456 MISCELLANEOUS 



proven his case. The member for Bay St. George would not vote to 

 destroy the herring fishery to his constituents and give it over to the 

 Americans; and other members also, expect the Premier to be pre- 

 pared to clearly show them this will not occur, for if not he felt that 

 men of intelligence could not support the bill. The Premier had 

 said the Americans cannot catch herring in the bays and harbors of 

 the Treaty Coast, because they have not the right, as " coast " does 

 not mean bays, creeks or harbors, and if they did come in the bays 

 or harbors, they have not the right to land on the strand, therefore 

 they are unable to carry on the fishery. He would proceed to show 

 that this interpretation of the word " coast " was entirely fallacious, 

 and that the British authorities had constantly put forward a con- 

 trary contention. In the first place, the letters patent issued to His 

 Excellency the Governor contains the words : "All the coast of Labra- 

 dor, and the islands adjacent thereto." If the Premier's interpreta- 

 tion of the word " coast " is true, that it does not include bays and 

 harbors, it follows conclusively that the Governor is Governor of the 

 outer coast and islands of Labrador, but is not Governor of the har- 

 bors, inlets, bays or creeks; consequently, take Hamilton Inlet; the 

 Governor and legislature have made laws respecting this place, yet, 

 according to the Premier's construction, neither the legislature nor 

 Governor has any jurisdiction over this inlet. This is equally so if 

 true in the one case, true in the other, and the Americans have no 

 rights; and if the Premier is correct, new letters patent must be 

 obtained for the Governor, who, according to him, the Premier, is 

 not Governor of the bays and creeks. Again, he found that in 17G3 

 the treaty of Paris gave the French rights to land and fish on our 

 coast. In 1783, by the treaty of Versailles, they were also granted 

 rights on the coast of Newfoundland. From 1714 they were given 

 rights on the coast, and according to the French interpretation they 

 had exclusive rights to catch fish on our coasts, but no mention is 

 made of harbors or inlets in these treaties. Now, according to the 

 Premier, the French never had the right to catch fish in any harbor, 

 or bay, or inlet. There was no need to remind the members that 

 the French did do so, the Premier notwithstanding, and while the 

 British government denied their exclusive right, they yet permitted 

 them to do it, and our own people had been forced out of harbors 

 3'ear after year to permit the French using the coast. Now the 

 Premier surely did not mean to say that " the coast " meant the bays, 

 harbors, creeks and inlets to the French, and that it does not mean 

 the same to the Americans. Another argument was that the treaty 

 of 1818 was endorsed by an Act of Parliament, 59 George III., cap. 

 38, now on our Statute Books. This act was passed to enable the 

 British government to carry out the treaty of 1818. It gave power 

 to the British government to remove all foreign fishing vessels from 

 all ports, harbors and bays in British North America, except ports 

 on the coast of Newfoundland, where they had treaty rights, and 

 on that part of the coast where they had treaty rights, that is to say, 

 from Ramea to Quirpon, the British government had no right to 

 remove them. Any one reading this act will find that the British 

 government had authority to remove American vessels from all ports 

 in Canada, but not on the Newfoundland coast from Ramea to Quir- 

 pon. If the argument of the Premier was correct, it made the act 

 of 1818 an absurdity, and places the British government in an unen- 



