BRITISH, COLONIAL. AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 457 



viable position. The conclusion was absolutely unanswerable in com- 

 mon sense and cool thought. If the Premier's interpretation is right, 

 then from 1818 to the present time, the British government had the 

 power to drive the Americans out of the bays and creeks of New- 

 foundland where the Americans had no right to go. If the Gov- 

 ernor is not Governor of the bays, creeks, or inlets; if the French 

 had no right to enter the harbors, bays or creeks, then the Premier's 

 contention may be right. If the British Government has been asleep 

 for 100 years, then his arguments are right, and if the Premier was 

 right, he, Mr. M., was glad he was wrong, for, by being wrong, he 

 was in the company of the greatest statesmen in Great Britain and 

 France for the past 100 years, who must have been wrong ; therefore, 

 he was glad to be classed with such company. The Premier based 

 his second point by admitting, for sake or argument, the Americans 

 had the right to enter the bays, then they had no right to land on the 

 strand ; therefore, were unable to take herring. He, Mr. M., pointed 

 out before that such a construction reduced a treaty to mockery. 

 You tell a man to do a thing, give him full powers to do certain 

 work, but in all that leads up to this work you say he must not do. 

 On page 180 of the Halifax commission proceedings he desired to 

 point out that the leading counsel for Canada, the leading counsel 

 of Britain of that day, Mr. Thompson, in reply to Mr. Guy Foster, 

 ridiculed this position. Yes, the highest lawyer of the day was the 

 authority set up to bear him, Mr. M., out in the position he now put 

 forward. Mr. Thompson said in his argument, quoting from page 

 467 of Mr. Sabine's report : "And I reply that if a description of the 

 inland extent of the shore over which we may use nets and seines in 

 catching the herring is necessary, it is equally necessary to define our 

 rights of drying and curing cod elsewhere, and as stipulated in the 

 convention. Both are shore rights, and both are left without condi- 

 tion or limitation as to the quantity of beach and upland that may 

 be appropriated by our fishermen. It was proclaimed in the House 

 of Commons more than 2 centuries ago by Coke that great giant 

 of the law that free fishing included all its incidents." The free 

 right to fish therefore means the right to land on the strand between 

 the high and low water marks. This land is the property of the 

 Sovereign to give by treaty, and, therefore, the Americans enjoy the 

 privilege to land under this act just as in the case I have just quoted. 

 Mr. Thompson, referring to the argument of D wight Foster, which 

 was advanced by the Premier just now, points out that the Americans 

 were called on to pay for the right of fishing they enjoyed, and that 

 it was Dwight Foster's argument to cut down the bill of costs as 

 much as possible. He, Thompson, continues, " Here is a construction 

 that the American nation can put forward as the true construction 

 of the treaty for the purpose of obtaining the right to land on the 

 Magdalen Islands, and the moment the shoe pinches on the other 

 side, they want to have the strict letter of the law and nothing else. 

 That is why Dwight Foster puts forward this argument so that he 

 will not have to pay for the rights, but afterwards they will demand 

 them." Thompson wanted to point out that this argument does not 

 affect the British Government if the Americans had the right to 

 land. Another remarkable argument was put forward by Thomp- 

 son on this subject. This afternoon and tonight he, Mr. Morine, had 

 only argued that the Americans had rights to catch fish in the har- 



