cxliv INTRODUCTION 



"l believe," he said, "I am correct in saying that it is the first time that this 

 position has been taken, and, if I am correct in my interpretation of the Treaty of 

 1818, the whole winter herring fishery of the west coast has been carried on for 

 years by the Americans simply at the sufferance of the Government of this Colony."' 



The value of Sir Robert's discovery and the correctness of his inter- 

 pretation did not, however, pass unchallenged, for during the very 

 debate in which Sir Robert advanced his novel and unexpected con- 

 struction, Mr. Morine, while admitting the originality of the interpre- 

 tation, questioned its correctness, and it would seem answered it in a 

 manner which deprives it of any claim to serious consideration. 



Mr. Morine stated that 



" however desirous the house might be to accept that interpretation, because it 

 would very much narrow American rights and increase our own in our waters, he 

 did not think that any lawyer would for a moment believe the Premier's point was 

 well taken. The very fact that it had not been taken since 1818 was at once an 

 argument and an answer. If there had been anything in that interpretation it 

 would not have been left to the discovery of a layman in the year 1905, almost one 

 hundred years after the making of the treaty. And furthermore, the'fact that this 

 interpretation had not been acted on for upwards of one hundred years would be a 

 suiBcient answer. In fact, if there had been, originally, any meaning in such a petty 

 interpretation of the words, the advantage had long been lost by the custom in usage 

 of the two countries. The fact that such an interpretation had never been made 

 before, but left until that date to be discovered by a layman, however eminent, would 

 agree with the contention that there was nothing in it. The statesmen of the United 

 States, Canada, or Great Britain had never placed such an interpretation upon it. 

 The interpretation of the Premier as to rights of the Americans was based on the fact 

 that in one place the Treaty referred to the rights on the Newfoundland coast between 

 Ramea and Quirpon; and later on, when speaking of Labrador, it said not only coast, 

 but further added the words bays, harbors and creeks, words which had not been put 

 in with reference to Newfoundland. The Premier would argue, from the fact that 

 the word coast if followed by the words bays, harbors and creeks, when referring to 

 Labrador, the right to fish on the coast of Newfoundland did not imply the right to 

 use the bays, harbors and creeks of the said coast. ... To argue that the Ameri- 

 cans were to be deprived, under the treaty of 1818, of the right of fishing in any of 

 the bays, harbors and creeks, of the coast, because only the coast itself was mentioned, 

 was to argue falsely. The larger word included the smaller — the word coast included 

 bays, harbors and creeks, and though, when referring to the Labrador coast, the 

 words bays, harbors and creeks were used in addition, they might just as well been 

 left out — they were merely a lawyer-like repetition, having the same meaning. He 

 was surprised that the Premier, after having made such a deep study of the case, and 

 after having read that very excellent summary, quoting facts and dates, did not see 

 the futility of his argument." * 



The fact that the novel interpretation made by Sir Robert Bond was 



' Sir Robert Bond's speech on second recording of Foreign Fishing Vessels Bill, April 7, 1905. 

 (Appendix, U. S. Counter Case, p. 414.) 



' Appendix, U. S. Counter Case, pp. 425, 426. 



