912 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



task of such great magnitude. I am sustained by the hope and be- 

 lief that I shall at least have the indulgence of the Court in the effort 

 I shall make to present my part of the case, which indulgence has 

 already, I think, been assured by the very patient and kind manner in 

 which the Court has listened to the counsel who have preceded me. 

 I am also sensible of the importance of presenting what I have to 

 submit to the Court within as short a time as possible, not only be- 

 cause of the great length of the* arguments up to the present time, 

 but also from the intimation which has just been given by the Tri- 

 bunal as to their views upon the matter. I shall endeavour, as far as 

 it is possible, to follow the intimation given by the Tribunal, and to 

 compress such observations as I have to make within as small a space 

 as possible, having due regard to the great importance of the subject 

 with which I have to deal. 



Anticipating the necessity for abbreviation, I may state that, as 

 the result of conferences with my associates, we have arrived at an 

 understanding that, so far as possible, those who immediately follow 

 me, as well as myself, will divide the subjects and questions, among 

 us in such manner that each one will address himself to particular 

 questions and topics, so far as practicable, and with as little over- 

 lapping or repetition as possible. 



Following that understanding, I propose this morning to begin by 

 addressing myself to one branch only of Question No. 1, relating to 

 the right of regulation. By one branch of the subject, I mean the 

 observations that were made by counsel for the United States, Mr. 

 Turner, towards the close of his address, when he referred particu- 

 larly to the subject of the legislation of the Colony of Newfoundland 

 relating to the prosecution of the fisheries, the methods, appliances, 

 and so forth. 



With a view of impressing upon the Court, so far as I could under- 

 stand his observations, he dealt with two leading and main ideas, for 

 whatever bearing they might have, upon the ultimate decision of 

 the question. These two leading and main ideas, so far as I could 

 gather them, were that Newfoundland, in its statutes in relation 

 to the fisheries, and the adoption under those statutes of regulations 

 for the prosecution of the fisheries, had obviously and plainly 

 544 directed its legislation against the fishermen of the United 

 States, and that it was of such a character as might be de- 

 scribed, and was I think described by him, as discriminating dis- 

 criminating in favour of the fishermen of Newfoundland, as against 

 the fishermen of the United States and, in such a manner as not 

 only to give the fishermen of Newfoundland an advantage over the 

 fishermen of the United States, but seriously to hamper and interfere 

 with and impede the fishermen of the United States in the liberty 



