ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM BOBSON. 1603 



matter of evidence, the impression left on my mind is that they do 

 not think regulation necessary at all. 



For instance, take what was said by Mr. Turner in reference to 

 Professor Huxley's report. Some references have been made, not very 

 much, because I think my friend Sir Robert Finlay rather treated the 

 necessity of regulation as being obvious to one or two of the docu- 

 ments to which I should like to make some slight reference again ; but 

 I think he treated regulation as being a thing which really did not 

 require much argument, so far as the question of its necessity was 

 concerned. 



Mr. Turner, however, read an opinion of Professor Huxley, in 

 which, I think, the enormous fecundity of fish was referred to. I 

 have not troubled to look at the reference, but it is well within the 

 memory of the Tribunal. I think some scientific man with a leaning 

 toward statistics has said that a herring was the potential parent of 

 about half a million other herring. Well, I do not think that the 

 families of herrings multiply at quite that rate; but still, no doubt, 

 there is an enormous rapidity of increase on the part of these lower 

 forms of living organisms. And Mr. Turner argued from that, or I 

 thought he meant to argue from that, that regulation was unneces- 

 sary ; but it may have been, on looking at his speech, that its impor- 

 tance was exaggerated. Well, we cannot afford to let the question 

 rest there, because the prosperity and existence of this fishery is not 

 merely an important question for Newfoundland, but a vital 

 970 question. No fishery, no Newfoundland. And therefore it 

 cannot be left open to doubt in any way whatever as to whether 

 regulations ought to be made or not. Those regulations, however, 

 referred simply to the question of the preservation of the fish. There 

 is another branch of regulation equally important, and that is the 

 preservation of order among the fishermen. On that Mr. Turner 

 spoke again, I think, with a little uncertainty of sound. He seemed 

 there to say that the United States might be willing to concur in 

 regulations of that character ; but of course he could not and did not 

 pledge the United States to do anything of the kind. 



I must, therefore, just say a word or two, and they shall be very 

 few words, upon this question of the necessity for regulation. I am 

 not dealing with it as what may be called a matter of prejudice, or 

 anything of that kind. I am dealing with it because of the applica- 

 tion I am going to give to these observations later, when I come to 

 the question of strict construction : Is regulation a necessity, and is it 

 a necessity of such a character as that I am justified in saying that it 

 could not have been absent from the minds of the parties who made 

 this treaty; and that, as it could not have been absent from their 

 minds, they must have dealt with it in one way or another? Mr. 

 Turner says they dealt with it by impliedly creating a dual control. 



