2224 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



plainant who conceives that the answer of the defendant is frivolous 

 may move to strike out the answer; and if it is stricken out. the re- 

 sult is that he is entitled to take his judgment pro confesso. I re- 

 member many years ago a motion being made of that character be- 

 fore a very experienced judge, and counsel making the motion beran 

 to argue upon the frivolousness of the answer. The judge stopped 

 him and said : " If this requires argument, the answer is not frivolous, 

 and your motion is denied." With that view I shall say nothing 

 more whatever about Question 6. 

 As to Question 7 : 



"Are the inhabitants of the United States whose vessels resort to 

 the treaty coasts for the purpose of exercising the liberties referred 

 to in Article I of the treaty of 1818 entitled to have for those vessels, 

 when duly authorzied by the United States in that behalf, the com- 

 mercial privileges on the treaty coasts accorded by agreement or 

 otherwise to United States trading vessels generally ? v 



I quite agree with an observation made the other day from the 

 bench that these questions are all questions of both parties. Both 

 parties have united in framing them, and presenting them to the 

 Court, and both parties are responsible for them. Nevertheless, 

 when a difference arises as to the construction in two ways of a 

 question, it may be of some advantage to the Tribunal, in endeavour- 

 ing to put itself in the attitude of the parties who framed the ques- 

 tion at the time when they framed it, to know what the origin of the 

 question was, from what element of controversy the question came. 

 For that purpose, as an aid to the construction of the question by the 

 Tribunal, I advert to the fact that this question, like Question 0, had 

 its origin in Newfoundland. It was a Newfoundland question, not a 

 United States question, or a British question. The United Stati - 

 was not particularly concerned about it. We find on p. 1014 

 1345 of the United States Appendix a letter from Governor Mac- 

 Gregor to Lord Elgin of the 14th September, 1907, and the 

 paragraph of that letter numbered 2 touches this subject. Said Gov- 

 ernor MacGregor: 



" It may be presumed that neither His Maje>ty's Government nor 

 that of the United States would desire to withhold any part of the 

 case from consideration, a complete and full representation of which 

 is clearly necessary and desirable in order to arrive at finality, and 

 to save future misunderstanding. Your Lordship is. for example. 

 aware that my Prime Minister has consistently disputed the right of 

 American fishermen to fish or trade in the bays, harbours, and creeks 

 of the West Coast, a point of great importance on which special 

 stress is laid in the letter copy of which is enclosed." 



On the preceding page, p. 1013 of the same Appendix, is a tele- 

 gram from Governor MacGregor to Lord Elgin, in the third para- 

 graph of which he said: 



