1784 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



consideration, and we carefully arrange our fiscal burdens so that 

 they shall fall on the broadest backs. Fiscally the seaman's back is 

 not very broad ; and so we try to exercise our jurisdiction properly in 

 imposing the tax on all, and we say with regard to this particular 

 class we will make this discrimination, because he has already con- 

 tributed what may be treated as his quota. That is the whole argu- 

 ment on it, which I leave with the Tribunal, because it is quite simple, 

 and one does not need to labour it. 



In Newfoundland there wore no lighthouses at all until 3834. 

 And then this statute of 4 Wm. IV, cap 4, imposed dues for the 

 maintenance of the lighthouse at St. John on all vessels except 

 coasters. 



Then there were subsequent Acts which imposed dues on all vessels 

 including coasters; but they made a lower scale for coasting- and 

 fishing-vessels. That is exactly acknowledging the principle for 

 which I am contending. They are all liable to pay, they must pay 

 something, but some of them have already paid something as tax- 

 payers, and they will be charged less as fishermen. 



Then comes the statute of 1899 [62-3 Viet., cap. 19], in which that 

 discrimination is made absolute, because there is now nothing charged 

 on the fishing- and coasting-vessels of the colony. Of course all that 

 depends upon the incidence of the general fiscal burden. It is almost 

 impossible to judge whether that is putting the matter exactly even as 

 between the two classes. It is very difficult, because you have to 

 take into account the whole burden of taxation falling on the popula- 

 tion generally. So that, as to whether the fisherman is getting any 

 advantage there I should scarcely like to say. It does not seem to 

 me that you can treat it otherwise than as a matter of right, just as 

 we leave each nation at liberty to give a bounty if it thinks fit. That 

 is treated as being absolutely outside the scope of the treaty, because 

 there is no question that America may give a bounty if it likes, and 

 has given bounties, and so has France; so that, really, this 

 1079 question can scarcely be treated as a matter of calculation; it 

 can scarcely be treated by asking the question : " Is the Ameri- 

 can treated in exactly the same line as the Briton," because nobody 

 can quite judge, until you know the whole incidence of the taxation ; 

 but it is treated as a matter of right. They have a right to give them 

 a bounty. Although the two classes of fishermen are to be treated 

 in common, that has never been thought inconsistent with the bounty. 

 Treating in common means treating in common when you come here, 

 although you may have got money in your pocket, before you started, 

 from your Government, to induce you to start, or you may get money 

 when you go back, because you have been there, in the form of a 

 bounty. Still, the treaty is not interpreted with reference to those 

 collateral incidents at all. Any class of fishermen is left to enjoy a 



