ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1907 



Now. what is the origin of that distinction between Newfoundland 

 and Labrador? When you go back to the treaty of 1783, only the 

 coast of Newfoundland was given. It appears in the same volume 

 at p. 24: 



"And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have lib- 

 erty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of New- 

 foundland 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 in America; " 



In neither of these two treaties do they give the bays on the coast 

 of Newfoundland in neither of them. When they are dealing with 

 " coasts " ; generally in the treaty of 1783 they mention " bays." 

 When they are dealing with " coasts " specifically in 1818 on Labra- 

 dor, they mention " bays," but in neither of the treaties did they give 

 the bays on the coast of Newfoundland. I think the reason is indi- 

 cated in what we know of these bays generally. You do not catch 

 cod apparently in the bays. We have that from different authorities 

 throughout the course of this case. You do not catch the cod in the 

 bays, and, in 1818, there was no herring fishery, so that nobody 

 particularly wanted to go into the bays except for the purpose of 

 landing, and for that they took a special privilege when they wanted 

 it. So that there is a very good reason why they should not have 

 troubled to ask for the bays of Newfoundland. They did not want 

 them. They were no good to them. They did not trouble about them 

 at all. In fact, the whole of these particular rights were trivial 

 things to the United States. It was the bank fishery which was 

 really the important one. 



Xow, when they come to 1818 they are told that they may continue 

 their fishing liberty on the coast of Newfoundland, and they are also 

 offered Labrador, or at least they want Labrador. It had been dis- 

 cussed in the preceding negotiation. So the United States, when 

 they want the bays of Labrador, which were important, ask for 

 them. The bays of Labrador, as we know from Mr. Sabine's report, 

 did contain the cod. The cod in that part of the world went into 

 the bays, and so, when they were dealing with Labrador, they said : 

 " Well, we must not be content with the word ' coast,' we will have 

 ' bays,' " and they put " bays " in. 



Now, that is a very strong circumstance to show that they were 

 not thinking of, and not asking for, bays on the western coast of 

 Newfoundland. 



I used this argument already on the last question to show how 

 important bays were. I have used it to show how unlikely it is" that 

 that word was being thrown in as a mere superfluous descriptive 

 term, merely indicating the component part of the coasts. The par- 



