944 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



where a man might have been left behind by some accident, or some- 

 thing of that sort. Just the same kind of thing as was referred to 

 by Mr. Turner in his address when he was commenting on this Act 

 of 1905. 



But, when it came to 1905, matters stood upon an entirely different 

 footing, and the position that then presented itself was this: 



In 1905 the Newfoundland Government, acting under the powers 

 which they had under their Acts, refused to permit the fishermen of 

 Newfoundland to sell herring to the Americans, which they claimed 

 they had a perfect right to do, and to which the treaty of 1818 had 

 no reference whatever. 



This policy, adopted by the Newfoundland Government with re- 

 gard to the shipping of crews, has not, and ought not to be permitted 

 to have any bearing upon the questions that are now before the Tri- 

 bunal in relation to keeping faith, or not keeping faith, in the matter 

 of the articles of the treaty of 1818. It was simply a termination 

 of what may be called " commercial privileges," that is, the right 

 to come in and buy herring, the fishermen of Newfoundland then 

 being prohibited, or not being permitted, to sell herring to United 

 States fishermen. Now, this is what took place: The United States 

 fishermen resorted to the plan which is the subject of discussion under 

 another question here, that is, of employing, not as the Newfoundland 

 Government contend, a bond fide crew as a fishing crew for its vessel, 

 but employing a number of men Newfoundlanders to catch fish, 

 for them, and put them on board their vessels, calling or describing 

 them as part of their crew. 



As a matter of fact it appears the very first fish that were caught 

 under this arrangement were paid for at the rate of so much per 

 barrel for the number of barrels of herring that they put on board, 

 not as servants would be paid .at the rate of so much per day for 

 their services as members of a crew. In other words, substantially, 

 for all practical purposes, it was just as much a purchase and sale 

 of herring as it was before the Act of 1905. That was the condition 

 of things existing in 1905. I merely call attention to it on account of 

 the observations which were made by learned counsel, Mr. Turner, 

 when he called the attention of the Tribunal to the unfriendly 

 character, the hostile character as he termed it, of this legislation as 

 against the American fishing vessels, that under this they were pro- 

 hibited, as it would appear, from doing that which no friendly power 

 would interfere with, that is, from getting a sufficient number of 

 men to make up their crews, and so on. It was not to prevent them 

 from getting bond fide crews, it was done to prevent them from 

 going through a transaction which, under the name of hiring men 

 for their crew, was nothing more than the purchase of herring, which 

 it had been decided to prohibit, and which had already been pro- 



