BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 523 



in every instance have been set at nought by the Imperial authorities, 

 or by the judicial tribunals." 



" The people of Newfoundland, like those of Canada, desire to use 

 the right to withhold a supply of bait as a means of iftducing the 

 American Government to remove the import duty on British fish. 

 * * * In a word, the principle that the Colonists desire to main- 

 tain is ' live and let live ', and they merely object to that of ' let others 

 live by killing us.' ' : 



When the prohibitive import duty is removed, the restriction im- 

 posed by the Bait Act, 1887, will cease to be enforced; for Newfound- 

 land is prepared to compete with the fishermen of the United States 

 or of any country upon equal terms, but she objects to give free access 

 to her unrivalled bait supplies to those who debar her from their 

 markets by prohibitive tariffs worked in so unjust and evasive a 

 manner as that set forth in the Treasury Order to which I have 

 referred. 



Just a few words more and I have done. I submit that there is 

 nothing in the Treaty of 1818 which conveys a right to the United 

 States to employ Colonial fishermen to fish for them. I have heard 

 it argued that " what one does by another one does by himself." That 

 is a maxim which applies entirely to the law of agency. 



Under the Treaty of 1818, the privilege of a fishery in common 

 with British subjects was granted to " the inhabitants of the United 

 States," and the privilege was to " take " fish (not to buy or procure 

 it in any other way.) The word " take " was used in its special and 

 restricted meaning to distinguish the liberty from the rights which 

 the British subjects enjoyed; namely, to use the land as well as the 

 sea, and to buy, sell, trade, or deal in any way with the products of 

 the fisheries. I submit that the United States can only " take " fish 

 and can only take it in common, that is to say, by the same implements 

 of capture as British subjects and subject to the same restrictions, 

 regulations, or laws that govern their conduct. 



The permission to enter and fish cannot be construed as conferring 

 upon the admitted foreigner a right, but only a liberty or a privilege. 



In considering the Treaty of 1818, it is important to remember the 

 class to whom the concession is given, namely, the American fisher- 

 men named in the article. (1) They must be inhabitants of the 

 United States. (2) They must be ^American fishermen, and the 

 liberty granted to them is to take, dry, and cure fish. The word 

 shows the privileged class to whom the Treaty applies, and the ves- 

 sels employed therefor, and the special Treaty privilege of fishing in 

 the territorial waters of Newfoundland. There is no maxim of the 

 law better known than that which affirms that the " express mention 

 of one person or thing is the exclusion of another." It would, there- 

 fore, follow that the mention of " inhabitants of the United States," 

 "American fishermen," named in the Treaty, excludes all others. But 

 we are not left to ourselves to place the interpretation on this Treaty, 

 as to the class to whom the privileges are granted. It has been so 

 read by the inhabitants of the United States for the last hundred 

 years, and no later than last July, Mr. A. P. Gardner, the representa- 

 tive for Gloucester in Congress, writing to the " Boston Herald." 

 of July 9th, under date of July 7th, said as follows : 



" I am in receipt of a letter, dated July 2nd, from the Secretary of 

 State (that is the Secretary of State for the United States) answering 



