ARGUMENT OF SIB WLLLJAM EOBSON. 1757 



the prosperity of Newfoundland, a danger which may be fatal to its 

 separate existence. It is a very small State. It has had self-govern- 

 ment only since 1834, and, of course, it has had many of the struggles 

 of a small State. 



It is, like other small States, very often distinguished for the ex- 

 uberance of its patriotism, but this little island, nevertheless, in the 

 view of Sir Robert Bond, is the mistress of the northern seas when it 

 comes to selling bait. In other spheres of action and policy he would 

 allow it some simpler part, but when it comes to selling bait it is the 

 mistress of the northern seas, a position of which they are naturally 

 proud. This natural advantage which enabled them to say, " I will 

 sell my bait," or " I will withhold my bait," was carefully preserved 

 at the time of the treaty. Is she now to lose it, under one question or 

 another, and along with it, to lose the power of securing to her own 

 citizens the right to engage in their own industry to the exclusion of 

 anybody else ? That is the point. There is not the ability to engage 

 labour for this trade in the United States because they cannot pay the 

 proper wage to bring men there and they desire the right to employ 

 cheaper labour and they want to get that right under this treaty. 

 But there stands against them the word " inhabitants." It is the only 

 word there is between Newfoundland and a stream of cheap labour 

 which may or may not be Asiatic, which will undersell the whole of 

 her citizens and ruin her industry. 



So there is much more in all this than a mere quarrel about words. 

 It must be considered with relation to that most unfortunate conflict 

 which arose on this question between Newfoundland and its colossal 

 neighbour. 



I have now taken up so much time that I am almost afraid 

 1063 to pass to the propositions laid down by Mr. Root, but I hope 

 the Tribunal will forgive me if I have been so long on this 

 question, and give me yet a few minutes more in order to deal with 

 this last part of the case to which I shall draw attention. Mr. Root 

 wrote a letter in which he set forth with great clearness the position 

 of the United States, and I would like to say just a few words about 

 it. It is in the British Case Appendix, at p. 492. He put his first 

 proposition thus : 



" 1. Any American vessel is entitled to go into the waters of the 

 Treaty Coast and take fish of any kind." 



Well, now, could one have a better illustration of a dangerous 

 method of making an interpretation than this? 



The word "inhabitant " is out and the word " vessel " is substituted. 

 Why? Because an inhabitant can only fish in a vessel. Just mark 

 the steps of the reasoning which lie latent in that proposition and in 

 those which follow. The right is to fish. It is not to fish on the 

 shore, but to fish in the water, and on the water. Therefore we must 



