524 MISCELLANEOUS 



a large number of questions raised in my Memorandum to Mr. Alex- 

 ander, of the United States Fishery Commission. The State Depart- 

 ment believes that Newfoundland has the right to prohibit its own 

 citizens from engaging in or prosecuting the fishery unless they are 

 inhabitants of the United States. If they are inhabitants of the 

 United States we are entitled to have them fish from our vessels re- 

 gardless of their citizenship." 



The State Department of Washington having thus placed this in- 

 terpretation on the Treaty, it is difficult to conceive why the New- 

 foundland laws were over-ridden last year under the modus vivendi, 

 or why the Act of 1906 which merely enables the Colony to more 

 effectively enforce the Bait Act of 1887 upon its own citizens is still 

 held in abeyance by His Majesty's Ministers. What I have asked for 

 at the hands of His Majesty's Government is : 



1st. The Assent of the Crown to the Act of 1906. 



2nd. That the Colony be permitted to carry out those laws that 

 have been approved by the Crown. 



3rd. That His Majesty's Government define the rights of American 

 citizens under the Treaty of 1818. 



The Colony does not desire to limit in any way the rights of Amer- 

 ican citizens under that Treaty. It asks for nothing but justice 

 and responsibility sanctioned by the spirit and forms of the British 

 constitution. 



We do not think it just that permission should be given by His 

 Majesty's Government to a foreign Power to over-ride or contravene 

 the laws of the Colony, or that an undertaking should be given to a 

 foreign Power by His Majesty's Government not to sanction certain 

 Colonial legislation. 



It has been suggested that the matters in dispute might properly 

 be submitted to arbitration. I cannot see what there is to arbitrate 

 upon. To my mind, the only question is, as to the binding effect 

 of Colonial laws upon American citizens when they come within 

 British jurisdiction. If it is intended to submit the Treaty to arbi- 

 tration, then I contend, that its terms are clear, that the privileges 

 granted to the inhabitants of the United States thereunder are not set 

 forth in language that is ambiguous. Vattel, probably the best 

 authority upon the interpretation of treaties, says : 



" The first general maxim of interpretation is, that it is not allow- 

 able to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When the 

 wording is in clear and precise terms and its meaning is evident and 

 leads to no absurd conclusion, there can be no reason for refusing 

 to admit the meaning which such Treaty naturally presents, and to 

 go elsewhere in search of conjectures in order to restrict or extend 

 it is but an attempt to elude it." 



If, on the other hand, it is intended to submit Colonial statutes 

 to arbitration, then I respectfully contend that it would be deroga- 

 tory to the Crown, and in direct contravention to the constitutional 

 right of the self-governing Colonies, to submit their statutes to the 

 arbitrament of any foreign Power or of any person, or body of men. 



