135 QUESTION SIX. 



"COASTS" AND " SHOBES." 



Have the inhabitants of the United States the liberty under the 

 said article or otherwise to take fish in the bays, harbours, and creeks 

 on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends 

 from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands, or on the western and northern 

 coasts of Newfoundland from Cape Ray to Quirpon Islands, or on 

 the Magdalen Islands? 



THE CONTENTIONS. 



The question is whether United States fishermen are, under the 

 treaty of 1818, entitled to take fish, not only on that portion of the 

 " coast " of Newfoundland specified in article 1 of the treaty, and the 

 " shores " of the Magdalen Islands, but also in the bays, harbours, 

 and creeks thereof. While the treaty grants to American fishermen 

 liberty to take fish (British Case, App., p. 30) 



" on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks, from Mount Joli, on the 

 southern coast of Labrador," &c., 



it gives liberty on the " coast " merely of Newfoundland, and on the 

 " shores " of the Magdalen Islands. And the question is, whether the 

 more restricted liberty in these two localities is to be construed as 

 meaning the same as the more ample liberty on the Labrador coast. 



In the case of His Majesty's Government, attention was called to 

 the language of the treaty to the fact that the word coasts is clearly 

 used in a sense distinct from bays, harbours, and creeks; and the sub- 

 mission was offered that the concession of liberty to take fish on the 

 " coast of Newfoundland " meant something less extensive than the 

 concession of liberty to take fish " on the coasts, bays, harbours, and 

 creeks of Labrador." 



The Counter-Case of the United States makes little attempt to 



answer this argument, not desiring (as it says) "to anticipate the 



printed and oral arguments." The only suggestions offered are 



136 (1) that in one phrase of the treaty the word coast " distinctly 

 refers to the land adjacent to the water"; and (2) that in the 



British Case the admission is made that " the word ' shores ' in Article 

 one of the treaty is used to express the same idea as ' coasts ' in the 

 other parts of the Article." The pertinence of these observations is 

 not, however, in any way, explained ; and it is not sufficiently obvious 

 to invite reply (United States Counter- Case, p. 77). 



119 



