1446 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



Winter, told us in reply to an inquiry that it was : " Purely retalia- 

 tory fiscal legislation. One country legislating against another upon 

 purely commercial matters." Retaliatory of what, Sir? Had there 

 beeen legislation in the United States against Newfoundland or 

 against its inhabitants? Were they precluded from service with us? 

 Were they in any way hampered ? Not at all. It was an attempt to 

 compel the United States to change its fiscal policy. It was an at- 

 tempt to compel the United States to abandon, so far as Newfound- 

 land was concerned, its protective tariff. 



I hold, of course, no brief here for the protective tariff. It is not 

 a subject to be discussed before this Tribunal, or upon this occasion. 

 It is enough to say that it had been, for half a century, almost con- 

 tinuously the policy of the United States, its fiscal policy, under 

 which, as many believe, the majority believe, its prosperity had 

 largely arisen. Its friends and advocates will point to the figures 

 of the valuation in 1850. seven billions of money, and in 1909 one hun- 

 dred and seventeen billions of money. They say that a large part of 

 that fiscal policy had been its protective tariff. Whether right or 

 wrong, whether wise or foolish, it was the fiscal policy of the United 

 States, and it was that which the Premier of Newfoundland openly 

 insisted upon having changed, and this Foreign Fishing Vessels Act 

 was brought in for the purpose of compelling the United States Sen- 

 ate to ratify this treaty with Newfoundland. 



I do not purpose, and need not at this moment go at any consider- 

 able length into the questions which there arose. The contest ran 

 through 1905, 1906. and 1907, leading all the way up to this arbitra- 

 tion. Not that the Premier of Newfoundland was advocating arbi- 

 tration. It was farthest from his desire that arbitration should be 

 brought about. 



He made an expression with regard to it at one time. It was in 

 the course of his speech, I think, in 1908, before the Colonial Con- 

 ference. It is to be found in the Appendix to the Counter-Case of 

 the United States, at p. 524. He said : 



" We do not think it just that permission should be given by His 

 Majesty's Government to a foreign Power to over-ride or con- 

 travene the laws of the Colony, or that an understanding 

 874 should be given to a foreign Power by His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment not to sanction certain Colonial legislation. 



" It has been suggested that the matters in dispute might properly 

 be submitted to arbitration. I cannot see what there is to abritrate 

 upon. To my mind, the only question is, as to the binding effect of 

 Colonial laws upon American citizens when they come within British 

 jurisdiction. If it is intended to submit the Treaty to arbitration, 

 then I contend, that its terms are clear, that the privileges granted 

 to the inhabitants of the United States thereunder are not set forth 

 in language that is ambiguous. Vattel, probably the best authority 

 upon the interpretation of treaties, says : 



