BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 491 



which it was absolutely impossible for His Majesty's Ministers to 

 possess. 



(5) Their representation that the only thing necessary to ensure 

 harmonious conduct of the fishery was a proclamation bringing into 

 force the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1906, enabling this govern- 

 ment to deal with local fishermen. 



(c) Their guarantee in respect to the peaceable prosecution of the 

 fishery if such proclamation issued. 



(d) Their earnest protest against the use of purse seines, as instru- 

 ments calculated to destroy the herring fishery on that coast and to 

 deprive the people resident of a valuable maritime industry. 



(e) Their earnest entreaty that His Majesty's Government would 

 not concede to United States fishermen a right to hire local fisher- 

 men, in violation of the statute law of the colony. 



It may be stated that imperial or public expediency was a weighty 

 factor and one that of necessity would be considered by His Majesty's 

 Government. 



Imperial or public expediency, under certain circumstances or con- 

 ditions, may be a weighty factor in dealing with public questions, but 

 I am unable to admit that such expediency could form sufficient jus- 

 tification for the abrogation of colonial statutes which had received 

 the royal assent or for the inflicting upon a community any injury 

 or loss without compensation. 



If it were admitted for the sake of argument that from the stand- 

 point of imperial or public expediency His Majesty's Government 

 had some abstract right in their favour, such right, in my opinion, 

 could not be properly pleaded as a justification for the course adopted 

 in the matter under review. There are rights which, in their exercise 

 under certain circumstances, are the most odious of all wrongs, and 

 the most vexatious of all injustice. In this instance we have to ask 

 ourselves, What were the circumstances under which this expediency 

 arrangement was entered into ? 



(1) There had not been any breach of the peace committed by 

 either American or Newfoundland fishermen. 



(2) His Majesty's Government had received the most positive as- 

 surance from American fishermen themselves in the form of affi- 

 davits made before a justice of the peace and of which His Majesty's 

 Government was apprised by Minute of Council of date 15th of 

 August last as to " the friendly and generous disposition " displayed 

 towards them in the year 1905 by the fishermen of this colony. 



(3) Nothing had occurred during the past year to change that rela- 

 tionship. 



(4) The government of this colony had guaranteed the " peaceable 

 conduct of the autumn fishery " provided His Majesty's Government 

 did not interfere with them in enforcing the statute law of the col- 

 ony among the fishermen thereof. 



It can hardly be seriously contended that in these circumstances 

 there was anything to warrant an expediency arrangement such as the 

 present modus vivendi. But, it may be answered, there were other 

 circumstances appertaining, and they were : 



(1) A demand from American fishermen to engage the people of 

 this colony to catch fish for them in defiance of a statute law which 

 makes it a penal offence for local fishermen to " take, catch, or haul, or 

 to assist in taking, catching, or hauling bait fishes, without a license." 



