228 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



clear, the same result is reached concerning " the shores of the Mag- 

 dalen Islands." Nothing appears in the treaty to change the well 

 known meaning of the word " shores," but for consistency's sake it is 

 said: 



The above argument with regard to the " coast " of Newfoundland, 

 therefore, applies to the " shores " of the Magdalen Islands.* 



Reserving the discussion of the method of construction contended 

 for by Great Britain until a later paragraph in this argument, atten- 

 tion is called to the source from which the words of the treaty are 

 taken, to the various treaties cited in the British Case, and to the 

 intention of the negotiators of the treaty of 1818. 



TREATY OF 1783. 



The British Case contends that the language used in the treaty of 

 1818 " makes a clear distinction between ' coasts ' on the one hand and 

 ' bays, harbours and creeks ' on the other, as the treaty of 1873 had 

 already done, and as the treaties of 1854 and 1871 subsequently did." fc 



It is proposed to show that the language of the treaty of 1818 was 

 drawn from the treaty of 1783 and has the same meaning in both 

 treaties, and that no such distinction was intended to be made. 



On the contrary the treaty of 1783 between the United States and 

 Great Britain furnishes, it is believed, controlling evidence that 

 " coasts " is not to be deprived of its usual meaning, but clearly is 

 synonymous with the word " shores." That treaty provides as fol- 

 lows: 



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 Newfound- 

 land 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." 



It is only on the shores of the bays and harbors that fish can be 

 dried and cured, and not on the open and exposed portions of the 

 coast. Why, then, was it necessary to provide against drying and 

 curing, if " coast " meant only such exterior and unavailable portions 

 of the coast ? If " coast " included bays, harbors, and creeks, then the 

 prohibition against drying and curing is intelligible, but not other- 

 wise. 



British Case, 126. 6 British Case, 124. c U. S. Case, Appendix, 24. 



