ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1843 



inclusive of bays, of course, the word " coast " and the word " shore " 

 are frequently used as being sufficient. They know that they are 

 getting the whole fishery and they might quite easily say, as they did 

 say in some of these cases, that the word " coast," or " shore " is in- 

 clusive of bays. They did not always do it because when they were 

 spoken about they ran in the words " bays " and " creeks " out of 

 habit, but sometimes they did. They did it. as I say, because nobody 

 at that time wanted to exclude the bays, nobody was trying to with- 

 draw them. These words are practically all one; it is not a question 

 between coasts and bays. They want the fishery, the whole fishery, 

 both on the coasts and in the bays, and everybody knows that is what 

 is being asked for. I need not give other instances. I think I have 

 given enough just to illustrate the use of the words, but there are 

 other instances. 



I may come now to the preliminary articles of the treaty itself and 

 here one must lay stress upon the formal document. It is very easy to 

 fall into the mistake of treating these private documents of the nego- 

 tiators as though they had the same force as the formal document in 

 which both of the parties set down and committed their intention to 

 definite writing. When they are writing to each other, when Mr. 

 Townshend is writing to Mr. Strachey, or when Mr. Adams is writing 

 to Mr. Monroe, or when Mr. Rush is writing to Mr. Gallatin, they 

 do not write as if their letters were going to be interpreted and criti- 

 cised like contracts. They write for short; sometimes they say: 

 " coasts, bays and creeks," and sometimes they say only " shores." 

 But now we are coming to the document, the contract, the preliminary 

 articles of the treaty in 1782 and then there they are using their words 

 very carefully. At p. 108 of the British Counter-Case Appendix, 

 we again get signs of the curious care with which they are using these 

 words, because they say that : 



" the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to 

 take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank . . . also in the Gulf of St. 

 Lawrence, . . . also that the inhabitants of the United States shall 

 have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of 

 Newfoundland, as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure 

 the same on that island) . and also on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all 

 other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions " 



I confess that I cannot as a lawyer suppose that these words " bays 

 and creeks " were thrown in there as merely following the instinct of 

 legal rhythm, as merely running words, or because they often used 

 them together. They must have thought them out. They only say 

 "coast of Newfoundland." Why is that? At that time 1782 

 Great Britain was fighting both the United States and France. 

 France had rights on the coast of Newfoundland. We did not kno\\ 

 how we might have to deal with those rights. Remember, these are 



