291 



4iave been tte subject of express stipulation, and wOuld necessai^ly 

 -have been accompanied with a description of the inland extent of 'the 

 shore over which such liberty was to be exercised, and whether -in 

 settled or unsettled parts ; but neither of these important particular's* is 

 provided for, even by implication. And that, among other considera- 

 tions, leads us to the conclusion that American citizens have no right to 

 land or conduct the fishery from the shores of the Magdalene islands. 

 The word 'shore' does not appear to be used in the convention in any 

 ■other than the general or ordmary sense of the word^ and nlust be 

 ■construed with reference to the liberty to be exercised upon it j 'and 

 would therefore compromise the land covered with water as far as could 

 be available for the due enjoyment of the liberty granted." 



Will these learned gentlemen explain why the word '^shores" is usbd 

 in the convention in connexion with the right which we enjoy at these 

 islands, while the terms '■^ coast" and "coasts'^ are employed when de- 

 fining our rights at Newfoundland and Labrador? Th^ reason is very 

 obvious to practical men. The Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries 

 are «Ma!-fisheries : the principal Magdalene fishery is a Aemw^-fisheiry. 

 The "shores" of the Magdulene islands are not wanted for the purpose 

 of "drying and curing fish," as the crown lawyers seem to suppbse, 

 but for using nets and seines. With all deference, then, their argument 

 is not sound. The right to use the implements employed by Britisn 

 subjects at these islands is indispensable ,to our success in the herring- 

 fishery there. The herring is never split and dried like the cod, nor is 

 it cured on the shores of the Magdalenes. Hence there are no conclu- 

 sions to be drawn from a statement of the limitations of "drying and 

 curing" in the cod-fishery on other and distant coasts. Yet this is the 

 reasoning by which we are to be deprived of the right to land and fish 

 on the shores of the Magdalene islands. But I insist that the change ot 

 the terms "coast" and "coasts" to "shores" was meant to give the 

 precise right which it is urged we cannot enjoy. To have said, in the 

 convention, that we might take fish on the coast and coasts of these 

 islands, as really is said when speaking of the cod- fishery, would have 

 been a vain use of words; but since the herring-^sherj requires the 

 use of shores, and without the use of shores cannot be prosecuted in the 

 common way, the reason why the term was used in relation to that 

 fishery is too manifest to need further illustration. 



Still, as it is argued that, "if the liberty of landing on the shores ol 

 the Magdalene islands had been intended to be conceded, such an im- 

 portant concession would have been the subject of express stipulation," 

 . &c., it may not be amiss to consider the suggestion. And I reply that, 

 -if "a description of the inland extent of the shore over which" we 

 may use nets and seines in catching the hemng is necessary, it is 

 equally necessary to define our rights of drying and curing the cod 

 elsewhere, and as stipulated in the convention, iioth are shore rights, 

 and both are left without condition or limitation as to the quantity of 

 beach and upland that may be appropriated by our fishermen. _ It was 

 proclaimed in the House of Commons, more than two centuries ago, 

 tby Coke — ^that giant of the law — that "free fishing" included "111 

 ITS INCIDENTS." The thought may be useful to the Queen's advofcale 



