436 MISCELLANEOUS 



constable to go on board their vessel under such circumstances, take 

 the vessel into port, search her cargo, and bring up the master of 

 the vessel for examination on oath, when they are themselves acting 

 under treaty rights, and have as much right to be in the harbor as 

 Newfoundland vessels have to be there? And when you get them 

 there what do you do with them ? The section reads : 



And if such foreign fishing vessel has on board any herring, cap- 

 lin, squid or bait fishes, ice, lines, seines or other outfits or supplies 

 for the fishery purchased within any port on the coast 01 this 

 Island or within the distance of three marine miles from any of the 

 coasts, bays, creeks or harbors of this Island, or if the master of the 

 said vessel shall have engaged or attempted to engage any person to 

 form part of the crew of the said vessel in any port or on any part 

 of the coasts of this Island or has entered such waters for any pur- 

 pose not permitted by treaty or convention for the time being in 

 force, such vessel and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores 

 and cargo therefore shall be forfeited. 



Then it provides that the presence of bait, c., on board the 

 schooner should be prima facia evidence of guilt. And by that 

 means the burden of proving themselves not guilty was thrown upon 

 the master of the schooner. That was an unwarranted reversal of 

 common law rights. A reversal which might under special circum- 

 stances, be permitted in its application to a citizen, but never to a 

 foreigner. Did the Hon. Premier think that would be allowed on 

 any part of the treaty coast? That treaty allows them certain fish- 

 ing rights along certain parts of the Newfoundland coasts. Did this 

 house think that the Americans would permit these treaty rights to 

 be interfered with? Such a law could be made applicable to the 

 other shores of the Island, but the treaty coast cannot be in any way 

 affected thereby, and even if done on our own coast not affected by 

 treaty, it would only have the effect of antagonizing and embittering 

 the American nation against us. It was for doing a similar thing 

 on their own coast that Canada and the United States have been 

 embroiled for years. Then there was section 7 as a saving clause. 

 It reads as follows: 



7. "Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and privileges 

 granted by treaty to the subjects of any state in amity with His 

 Majesty." 



What did that section mean? Does it mean that you cannot go 

 on board the American vessel, in Bay of Islands or St. George's? 

 Who, in this country, is competent to decide that question? Is the 

 captain to be first arrested and then the question decided? That is 

 what must be done. The act must affect treaty rights and privileges 

 if any attempt whatever is made to carry it out. That section must 

 mean that the act shall have no effect on the American vessels be- 

 tween Ramea and Quirpon. It would have the effect of driving all 

 the American vessels within that treaty area to obtain from the shore 

 what the French had partially failed to procure. And the Amer- 

 ican people would be successful, because of their greater enterprise, 

 skill and funds. All the reasons which had been so ably and elo- 

 quently argued by the Premier against the bait act applied with ten 

 times greater force in dealing with the Americans. The house well 

 knew how the Rt. Hon. Premier thundered on that question, and 

 how he convinced the people of this colony against the bait act. Ten 



