ARGUMENT OF SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1495 



by the fact that Great Britain must, in propriety, and does always 

 refer questions to the Government of Newfoundland, and is subject 

 to the urgency and insistence of that Government in all its replies 

 to and dealings with the United States, all of which indicates to my 

 mind that our remedy is not likely to be such as that pointed out by 

 Sir Robert Finlay, or one which will be of value to us. It may be 

 well to say that the legislation will be, in the end, controlled by the 

 action of Great Britain and that it has always been shown to be 

 wise and just. That may be so in very many particulars, and I think 

 I have already paid tribute to that fact, but it is of very little service 

 to our fishermen to be told that when they are between the upper 

 and nether millstones, the means of using their vessels destroyed, 

 their property taken away from them and their men liable to prosecu- 

 tion, the upper millstone is there and will prevail in the end. It 

 seems to me that it has been of value further I trust that it has not 

 been without some value to point out in some detail the attitude 

 which Newfoundland has taken in this entire crusade. It has been 

 avowedly, professedly, and without denial, coercive. It has been 

 designed to punish the United States for not admitting their fish 

 free of duty and its purpose has been to cripple the American fishing 

 industry, or to complicate the situation with Great Britain so that 

 it might cripple the United States fishing industry. Palpably the 

 object, over and over again announced by Newfoundland, was to 

 drive our vessels off the coast and, without going outside of my 

 province in argument, I say it is interesting to observe that it is 

 now alleged in this case that the laws which have been passed and 

 the regulations which have been made have been just, reasonable and 

 necessary, not discriminatory as against the United States and in- 

 favor of British fishermen ; in other w r ords, that the Government, and 

 the head of the Government, which avowedly proposed to do this 

 drastic thing, had really been most gentle, just and humane, in its 

 dealings with the fishermen against whom its purposes had actually 

 run. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Would it be possible to make this dis- 

 tinction in referring to the legislation of Newfoundland, that in so 

 far as that legislation is applicable to the prohibition to export fish 

 and the engagement of Newfoundlanders by American captains, it 

 has nothing to do with the treaty as such legislation cannot be regu- 

 lations which are applicable to the fishery ? 



MR. ELDER: I quite agree that there is substance for argument in 

 that, but the point that I was at this moment calling your attention 

 to was whether, with the expressed determination to cripple the 

 United States fishing industry, it was probable that the Government 

 of Newfoundland would be restrained from drastic and well-nigh 

 homicidal measures by the application of such rules as your body 

 might, in the interpretation of the treaty, lay down. 



