ARGUMENT OF STR JAMES WINTER. 919 



men never engaged in the prosecution of the fishery for the purpose 

 of selling herring as an article of consumption or as an article of 

 exportation upon a large scale. The Fortune Bay incident was only 

 one case, and an entirely exceptional one, in which it appears that 

 the United States fishermen, or one of them, had ever thought of en- 

 gaging in this industry. In this case one of these American fisher- 

 men thought it would be a profitable undertaking to come down to 

 the Newfoundland shore and make a haul of a large quantity of 

 herring. He came down for that purpose at a season when, it ap- 

 pears, the law forbade the taking of herring by seines, but he did it, 

 I presume, on the advice that a law of Newfoundland forbidding the 

 taking of herring at that season, did not apply to the American 

 fishermen, and that they would not be bound by it. However, that 

 is a mere speculation as to what may have been in his mind. I 

 merely now point to the fact that the Fortune Bay incident is the 

 only case, as far as I know, upon record, in which any American 

 fishermen have engaged in that business, or have intended to engage 

 in the business of catching herring by means of seines in Newfound- 

 land waters. So that the legislation which is complained of as 

 being directed against Americans, and only against Americans, was, 

 in point of fact, directed against the Newfoundland fishermen, and 

 only against the Newfoundland fishermen, and the Newfoundland 

 fishermen, from that time down to to-day, have been governed by 

 that legislation and have submitted to it, because, in their own be- 

 lief and in the belief of their representatives in the Legislature, the 

 provision is necessary for the protection and preservation of the 

 industry, and it has been adopted for that and for no other pur- 

 pose. 



548 Now, Mr. President, having stated merely in outline these 

 broad facts in relation particularly to the shore fishery, I 

 would ask the Tribunal to follow me while I make a statement, as 

 brief as I can under the circumstances, as to the course of legislation 

 which has taken place in Newfoundland in the nature of the regula- 

 tion of the fisheries for the purpose of examining it in relation to the 

 observations made by learned counsel on the other side in order that 

 we may discover how far his broad and general observations as to the 

 discriminatory character of this legislation and as to its being un- 

 necessary are sustained by the facts of the case. Before looking at 

 the legislation in detail, I would make this statement of an important 

 matter of fact and of history, and it is that until the year 1887 the 

 United States fishermen had always been permitted to purchase bait 

 and supplies freely in the treaty waters. However, in that year, the 

 Newfoundland Legislature passed the Bait Act, as it is called. It 

 was amended in 1888 and 1889 ; it was re-enacted in 1892, and in 1893 

 another Act was passed, called the Foreign Fishing- Vessels Act. I 



