428 MISCELLANEOUS 



in the first place prevent the Americans from carrying on the winter 

 herring fishery, and, as they must have the herring, we could carry 

 it on ourselves; and in the second place we could prevent them from 

 taking them for bait as well as prevent them taking them for food. 

 If the Premier's interpretation of the treaty could be sustained we 

 could by this act prevent the Americans from obtaining bait and 

 at the same time preserve the winter herring fishery for ourselves. 

 He thought that if he could show that the interpretation placed upon 

 the treaty was wrong, that if he could show that this act would not 

 prevent the Americans from obtaining bait nor preserve the winter 

 herring fishery for ourselves, perhaps the Premier would take time to 

 consider before he passed an enactment of such vital importance. 

 He thought his opinion as to the interpretation of the contract would 

 be listened to by the house with some degree of respect. He asked 

 the Premier to pause, and before acting on his interpretation of the 

 treaty to submit the question to some competent legal tribunal. He 

 had no hesitation in saying and in his mind there was no doubt that 

 the Premier was absolutely wrong in his contention. The Premier's 

 interpretation of the treaty was not only clearly wrong, but was so 

 wrong that it flew in the face of all rules of legal interpretation. 

 The Premier's argument depended upon two facts: First That the 

 winter herring fishery cannot be carried on at Bay of Islands or 

 elsewhere in Newfoundland by the Americans, because although they 

 can catch the herring the right to land is not conveyed in the treaty 

 by express words. It is necessary to land and haul seines, and, 

 therefore, because they cannot land they cannot catch herring. 

 Second That the Americans had no right to catch fish in harbors, 

 bays, creeks or inlets. In other words he narrowed the interpre- 

 tation of the word "coast." On those two points hang the Premier's 

 declaration that the Americans cannot carry on the winter herring 

 fishery by virtue of their rights under the treaty of 1818. Dealing 

 with the first point he said it was one of the cardinal principles of 

 the law dealing with the interpretation of written documents that 

 the grant of principal things carries the right to incidental things. 

 In the short time at his disposal he had not had time to look up many 

 authorities, but on going to his house he had picked up Broom s 

 Legal Maxims, and these were almost the first words that met his 

 eye : To put the meaning of this maxim in plainer words if a man 

 had the right to cross a field he had the right to climb a fence in 

 order to do it. The right to fish carried the right to do all things 

 necessary in order to fish. If you told a man he could fish and in 

 order to fish it was necessary to land, the permission to fish included 

 permission to land. Landing to haul nets was incidental to the right 

 to fish, and yet the Premier said -that although the Americans had the 

 right to catch herring they had no right to land to haul their nets. 

 Then again the Premier said that the Americans had only the right 

 of fishing along the coast and not in the harbors, bays, creeks and 

 inlets. According to the Premier's contention the coast only ex- 

 tended from headland to headland. Such contention was perfectly 

 correct with regard to the question of three-mile limit; but with 

 regard to this matter the contention was novel and absurd. A man 

 who coasted went from bay to bay and from harbor to harbor. Did 

 a coasting schooner only go from headland to headland? Did our 

 coastline consist of straight lines drawn from headland to headland. 



