1278 MISCELLANEOUS. 



in 1815, in the convention of 1818, in the McLane arrangement in 

 1830, or in the last, the treaty of Washington in 1842; who would fail 

 to. see the inhumanity nay, the outright wickedness of the whole 

 proceeding? Yet, were all this to be done, they would do no more 

 than has actually been done by the political leaders of Nova Scotia 

 and the crown lawyers of England. As a matter of right, the British 

 colonists can be treated precisely as they require the government of 

 England to treat us. If as they aver, and quote international law to 

 prove the Strait of Canso is not o'pen to our vessels under sail and 

 passing to and from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then, and for the same 

 reasons geographical and political the "reaches," sounds, straits, 

 and "thoroughfares" along the coast of the United States, are not 

 open to them. Can this position be denied? 



In reply to Lord Falkland's fifth query, the law officers of the crown 

 say: "With reference to the claim of a right to land on the Magdalene 

 islands, and to fish from the shores thereof, it must be observed that, 

 by the treaty, the liberty of drying and curing fish (purposes which 

 could only be accomplished by landing) in any of the unsettled bays, 

 &c., of the southern part of Newfoundland, and of the coast of Labra- 

 dor, is specifically provided for; but such privilege is distinctly nega- 

 tived in any settled bay, &c. And it must therefore be inferred that, 

 if the liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalene islands had 

 been intended to be conceded, such an important concession would 

 have been the subject of express stipulation, and 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 for, even by implication. And that, among other con- 

 siderations, leads us to the conclusion that American citizens have no 

 right to land or conduct the fishery from the shores of the Magdalene 

 islands. The word 'shore 7 does not appear to be used in the conven- 

 tion in any other than the general or ordinary sense of the word, and 

 must be construed with reference to the liberty to be exercised upon 

 it, and would therefore compromise the land covered with water as far 

 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 "coast" and "coasts" 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 coof-fisheries : the principal Magdalene fishery is a herring-fishery. 

 The "shores" of the Magdalene islands are not wanted for 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 employed 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 Magdalene islands. But I insist that the change of 

 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 



