432 MISCELLANEOUS 



supply of bait was small and yet we were going to deprive ourselves 

 of part of that small supply to secure a market. He, Mr. M., said that 

 if the bait was the key to the fishery what did we want the American 

 market free for. "VTe should refuse them bait permanently and 

 then they must buy our fish, but the proposition to supply them 

 with bait to catch the fish so that they could supply their own market, 

 was illogical. The position was not " out of our plenty we will give 

 you some," but out of our scarcity, which he thought was utterly 

 absurd. If the key was too large for the keyhole then he could 

 understand taking advantage of it to make it workable, but if the key 

 was already too small, taking from it would certainly not improve it. 

 Were the men of this country, he Mr. M. said, going to agree with the 

 Premier in this matter and when the bait is scarce give it to the 

 enemy of the country. If the bait was scarce then that was reason 

 enough for the permanency of this bill. If the scarcity was not 

 permanent and the Premier said he was convinced that it was only 

 temporary, then the scarcity was no argument, as we did not want to 

 legislate every new year on the matter. The bait fish might be 

 plentiful next year, but still that was no reason why it should not be 

 a fixed measure. The position the Premier had adopted was a hostile 

 one, and the previous friendly policy was endangered by the transi- 

 tory state of the bill. Then what was to be the destiny of the herring 

 fishery of the West Coast. This was to be totally destroyed, because 

 he, the Premier, intimated that it is necessary to pass this bill so as 

 to secure the passage at some time or other of the Bond-Hay treaty. 

 Was not that a terrible price, to do away entirely with winter herring 

 fishery and the sale or bait? All the loss would be ours and we 

 could never retrace our steps. In the Legislature we might by repeal- 

 ing the act, but not as a people. And this the Preimer had said was 

 because of the non-ratification of the Bond-Hay treaty. In one 

 breath he says that it is because the bait is scarce, that the present 

 position is brought about, but he is forced to be honest in the main, 

 and says the object is to teach the Americans the value of what we 

 have to give, to punish them for not passing the treaty. Who doubted 

 that such was not the reason ? The argument was too flimsy not to be 

 apparent. This community was too small, this house was too small 

 not to know that. The Premier said we must preserve our bait 

 fishes, but the real reason of the bill was to punish the American 

 Senate for hanging up the Bond-Hay treaty. He thought such a 

 position was unjust and undignified, and the Premier had given 

 reasons for no other kind of policy. He, the Premier, says the 

 President of the United States, the members of the Senate and the 

 people of America, have heretofore treated us with conspicuous good 

 faith; that the people were for the Bond-Hay treaty and commerce 

 was for the Bond-Hay treaty, and the Senators did not know what 

 they were doing. Now he passes a bill which is a dead blow at these 

 people, because a few of the specially interested had hung up this 

 treaty. How different was that policy from the one of former years. 

 The Premier thought that this was the way to conquer the special 

 interests, but he, Mr. M., thought that the surest way was not to 

 antagonize them but to be patient and then success would come. This 

 measure would not conquer the special interests, as such a position 

 would antagonize all these interests and they would unite with the 

 fishermen or the United States. You cannot conquer the Senate by 



