ARGUMENT OF SIR JAMES WINTER. 913 



and freedom to which they were entitled under the terms of the 

 treaty. 



His second ground of complaint against this legislation, statutory 

 and by regulation, was, that the regulations in themselves were ob- 

 jectionable, unnecessary, and such as he and those whom he repre- 

 sented, did not approve of. Therefore, it would follow, as a conse- 

 quence, that they would not have consented to them. 



Although the learned counsel did not put it in so many words, his 

 argument and his observations had a very important bearing, not 

 only upon the question I am immediately discussing, but upon the 

 other very important question, which the Tribunal will have to con- 

 sider. That is, the question of the consequence of the fishermen of 

 the United States, or the United States, refusing their consent to the - 

 legislation of Newfoundland. He not only tells us, on behalf of the 

 United States, that the fishermen of the United States consider that 

 this legislation, prohibiting this and forbidding that, is unnecessary, 

 vexatious, unreasonable, and discriminating, but he goes further, at 

 least by implication, in his observations, to the extent that, the United 

 States, being a party, standing upon equal terms, upon an equal 

 footing with Great Britain, or with Newfoundland (which is the 

 same thing) in the framing of laws and regulations for the conduct 

 of the fishery it would refuse its consent to legislation of the objection- 

 able kind that he pointed out. 



However, without regard to this graver question, and the conse- 

 quences that might follow upon taking such a course as this, upon 

 which important question the Tribunal will have to determine, I 

 will pass on to an examination of the legislation itself, and endeavour 

 to put before the Tribunal such explanation as I am able to give for 

 the purpose of helping the Tribunal to determine whether or not 

 this legislation is open to the objection which the learned counsel 

 has set forth. 



In order to understand the nature of his objections, to put them 

 as clearly and as briefly as possible, I cannot do better than read the 

 learned counsel's own observations, which are compressed, for the 

 present purpose, within not a very long space. 



I will refer the Tribunal to the typewritten report of the learned 

 gentleman's speech at p. 2826 [pp. 463-4 supra], because, for this 

 purpose, that will be a convenient starting point. He says: 



" I now pass on to the Consolidated Statutes of Newfoundland of 

 1892, chapter 124, which contain provisions with reference to the 

 taking of herrings, and which the United States insists were mani- 

 festly passed with a purpose to discriminate against the vessel-fishing 

 of the Americans in favor of the shore-fishing of the local inhabit- 

 ants, and which were likewise designed to give local vessels in the 

 bank fisheries an advantage over American vessels in the matter of 

 taking herring for bait. 



