ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWAET. 1367 



1886. Governor, Newfoundland, told Colonial Office why Newfoundland object 



to treaty. TJ. S. C.-C. A., pp. 312-3.) 

 1886. Newfoundland passed statute to regulate sale of bait. (Not printed.) 



1886. Discussion in London as to disallowance of statute. (U. S. C.-C. A., 



pp. 315-6.) 

 Rosebery letters. "Only one opinion." (B. C. A,, pp. 310-317.) 



1887. Newfoundland re-enacted statute. (B. C. A., p. 711.) 

 1887. Colonial Office surrendered. (U. S. C.-C. A., pp. 321-2.) 



1887. United States statute, retaliating. (B. C. A.; p. 792.) 



1888. Newfoundland statute. Licenses may issue to purchase bait. (B. C. A., 



p. 712.) 



1888. Proposed treaty and modus. (B. C. A., pp. 44, 427.) 



1889. Newfoundland statute. The Bait Act. (B. C. A., p. 714.) 



1890. Bond-Blaine Treaty. (B. C. A., p. 45.) 



1893. Newfoundland statute, "The Foreign Fishing-Vessels Act." (B. C. A., 



p. 730.) 

 1902. Bond-Hay Convention. (B. C. A., p. 46.) 



1904. Treaty with France. Purchase of bait on west coast permitted in ex- 



change for abandonment of exclusive claim. (B. C. A., p. 48.) 



1905. Newfoundland statute. (B. C. A., p. 757.) 



1905. Bond's speech. By refusing bait-supply we can bring our competitors to 



realise their dependence upon us. (U. S. C.-C. A., p. 448.) 



1906. Newfoundland statute (not in force). (B. C. A., p. 758.) 



Now, I take up Question No. 1. This question, as developed by 

 Senator Turner, seems to me to present a very clear and a very simple 

 issue, namely: Are the common operations of fishermen, who work 

 side by side in British waters, to be regulated by the laws of one 

 Government or by the laws possibly divergent laws of two 

 Governments? In other words, the United States claim that the 

 treaties give not only the liberty to fish but a liberty of extra-terri- 

 toriality to their fishermen, and still further a liberty to the United 

 States to follow with its sovereignty its fishermen into British terri- 

 tory. In view of the fact that not for many hundreds of years has 

 any such claim been made in respect of any part of the British Em- 

 pire, and in view of the fact that no such claim has ever been made in 

 respect of a foot of United States soil, it might be thought that the 

 question was not one fitted for prolonged argument. It has, how- 

 ever, not only been put forward by the United States, but it has been 

 most earnestly supported by Senator Turner; and it must, therefore, 

 whatever one's opinion may be respecting it, be treated with that 

 attention to which every claim put forward by the United States is 

 entitled. 



For the present I put aside the possibility of agreement, about 

 which Senator Turner said so much. I put it aside because it is 

 something with which the Tribunal has nothing to do, and I put it 

 aside for another reason because, although I had thought that 

 agreement was probable, after Senator Turner's advocacy of free 

 licence for everybody to do what he pleases upon the fishing grounds, 



