QUESTION SIX. 121 



by Mr. Bagot were included (although not supposed to be of any 

 value) ; and that a further tract upon the Labrador coast was added 

 to these. This additional tract on Labrador (supposed by the United 

 States to be advantageous to them) appears to have been easily con- 

 ceded by the British negotiators; and (what is more difficult to un- 

 derstand) the west coast of Newfoundland and the Magdalen shores, 

 although not demanded, were apparently conceded voluntarily. 



Regarding part of the Labrador coast as valuable and the New- 

 foundland coast as valueless, it is thus not difficult to understand why 

 the United States plenipotentiaries, in formulating a clause for the 

 treaty, were careful to stipulate for " the coasts, bays harbours and 

 creeks " in Labrador, and merely for the " coasts " of Newfoundland. 

 They thought that the fish were in one place, and not in the other. 

 As has been previously pointed out, the United States negotiators 

 in 1818 had in their view the cod-fishery only. Of that, there was 

 little in the Newfoundland bays. There is, indeed, none on the west 

 coast of the island, and on the south coast it is a purely winter fishery 

 and therefore not available for United States fishermen (United 

 States Counter-Case, p. 89). 



NEGOTIATIONS OF 1823. 



The United States Counter-Case makes long reference to the nego- 

 tiations of 1823 with reference to the French shore, and claims that 

 in those negotiations Great Britain failed to point out the exact 

 nature of United States rights. In reply,. His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment asks attention to the fact that, in these negotiations, the issue 

 was entirely between the British and the United States Governments 



on one side, and the French Government on the other. The 

 138 situation as between Great Britain and the United States was 



a matter of absolutely no importance, and, if for the purposes 

 of the controversy with France, their interests were assumed to be 

 the same, it was because they were sufficiently so to unite them in 

 opposition to the French claim to exclude them both from the coasts, 

 as well as the bays, of the part of Newfoundland under discussion. 



ALLEGED ACQUIESCENCE. 



In another part of its Counter-Case, the United States says that 

 the contention of His Majesty's Government was never raised until 

 1905, although (United States Counter-Case, .p. 75) 



"the United States has always asserted the right of the American 

 fisherman to take fish in the waters referred to, and American fisher- 

 men have, ever since the treaty was made, openly exercised their 

 right to take fish in these waters without objection or interference by 

 the Newfoundland Government," 



