". . . territories limits and places." Here again the word "coasts" appears to denote territories rather than strips of sea-board. A striking illustration of this wider use of the word in connection with the very area now in dispute is afforded by the speech of Lord North in the Debate on the Quebec Bill, 1774, in which he observes: "There are added, undoubtedly, to it" (i.e., to the Province of Quebec) "two countries which were not in the original limits of Canada as settled in the Proclamation of 1763; one, the Labrador coast," etc. A similar description of the coast of Labrador as "that country" by the Commissioners for the Office of Lord High Admiral in 1765 is noticed in paragraph 34 of the Newfoundland Case; and it is desired to draw attention here to paragraphs 34 and 35 of that Case in support of the contention of the Government of Newfoundland that "coast" in the context, in which it appears in this dispute, is used as denoting more than a mere strip of littoral.
15. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph Newfoundland submits that the word "coast" does not necessarily mean or designate the same thing as "sea-shore" or "sea-coast" and that its meaning must be ascertained from the connection in which it is used and that in the present instance though it indicates territory bordering on the sea it connotes much more than a mere narrow strip. It is unnecessary to repeat here the arguments already adduced in the Newfoundland Case to show that the width of territory connoted by the coast of the Labrador is to be ascertained by tracing the crest of the water-shed of the waters flowing into the Atlantic Ocean.
16. The next proposition in paragraph 7 of the Canadian Case, is, that "coast" is not used for the banks of, e.g., rivers or lakes. The Government of Newfoundland suggests that for the present purpose no better parallel could be sought than the precisely similar question which arose in the Alaska Boundary Dispute and was determined in the manner set out in the Newfoundland Case. Even if it were admitted that to speak of the "coast" of a lake or river would be to make use of an unusual expression (though Ash's Dictionary, London, 1775
and 1795, would allow its use for "the bank of any large river or water") the coast-line for boundary purposes would still have to be ascertained, as the decision referred to shows, by following the actual sinuosities of bays, inlets and creeks.
17. The next proposition in paragraph 7 of the Canadian Case to be considered is that the term "coast" has invariably been used in the Courts of England, Canada and the U.S.A. as equivalent to "sea-shore" and "sea-coast" and as meaning "the edge or margin of the land next to the sea, the shore." It has never been any part of the Newfoundland Case that "coast" could not be used as equivalent to "sea-shore," or "sea-coast." But "coast," as has been pointed out above, is capable of different meanings in different contexts. It is necessary to distinguish between the use of the term to denote a line without width from which a measurement has to be made and to denote area of territory including some depth into the interior. It is beyond dispute that it is used in the latter sense in the Statutes, Orders-in-Council, and Proclamations relevant in this Reference inasmuch as Canada admits that some depth of interior country is under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. But in the authorities referred to in paragraph 7 of the Canadian Case it is used in the former sense, that is to say, without any question arising of depth into the interior; and it is accordingly submitted that the authorities mentioned do not assist in determining the question at issue as to the width of the land under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. In so far as the Authorities are cited to show the line from which the measurement inland should be made, Newfoundland contends that the meaning of the expression "coast" is determined by the particular context in which this word is found in each case, and further that The King v. Forty Nine Casks of Brandy (3 Hagg Adm. 257) supports Newfoundland's claim to measure her territory on the Labrador peninsula from the head of the tide in rivers and streams, while Hamilton v. Menifee (11 Texas Reports 718) shows that the sinuosities of bays must be followed. In The Queen, v. Cox (1859 i P.E. I. Rep. 170) a distinction is drawn between
"sea-shore" and "coast" and the latter term is said to apply to the land fronting on the open sea or inlets off the sea or bays though never to that fronting on rivers. It is therefore an authority for tracing the line from which measurement inland is to be along the margin of the Hamilton Inlet.
18. It is argued in paragraph 16 of the Canadian Case that Newfoundland has never been equipped nor has she attempted or pretended to extend her Government to the extensive inland territory of the Peninsula. Until recent years, when the possibilities of the timber and water power available in the interior have begun to attract business enterprise (which the Newfoundland Government has always been ready to encourage) there has been nothing to induce Newfoundland to develop the inland territory which has been but little inhabited save by the Indians, and was long regarded as wholly unsuitable for any settlement. In the same way Quebec has, no doubt for similar reasons, done little to develop the hinterland of that part of the coast of Labrador within her jurisdiction East of the River Saguenay. It was these reasons and not any misapprehension as to the extent of the coast under its Government which have prevented Newfoundland from an earlier development of the interior of the area in dispute. It would be strange if Newfoundland had comprehended the extent of territory under her control as falling within so much narrower limits than those assigned to it by general reputation and belief prevailing at all material times as illustrated by the maps in the Newfoundland Atlas. It is suggested that the documents referred on paragraph 17 of the Canadian Case as showing the contemporaneous interpretation of the legislation in question do not show any disposition on the part of the legislator to limit the area of Newfoundland's dependency. In any event, unlike the Maps, these documents are not concerned with the extent of the territory given to Newfoundland so much as with the policy which was to direct the method of administration and the forms of Government.
19. Paragraph 18 of the Canadian Case is concerned to show that the coast-line, from which
the area of Newfoundland jurisdiction inland must be measured, is to be drawn, so far as the Hamilton Inlet is concerned, between Ticoralak and Turner Headlands. If this were the correct view, a very considerable depth of interior territory must be conceded in any event to Newfoundland, for Hamilton Inlet as far as North West River has been consistently treated as falling within the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. But the Colony of Newfoundland submits that Hamilton Inlet or Grosswater or Esquimaux Bay (as those descriptions imply) has always been and is to be regarded as a bay indenting the coast. It is admittedly tidal as far as its western extremity, Goose Bay, into which the Hamilton River flows. It is at the western end of Goose Bay that the coast line should be drawn. When general reputation and usage (as illustrated by nomenclature, and the evidence of the maps) is supported by the fact of the rise and fall of the tide in showing that the Hamilton Inlet is to be regarded for boundary purposes as a "bay," these criteria ought to be preferred to meticulous evidence as to the salinity of the water, the fauna, and the flora, the unsuitability of the Inlet for cod-fishing, and of indications which might suggest to some modern expert the features of a tidal river.
It is significant that A. P. Low, a distinguished Canadian Geological Surveyor, in his Report in 1895, speaks of the Atlantic Coast as being deeply cut by many long narrow bays, or fiords, so that the coastline exceeds many times the direct line from Belle Isle to Cape Chidley. "Hamilton Inlet," he says, "is the largest and longest of these inlets, extending inland over 150 miles from its mouth. Among others, Sandwich, Kaipokok, Saglek, and Nachvak bays are from 30 to 50 miles deep." The Newfoundland Government submits that this earlier view, expressed by so competent an authority without any knowledge of its effect on the issues in this Reference, is entitled to very great weight in favour of the contention that the whole of the inlet is part of the coast-line, and against inferences sought to be drawn from the elaborate calculations included in the Canadian documents in the Joint Appendix.
20. Newfoundland further submits that the results of the various surveys, tests and investigations set forth in the reports mentioned in paragraph 18 of the Canadian Case do not in any event justify the conclusion sought to be drawn therefrom, namely that the coast-line crosses the "river" below a line connecting Lester and Double Mer Points. So far as hydrographic conditions assist, not only is the whole of Lake Melville tidal, but inasmuch as it is permanently accessible to the largest vessels with motive power without the assistance of tugs it satisfies another practical test as to what is, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, an inlet of the sea. The materials collected in regard to fauna and flora are quite inconclusive: a comparison with the Baltic shows that if cod do not penetrate into Hamilton Inlet, they are not deterred by the decreased salinity of the water. In any event no investigation of the fauna West of the Narrows seems to have been made and accordingly there is no sufficient evidence that marine fishes do not penetrate beyond the Narrows.
21. From a geographical point of view there is a considerable degree of similarity between the Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia where a watershed boundary has been for the most part adopted. The Labrador Peninsula comprises two main sections, a Western section consisting of a Plateau with a comparatively gentle undulating surface sloping down to Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay; and an eastern belt, sometimes called the "coastal region," facing the Atlantic, high and mountainous, and deeply indented by many arms of the sea. The inlets in the coastal region are true fiords; their arrangement is essentially different from that of tidal valleys. The Hamilton Inlet is the largest of these fiords: its entrance is not a "ria," but a "fiard." Lake Melville is an essential part of the inlet: as a deep basin filled with sea-water below a thin layer of fresh water, it is an arm of the sea.
22. Newfoundland accordingly submits that there is nothing in paragraph 18 of the Canadian Case to justify any departure in the case of the Hamilton Inlet from the principle, applicable in the