ABGUMENT OP SAMUEL J. ELDER. 1531 



was never any occasion to advance it, for the reason that foreigners 

 other than Frenchmen were never employed by French fishing 



vessels." 



I think it is a matter of common knowledge that French crews 

 are more homogeneous than any other, but, in this important state- 

 ment of what the rights of Great Britain are, Sir Edward Grey does 

 not question the contention of Mr. Root, and I believe that this is a 

 letter which he wrote after having had the advantage of an interview 

 with Sir Robert Bond. The letter was written on the 20th June, 

 1907, so that more than a year had elapsed; and it was written after 

 he had had the opportunity of meeting Sir Robert Bond and had 

 taken all these subjects into account. Captain Anstruther's report, 

 in 1905, to which I have alluded, appears to be sustained there. I 

 shall not stop to turn to the page, but he says that Newfoundlanders 

 have always worked for the Americans, and one of their grievances 

 was that they were prevented from doing the thing that they had 

 always done. 



So we do submit most respectfully to the Tribunal that a practice 

 well known in 1818 to both countries, a practice followed from 1818 

 without dissent, down to 1905, in the exercise of this liberty of fishing, 

 is controlling of the meaning that the treaty ought to receive. 



Again, it has already appeared in the reading of those English 

 statutes, that this is a trade, or business, or enterprise, and is to be 

 conducted as business enterprises and industrial enterprises are con- 

 ducted with such help as you can hire, such men as you can get, the 

 most efficient men, and the men who can be had at reasonable rates 

 of wage. I want to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact 

 that it is over and over again demonstrated in all this correspondence 

 that the fishing that was spoken of in the treaty, and which was in 

 the contemplation of the parties, was a fishing business. Of course, 

 no one pretends that the inhabitants of the United States were each 

 to take his own fish up there, and that he could not employ any one. 

 It was expected that it would be done by others, and, being a trade 

 and business for profit, it was clearly one that would be conducted 

 in the ordinary way, and the negotiators so understood it. But, to 

 revert just for an instant, nothing is clearer in our law than that a 

 fishing for profit not a gentleman's fishing, or hunting, or that of 

 his guests, or his family but fishing for profit may be done by a 

 man's servants and Manchester v. Norfolk, a case to which allusion 

 has been made, and the case of Wickham v. Hawker, 7 M. and W., 

 p. 63, are authorities which distinctly show the common law of Great 

 Britain on this subject. 



Now, the learned counsel who preceded me cited a case from the 

 Supreme Court of Oregon. I do not assume that he supposes that 

 the common law of these two countries, announced both in England 



