462 MISCELLANEOUS 



their suspension of it, everything that was necessary to be done to set 

 the Bond-Hay treaty working had been done, and thus practically 

 the Bond-Hay treaty would not really receive the sanction of the 

 house. Had the judgment of the government flown to brute beasts? 

 Surely the members of the government ought at least to have inde- 

 pendent judgment enough to give a personal vote in such an impor- 

 tant matter, now that they were fully acquainted with the facts, and 

 were not voting in the dark. One more word in conclusion. He had 

 been reproached this afternoon for lack of patriotism because he had 

 contended that, because of the treaty condition of Newfoundland, 

 the Americans had certain rights in Newfoundland waters. It would 

 be remembered how, in 1888 or 1889, when the Bait Act was passed, 

 the present Premier eloquently and forcibly argued against it, and 

 so eloquent and forcible was his argument that he carried the country 

 with him. He contended that it was not possible to apply the Bait 

 Act as against the French. But the Premier's arguments were not 

 then considered unpatriotic. The Premier had simply said what he 

 believed. He thought that the people of the country would be in- 

 jured, and that no permanent good would flow from that injury. If 

 he believed in his own arguments he was not unpatriotic. If he did 

 not believe in them, he was both unpatriotic and false. He, Mr. M., 

 acquitted the Premier of any charge of unpatriotism because of his 

 stand against the Bait Act, for he believed that the Premier hon- 

 estly believed in the position which he had assumed. But he, Mr. M., 

 in his opposition to the present measure had an equal right to ac- 

 quittal of the charge of unpatriotism. He, Mr. M., had as much 

 right to point out what the American rights in Newfoundland waters 

 were, as the present Premier had to point out the French rights in 

 connection with the bait act. Both the Premier and himself were 

 right, because it was not patriotic to let a measure pass without the 

 house and the people being made fully aware of existing rights which 

 were affected thereby. To let such a measure pass, without full ex- 

 planation, was not patriotism; it was ignorance; it was fear of the 

 mob; it was anything but patriotism. Would it be patriotism for 

 him to say nothing about the American rights which he knew existed, 

 and to let this bill pass misunderstood by the house and the people 

 generally? Then when the bill was passed, and it was found out that 

 it was passed under a misconception of the rights affected thereby, 

 then when the effects of the measure were fully disclosed, would those 

 who let the bill pass through misunderstandingly be considered 

 patriots, or would they be considered merely prejudice blunderers, 

 mere gallery speakers? If, from his speech, new rights accrued to 

 the Americans, then would his speech be unpatriotic? But he could 

 assure the house that the Americans knew what their rights were. 

 Nothing that he could say would in any way enlarge these rights. 

 Neither could he say anything that would cause the Americans to 

 understand the nature of their rights the better. But he would like 

 to enlarge the knowledge of the people of Newfoundland as to the 

 nature of American rights, and to enlarge their appreciation of what 

 they would have to pay for this bill. If by anything he could say, 

 he would open the eyes of the people to a true understanding of the 

 real nature of this measure, then he would consider himself far 

 more patriotic than the men who were passing this measure by de- 

 luding the people, and were leading them into a trap. He declared 



