ARGUMENT OF SAMUEL, J. ELDER. ' 1485 



I take it that this is a different form of servitude from that which 

 has been discussed before this Tribunal 



" It is humiliating to Newfoundland, because it places us in the 

 position of the frog in the fable, or of the dog who idly bayed at the 

 moon. 



" It is humiliating to the United States, because rights that have 

 been unchallenged for generations have been wantonly disputed and 

 relationships, mutually satisfactory, have been rent asunder." 



JUDGE GRAY: What was the page? 



MR. ELDER : Page 388, at the very bottom (United States Counter- 

 Case Appendix). 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : There appears to have been some dif- 

 ference of opinion as to the wisdom of Sir Robert Bond's policy? 



MR. ELDER: Yes, Sir Charles. 



On the 12th April of that same year, shortly after the mass meeting 

 at the Bay of Islands, there was a similar meeting at Bonne Bay, 

 which is mentioned in a despatch from Governor MacGregor to Lord 

 Elgin, at p. 390. The last paragraph of the governor's letter says : 



" There seems to be but little doubt that these Addresses " (speak- 

 ing of the addresses which the Bonne Bay fishermen sent) " represent 

 in a general way the feelings and wishes of Bay of Islands and of 

 Bonne Bay. They, however, comprise but a small part of the popu- 

 lation of the island. At the same time it is impossible to conceal from 

 oneself the fact that the people of Bonne Bay and of Bay of Islands 

 are those that are most directly interested in, and dependent on, this 

 particular herring fishery, in which practically no others, except the 

 people of St. George's Bay, participate." 



And he transmits the protest. 



And now we come to the hearing of the Dubois and Crane case 

 before the Law Court, which is reported by Governor MacGregor to 

 Lord Elgin on the 24th April, 1907. No, that is the time of the 

 argument. The part I refer to is at the bottom of p. 391. On the 

 7th May, 1907, Governor MacGregor says : 



" It will also be noticed that the Attorney-General draws attention 

 to the fact that the decision in no way involves an interpretation of 

 either the Treaty of 1818, or of the Modus Vivendi of 1906; but is 

 confined to affirming the conviction by the Magistrate on the lines of 

 a violation of the Bait Act." 



Without going into the opinion which begins on p. 392, the same 

 thing appears at p. 396 (third paragraph) : 



" In adjudicating on the rights of the parties in this case, it has 

 not been necessary for us to enter upon a consideration of the argu- 

 ments addressed to us by counsel, as to the interpretation of the Con- 

 vention made in 1818 between His Britannic Majesty and the United 

 States of America. I may observe that Chapter 129 recognizes 

 the rights acquired by the inhabitants of the United States under 

 this Convention, for it contains a provision, common to our fishery 



