 

 the words they have got. That is not a bad rule of construction. 

 When it is contended that a party meant by certain words a certain 

 thing, it is not a bad test to ask: If he had wanted to express the 

 meaning, what other words could he have used? He could not have 

 used any others. He could not make it more explicit. He says: " I 

 want to keep you away from my coast. I will not let you come within 

 3 miles of my shore." Well. now. if he says " 3 miles of the shore," 

 that means all the way around the shore, including the bays 3 miles 

 from land. But he does not say that. He says : " I am not content 

 with keeping you 3 miles from land, because there are certain indenta- 



