320 FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



have something in which "bays" will be of some help to them, 

 because they would say: "Here is a treaty in which 'bays' is used 

 with this meaning." But you have to put the meaning into it in 

 order to get it there; and there is nothing in the treaty which shows 

 what kind of bays they are talking about. If there is any inference 

 to be drawn from the occurrence of the word in this connection, it 

 is the inference that people had been in the habit of using the word 

 as designating something quite close to the shore, and something in 

 the way of interior waters. If it ever is permissible to say noscitur 

 a sociis, you can say it here. The bays here are the bays that 

 associate with havens, creeks, roads, shoals, and places. The word 

 "places" is quite general, of course, but all the other things are 

 things quite close to the shore; so that if there is any inference 

 from those treaties, it is aii inference that is quite favorable to the 

 United States. 



I shall not take the time to go into an examination of the local 

 statutes in regard to the bays of Chaleur and Miramichi further 

 than to say that the statute about Chaleur appHed only to the 

 beaches, the shores, and did not relate to the general surface of the 

 bay. Chaleur lies between the old province of Lower Canada and 

 New Brunswick, and the line of Lower Canada ran along the north 

 shore of the Bay of Chaleur, while New Brunswick was bounded by 

 the bay on the north. These statutes were statutes which related 

 to the use of the north shore of the bay in Lower Canada, and her 

 jurisdiction was bounded, not by the bay, but by the north shore; 

 and an examination of the statutes will show that they had no 

 relation to the general body of water at all. Perhaps they may 

 have had a relation to the water in connection with the shore, but 

 nothing which could run out anywhere in the neighborhood of 

 the 3-mile line. 



Sir Charles Fitzpatrick: Is that the statute that provides 

 for the boundary between Old Canada and New Brunswick ? 



Senator Root: That is a different statute. I stated what I 

 understood to be the fact, and which I beheve would be found in 

 that statute to which you referred. Sir Charles, but the statute I am 

 now referring to was one in 1785, to be found in the British Appendix 

 at p. SS4. 



