BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 429 



Coast certainly included the sinuosities of the larger bays. But he 

 would further point out that from the very language of the treaty, 

 in speaking of creeks, inlets, harbors and bays, it was clear that the 

 parties to the treaty regarded such as part of the coast. It must be 

 remembered that prior to this treaty the Americans had been British 

 subjects, that the provisions of the treaty were simply restrictive, all 

 that was not taken from them by the treaty was theirs as when they 

 had been British subjects. This treaty did not alter their rights 

 except in point of territory. There was nothing to affect the manner 

 of fishing where they could fish, in the clause disclaiming their 

 ancient rights on those parts of the coast not included between 

 Ramea and Quirpon. He would ask, can any man doubt, can any 

 man sanely doubt, these ancient rights would preclude their right 

 to land in the bays and creeks; it was not arguable. If the Premier 

 would take his, Mr. M.'s, advice, and get the opinion of competent 

 men outside this house, after they had understood the facts and the 

 law, perhaps the hon. Premier would abandon this bill and policy 

 that he has embarked upon under a thorough misconception of the 

 treaty. The Premier was not justified in the basis of his interpre- 

 tation of the treaty as brought forward today, because he could not 

 sustain such for one minute. If this bill became law, it would be 

 fraught with serious consequences to winter herring fishery. In the 

 first place it was intended to destroy the fishery with Americans to 

 the fullest extent, permissible by law; that, he took it was to the 

 fullest extent engaged in by the people of Newfoundland. There 

 was no doubt in his mind that the house had jurisdiction over all 

 parts of the coast of this colony, and the people, not alone from 

 Kamea to Quirpon, but all ports; and this is true of our people on 

 the treaty coast. There "was no doubt he had the power to mako 

 the selling of herring unlawful to the people of Newfoundland; that 

 is what the bill does, but it also goes further and makes the sale of 

 herring in Placentia and Fortune Bays absolutely unlawful, and in 

 these bays the Americans have no rights; consequently, if this act is 

 enforced, the Americans cease to fish or purchase herring or bait 

 in Placentia or Fortune Bays, and likewise in many other places on 

 our coast. The bait-supplying business becomes unlawful, and on the 

 treaty coast also unlawful, so far as our people are concerned who 

 engage in it. There might be some reasons or grounds that would 

 justify such a policy, if it was that our people needed the herring 

 themselves, and our bait supply was so short, but what justification 

 was there if it only transferred the business to some other people. 

 If it was assumed that the sale of bait did not take place within the 

 waters not on the treaty coast, what would be the effect? The 

 Americans would come on the treaty coast, catch all kinds of bait 

 without restriction or limit, either to time or uses they made of it, 

 for the Americans had as much right to catch fish uninterruptedly 

 upon that coast as we have. That being so, what would happen to 

 the winter herring fishery at Bay of Islands? He knew people here 

 with commercial interests in the fishery who advocated an export 

 duty of f per cent, per pound on herring shipped in American 

 bottoms, as against those sent in local craft, but this bill goes further 

 and says the Americans are not to purchase at all. 



There would be only one result, the Americans would bring their 

 own nets when they came on our coast, engage our men either at 



