ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWAKT. 1357 



it would be bound to permit the Americans the same 

 819 liberty; which seems to me equivalent to saying that the 

 Americans have certain rights by treaty, and if the New- 

 foundlanders do so-and-so, those treaty rights are enlarged. 



I say the Americans have that right now, or they have not. If they 

 have, they can go on and exercise it; if they have not, they do not get 

 it from anything that Newfoundland may do, except in the way of a 

 concession to the United States. 



It seems to me impossible, more particularly in view of the argu- 

 ment of Senator Turner upon Question No. 1, to suggest that if 

 Newfoundland bestowed any benefit upon its own fishermen, that it 

 was bound to bestow equal benefits upon American fishermen. Sena- 

 tor Turner has argued that American fishermen were under no obedi- 

 ence whateA-er to any of the laws of Newfoundland; that they are 

 there free from obedience to those laws; and that no such laws can 

 affect them. But this doctrine of servitude, or something else, seems 

 to work in such a peculiar way that Newfoundland laws which are 

 of disadvantage or supposed disadvantage to American fishermen do 

 not apply to them, but that they are entitled to the benefit of any 

 laws that would help them, even although those laws were not 

 designed for the purpose of giving them benefit. 



If that were true, we would have to sell them bait, because we 

 allow Newfoundlanders to sell bait to one another; we would have 

 to allow them all commercial privileges, because we allow Newfound- 

 landers to give commercial privileges to one another; and we would 

 have to allow them to employ Newfoundlanders, because we allow 

 Newfoundlanders to employ one another. 



Sirs, I pass over that suggestion and go to a further argument 

 based upon other treaties. The United States cites three other trea- 

 ties which they claim to be quite analogous, and to form an argu- 

 ment against the contention which I have been advocating. They 

 refer to the treaty of 1794, p. 20, British Case Appendix. 



The United States Argument commences with the second sentence 

 of that article. I shall read the first as well, because it brings into 

 contrast " vessels " and " citizens," and I think in these treaties we 

 must draw a very clear distinction between treaty rights given to 

 vessels, even although men must man them, and treaty rights given 

 to citizens, even although they must go in vessels. The implications 

 of the two are quite different : 



" His Majesty consents that the vessels belonging to the citizens of 

 the United States of America shall be admitted and hospitably re- 

 ceived in all the sea-ports and harbours of the British territories in 

 the East Indies. And that the citizens of the said United States may 

 freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said 

 United States, in all articles of which the importation or exportation 

 -respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely 

 prohibited." 



