BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 427 



to take herring and that right implied the right to land if they could 

 not take them without landing. If, in other words, they could not 

 exercise their conceded right without landing, then their conceded 

 right implied the right to land and do all things necessary to carry- 

 ing out that conceded right. Therefore, as the Americans must land 

 in order to catch fish, they had the right to land, because they had 

 the right to fish, and the right to fish included every necessary sub- 

 ordinate right. Why, the Premier had only to submit the treaty to 

 any of the legal gentlemen surrounding him to find that that was so. 

 Now, if they had the right to fish, they had also the right to land and 

 haul their nets. The contention that they had not was not a correct 

 interpretation in law, nor was it a correct interpretation in fact; and 

 it would not be entertained by any legal man, or by the Premier if 

 he had not been anxious to convince himself that he was right. Did 

 the Premier think that the British government would allow him to 

 deny the people of America this subsidiary right ? Did he think the 

 Americans would allow this country to refuse to permit them to land, 

 and thus deny them the right to fish which they had under the treaty ? 

 Did he think that if it were made perfectly clear that not being 

 allowed to land, deprived the Americans of the treaty right to catch 

 herring, this interpretation would be permitted by the British gov- 

 ernment, and submitted to by the American government? Did he 

 think that either of these governments would allow this colony to 

 deny the Americans the right to fish by refusing them the privilege 

 of landing on the strand. Now, it was very important to disabuse 

 themselves of that argument that the Premier had advanced that this 

 law did not interfere with the winter herring fishery. If it went into 

 force it would destroy the winter herring fishery forever. They did 

 worse, they handed it over to the Americans forever, never again to 

 be engaged in by the people of this country. The Americans would 

 be forced to catch the bait themselves. The government had laid an 

 embargo on the people of Placentia Bay, the Bay of Islands and For- 

 tune Bay, for the sale of herring for any price whatsoever, either for 

 bait or for food. The government could not prevent the Americans 

 from taking herring themselves. They would catch them, too, with 

 the aid of Newfoundlanders. While that bill prevented American 

 vessels from entering our ports for the purpose of engaging crews 

 and thereby prevented our people from shipping as crews in our own 

 ports; it was not possible to prevent Newfoundlanders taking train 

 and steamer for Sydney and there shipping on American vessels. 

 The west coast people would be driven out of the trade in which they 

 now get a dollar and a quarter a barrel and were placed in the posi- 

 tion of hewers of wood and drawers of water hirea men to American 

 vessels. Today they caught the herring and sold them at their own 

 price; tomorrow they would be hired men on American vessels catch- 

 ing the herring under the treaty of 1818 for any wages they can 

 obtain. 



Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair at 8 p. m. 



Mr. MORINE. Before recess he was dealing with the argument of 

 the Premier with respect to the interpretation of the treaty of 1818. 

 He was pointing out that the interpretation he placed upon it could 

 not be sustained. He assumed that he regards the sustaining of the 

 interpretation of the treaty as of vital importance and one could see 

 that it was, because if such interpretation could be sustained we could 



