Troy Public Libra, 



QUESTION ONE. 41 



ducted by Mr. Root and Sir Edward Grey in 1906, Mr. Root pointed 

 out some of the objectionable features of this act, referring to the pro- 

 visions of sections 1 and 3 as follows : 



It seems plain that the provisions above quoted constitute a war- 

 rant to the officers named to interfere with and violate the rights of 

 American fishing-vessels under the Treaty of 1818. 



The 1st section authorizes any of the officers named to stop an 

 American vessel while fishing upon the Treaty Coast and compel it 

 to leave the fishing grounds, to prevent it from going to the places 

 where the fish may be, to prevent it departing with the fish which it 

 may have taken, and to detain it for an indefinite period during a 

 search of the cargo, and an examination of the master under oath 

 under a heavy penalty. 



It is to be observed that this section does not require that the vessel 

 shall have been charged with any violation of the laws of Newfound- 

 land, or even that she shall have been suspected of having violated 

 the laws of Newfoundland as a condition precedent to compelling it 

 to desist from the exercise of its Treaty rights, and virtually seizing 

 it and taking it into port. In the consideration of this provision, it 

 is unnecessary to discuss any question as to the extent to which Ameri- 

 can vessels may be interfered with in the exercise of their Treaty 

 rights pursuant to judicial proceedings based upon a charge of viola- 

 tion of law, or even upon reasonable ground to believe that any law 

 has been violated, for the authority of the Acts authorized appears 

 to be part of no such proceeding. 



When we consider that the minor officials named in the Act, in- 

 vested with this extraordinary and summary power, are presumptively 

 members of the fishing communities, in competition with which the 

 American fishermen are following their calling, it is plain that in 

 denying the right of the Government of Newfoundland to do what 

 this section provides for we are not merely dealing with a theoretical 

 question, but with the probability of serious injustice. 



The 3rd section of the Act, above quoted in full, makes the pres- 

 ence on board of an American vessel of the fish, gear the implements 

 necessary to the exercise of the Treaty right prima facie evidence 

 of a criminal offence against the laws of Newfoundland, and it also 

 makes the presence on board the vessel of the fish which the vessel has 

 a right to take under Treaty prima facie evidence of a criminal of- 

 fence under the laws of Newfoundland. This certainly cannot be 

 justified. It is, in effect, providing that the exercise ol the Treaty 

 right shall be prima facie evidence of a crime. 



I need not argue with the Government of Great Britain that the 1st 

 section of this Act purports to authorize the very kind of official con- 

 duct which led to the establishment in England of the rule against 

 unreasonable searches and seizures, now firmly embedded in the juris- 

 prudence of both nations. Nor need I argue that American vessels 

 are of right entitled to have on them in the waters of the Treaty Coast 

 both fish of every kind, and the gear for the taking of fish, and that a 

 law undertaking to make that possession prima facie proof of crime 

 deprives them of that presumption of innocence to which all citizens 

 of Great Britain and America are entitled. When the Legislature of 

 Newfoundland denies these rights to American fishing- vessels, it im- 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 6 4 



