BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 437 



times over did these arguments apply to the bill then before the 

 house. The Americans were a more skilful and preserving nation 

 than the French. They were nearer to our shores, and were nearly 

 related to the people of this country. All the sympathies which had 

 gone out to the French would more than ten times over go out to the 

 Americans. Their interests were far wider. It was absurd for the 

 Americans to say that Newfoundland could not get along without 

 American trade. Newfoundland could get along without it, and 

 would if some return were provided in the place of it. But New- 

 foundland profits from that trade, and any attempt to do away with 

 it for a temporary period is too great a price for this thing. He 

 believed that the good of the few should be sacrificed for the good 

 of the many, and he would not hesitate to see the herring fishery 

 totally destroyed if adequate compensation came to the whole of the 

 Newfoundland people for that destruction. He was prepared to see 

 the bait and ice trade of some of the people of this island sacrificed 

 if the whole country benefited thereby. But in the case then before 

 the house the interests of the few were being sacrificed, but there was 

 no adequate compensation for the many. This act would mean the 

 destruction of the herring fishery. The same number of herring 

 would be caught, but the profits would go to the Americans instead 

 of the Newfoundlanders. It was unjust to the people of this colony 

 that a permanent trade should be sacrificed for a policy which was 

 not permanent, a policy which the Premier had stated was not in- 

 tended to be permanent, and from which no permanent benefits could 

 possibly flow. He consequently opposed the measure before the 

 house in its entirety. Because it was a retaliatory measure it was 

 unjustifiable; from it could come no good effect; it was not a per- 

 manent measure, and it was illegal, unenforcable, and based entirely 

 upon a misconception of treaty rights. 



THE PREMIER'S SPEECH ON MOVING THE HOUSE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE 

 WHOLE ON THE BILL ENTITLED "AN ACT RESPECTING FOREIGN FISHING 

 VESSELS," APRIL 12, 1905. ["] 



Right Honorable the PREMIER (Sir Robert Bond). In moving that 

 this bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole House, I desire 

 to make a few observations in reply to the remarks of the honorable 

 leader of the opposition when it was up for a second reading. In 

 doing so I shall be as brief as possible and confine myself to the four 

 principal points of the honorable gentleman's criticism. 



They may be dealt with under the following heads, namely : 



( 1 ) American rights of fishing under the 1818 treaty. 



(2) Their rights by custom. 



(3) The effect of the operation of this bill upon our own fishermen. 



(4) What is likely to result to the Americans by virtue of its en- 

 forcement. 



I shall deal with his criticism in the order that I have named, and 

 I do not think that I shall have very much difficulty in convincing the 

 House that his premises were unsound and his logic seriously defec- 

 tive. The honorable gentleman may have succeeded in convincing 

 himself as to the wisdom of his observations and of the correctness of 



[ a British Blue Book, U. S. No. 1 (1906), p. 61.] 



