ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1423 



" While regulations of this character may have a tendency to pre- 

 serve order among the fishermen, yet, since 'they affect the exercise of 

 the fishing right and might be so framed or "so administered as to 

 interfere with its fair enjoyment, the United States can not admit 

 the right of Great Britain to make such regulations applicable to 

 American fishermen without the consent of the United States." 



I am afraid it is beyond our power to enact regulations which 

 might not be unfairly administered, and if that is a sufficient objec- 

 tion to our regulations, it is an objection to every regulation which 

 we could suggest. There is no security which we could give to the 

 Americans beyond that which they have in every treaty for the fail- 

 administration of the duties which the treaty imposes upon one side 

 or the other. 



It appears to me, Sirs, that in 1886 and 1887 (if not at the present 

 time) the United States would certainly have declined to assent to 

 any of our regulations, unless we did what they thought was reason- 

 able and accorded to them commercial privileges. They would quite 

 agree that they ought to assent to reasonable regulations ; but, on the 

 other hand, they would link industrial advantages (rather than com- 

 mercial privileges) with them, and would decline to assent to our 

 regulations unless we accorded such advantages to them. 



In the same way I feel quite sure that they would bring in the 

 question of the employment of Newfoundlanders. They would say 

 that we were very unreasonable in that respect, and that until we 

 showed a more reasonable and conciliatory spirit, they would not con- 

 cur in those regulations. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: What do you mean when you say 

 that you cannot guarantee the fair administration of those regula- 

 tions ? 



860 MR. EWART: We can give no legal security for it. Treaties 

 in the old days were sometimes accompanied by the interchange 

 of hostages, and if there was a breach of the treaty, why, the poor 

 hostages had to suffer. Nowadays there is nothing of that sort done. 

 You must depend upon the honour, the integrity, and the good faith 

 of one another; and there is no other sanction. When Sir Robert 

 Finlay was referring to the power of the British Government to 

 exercise a check by disallowance, he was not referring in any way to 

 a legal security which the United States had, but to a moral security : 

 and he was indicating that the United States had, as sanctions, not 

 merely the honour of Newfoundland and of Canada, but the honour of 

 the British Government which could exercise an authoritative, control- 

 ling power over the colonies in case they thought it necessary. Senator 

 Turner took the other view, and said: "How is that a security? " 

 Well, it is not a legal security. There is no such thing as legal 

 security as between nations; but unless you are going to say that 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 10 34 



