291 



have been the subject of express stipulation, nnd would necessarily 

 have been accompanied with a description of the inland extent of the 

 shore over which such liberty was to be exercised, and whether in 

 settled or unsettled parts; but neither of these important particulars is 

 provided f()r, even b\^ implication. And that, among other considera- 

 tions, leads us to the conclusion that American citizens have no right to 

 land or conduct the fishery from the shores of the Miigdalene islands. 

 The word 'shore' does not appear to be used in the convention in any 

 other than the general or ordinary sense of the word, and must be 

 construed with reference to the hberty to be exercised upon it, and 

 would therefore compromise the land covered with water as tin- as could 

 be available for the due enjoyment of the liberty granted." 



Will these learned gentlemen explain why the word '■^shores'''' is used 

 in the convention in connexion with the right which we enjoy at these 

 islands, while the terms "coa.s'i" and "cww/s" are employed when de- 

 fining our rights at Newfoundland and Labrador? The reason is very 

 obvious to practical men. The Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries 

 are co^-fisheries : the principal Magdalene fishery is n. herring-^shexy. 

 The ^^shores^^ of the Magdalene islands are not wanted lor the purpose 

 of "drying and curing fish," as the crown lawyers seem to suppose, 

 but for using nets and seines. With all deference, then, their argument 

 is not sound. The right to use the implements emplo3^ed by British 

 ■subjects at these islands is indispensable to our success in the herring- 

 fishery there. The herring is never split and dried like the cod, nor is 

 it cured on the shores of the Magdalenes. Hence there are no conclu- 

 sions to be drawn from a statement of the limitations of "drying and 

 curing" in the cod-fishery on other and distant coasts. Yet this is the 

 reasoning by which we are to be deprived of the right to land and fish 

 on the shores of the Mao:dalene islands. But I insist that the chans^e ot 

 the terms "coast" and "coasts" to "shores" was meant to give the 

 precise right which it is urged we cannot enjoy. To have said, in the 

 convention, that we might take fish on the coast and coasts of these 

 islands, as really is said when speaking of the cod-^shery, would have 

 been a vain use of words; but since the /iernV?^-fishery requires the 

 use o[ shores, and without the use of shores cannot be prosecuted in the 

 common way, the reason why the term was used in relation to that 

 fi.shcry is too manifest to need further illustration. 



Still, as it is argued that, "if tlie liberty of landing on the shores ot 

 the Magdalene islands had been intended to be conceded, such an im- 

 portant concession would have been the subject of express stipulation," 

 &;c., it may not be amiss to consider the suggestion. And I rcplv that, 

 if "a descri]}lion of the inland extcMit of the shore over whicii" we 

 may use nets and seines in catching the herring is necessary, it is 

 ef[ually necessary to define our rights of drying and curing the cod 

 elsewhere, and as stipulated in the convention. Both are shore rights, 

 and both arc left withr)ut condition or limitation as to the f|uaiilily of 

 beach and upland that may be apjjropriated l)y our fisjieriuen. It was 



{)roclaime<l in the House of Commons, more than two centuries ago, 

 )y Cok( — that giant of the hiw — thai "free fishing" included "all 

 ITS ixciDEXTS." The thought may Ix- useful to the (Queen's advocate 



