450 MISCELLANEOUS 



these resolutions might not have been passed. He was aware that 

 some of the parties who signed that resolution were in favor of such 

 legislation as permanent legislation and not as legislation to be re- 

 pealed upon ratification of the Bond-Hay treaty. He had spoken 

 to one of the parties who had told him that his approval of the 

 resolution was as a permanent measure. Others who had signed 

 the resolutions were supporters of the Bond-Hay treaty and in 

 favor of repeal of the act as soon as a convention between the two 

 countries had been ratified. From this it would be seen that the 

 opinions of the parties signing the resolutions were widely different. 

 He ranged himself in with those in favor of a permanent measure 

 excluding Americans from our bait supply, but could not support 

 the bill before the house. In dealing with the winter herring fishery 

 they wanted a measure that could be enforced. In dealing with 

 the bait policy he did not think that the parties contemplated a 

 temporary measure such as the present. He ventured to think that 

 if the merchants had obtained accurate information as to the rights 

 of the Americans under the treaty of 1818, they would be slow to 

 adopt a resolution of this kind. The merchants would have been 

 slow to pass this resolution if they had considered the full import 

 of the bill. They would hesitate in supporting a measure to take 

 the herring fishery out of the hands of Newfoundland fishermen 

 and turning it over to the Americans. The merchants were under 

 a wrong idea in advocating an export duty of three-quarters of a 

 cent a pound on herring taken by Americans. They no doubt be- 

 lieved it possible to levy such a duty, but they would learn that no 

 duty could be imposed on the herring caught by the Americans, 

 and when they learnt that their views would undergo a radical 

 change. The Premier had stated that he believed that bill would 

 be the closing page of the Hay-Bond Treaty, and would therefore 

 be permanent, and argued that it ought to be supported by him, 

 Mr. M., inasmuch as he said he would support a permanent bill. 

 He would support a permanent bill but he would not support this 

 measure which took the herring fishery out of the hands of New- 

 foundlanders and placed it in the hands of Americans. What he 

 had stated was that if the Premier would bring in a bill perma- 

 nently excluding all foreigners from pur bait supply he would sup- 

 port it, even though he believed this bill to be the closing page of the 

 Bond-Hay Treaty, he would not support it as he did not accept 

 its adoption as a permanent policy. He did not believe that this 

 country was going to get the Bond-Hay Treaty ratified. He wanted 

 further to point out how illogical were some of the arguments of the 

 Premier with reference to this matter. He had stated that the bait 

 supply was the key to the whole situation, and that this country 

 held that key. In this he, Mr. M., agreed. He had stated in refer- 

 ence to the herring fishery that the whole bait supply came from this 

 country; that if they withheld the supply the American catch would 

 be diminished with the consequent .result that the price would go 

 up in the American market, and Newfoundlanders could profitably 

 go into the trade even after paving the import duty. He, Mr. M., 

 agreed there also. But he askecl why, if we held this key and could 

 prevent the Americans from taking fish with consequent profit to 

 the people of this country, why not turn that permanently. If the 

 American fishermen could not catch the fish the American con- 



