BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 451 



sumers would have to pay any duty imposed on fish brought in by 

 Newfoundlanders. Why then the necessity of the Bond-Hay Treaty. 

 He would riot take it what was true of herring was also true of the 

 cod fishery. If they did not get the bait, the Americans could not 

 catch the fish, or at least catch it in diminished quantity, with the 

 result of better prices for cod, which would enable our fishermen 

 to compete in the trade. There was nothing logical or reasonable 

 in turning the key for a day and then throwing the door open when 

 the Americans gave us free entry for our fish, for the Americans 

 would have a bait supply and could with their own fish shut out 

 the Newfoundland catch from the market. Why was the Premier 

 so anxious for the Bond-Hay Treaty if we had the key. Why the 

 anxiety to throw away that key. For fifteen years this Colony 

 had been giving the Americans that key for nothing, now was the 

 time to adopt another policy, a policy with which no one could 

 find fault deny them the bait permanently. He would now come 

 back to two main points upon which the Premier had addressed the 

 house at considerable length that afternoon. While stating that 

 one time he had been engaged at the study of law, he regretted that, 

 on account of health, he had been obliged to discontinue. He, Mr. 

 M., was sure that the Premier did not regret it any more than the 

 Bench and Bar of Newfoundland, because the amount of knowledge 

 which he had evinced made us desire that he knew a little more. He 

 would be less dangerous then than now, for " a little learning is a 

 dangerous thing." When the Premier came to interpreting statutes 

 he was in the position of ignorance of a layman and he regretted 

 to say it, of too many lawyers. Probably no man in Newfoundland 

 had given more study to the Treaty than the Premier, but he had 

 not had the legal training necessary to fit him for the interpretation 

 of statutes. There were certain principles of interpretation which 

 were known only to a man who had studied many branches of the 

 legal profession. He wished to illustrate to the Premier where he 

 had fallen into a trap in the interpretation of the word coast. He 

 had quoted from the report of a Committee which had sat in 1888 

 as to the interpretation of the word coast in the Treaty of 1818, 

 and he told the house that that interpretation was in all probability 

 based on the opinion of the Law Officer of the Crown, and he had 

 said it was directly opposite to what Mr. M. said. Now a profes- 

 sional man would have seen at once that the Premier was altogether 

 wrong in applying it in the sense he had. The interpretation of 

 the committee was placed upon the word "coast" which excluded 

 the Americans from all waters of the coast, bays, harbours and 

 creeks of that portion of the British Dominions upon which they 

 were to have no rights, and which used in conjunction with the 

 words bays, harbours and creeks simply meant the outer coast, 

 because the Americans had to keep three miles beyond a line drawn 

 from headlands at the mouths of bays. Now to look to the French 

 Treaties what would they find. He would draw the attention of 

 the house to the Treaty of Versailles. He submitted that the 

 French had been exercising the right to fish in the bays, harbours 

 and creeks of the Treaty coast. According to the Premier they did 

 not have that right. In the Treaty of Versailles in 1783 would be 

 found the following. "His Majesty the most Christian King in 

 order to prevent the quarrels which have hitherto arisen between 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 6 37 



