1922 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



before this Tribunal, instead of showing a title, they try to change the 

 question ; they try to treat this question as being that which it is not. 

 They want a very different question asked now. They say what they 

 want is to ask whether there is anything in the treaty disentitling 

 them to commercial privileges. That is a totally different question. 

 Instead of proving their title, they now call upon us to say : What is 

 there in the treaty to show that we have no title? I say the treaty 

 does not touch the question absolutely it does not touch it. The 

 treaty has nothing to do with commercial privileges; it neither gives 

 nor withholds a title to commercial privileges. The treaty is dealing 

 with something else, and it is ridiculous, in my opinion, to ask the 

 question as Mr. Elder now wants to have it put: "Are the United 

 States disentitled ? " It is not enough to prove that some particular 

 document does not prevent or preclude them from getting privileges. 

 That is not the question. The question is : Have they got the privi- 

 leges; are they entitled? That is the question, and, when they come 

 to deal with it before this Tribunal, they find they cannot deal with it, 

 because they can only deal with it by producing the agreement which 

 they say the question assumes to exist. I do not think the question 

 does assume it to exist. This question assumes that the United 

 States, who have got to prove their title, will produce the agreement 

 which they suggest has conferred on them the title. But, even sup- 

 posing that it does assume the agreement to exist, that still does not 

 help the United States very much ; because it is a question how far 

 the agreement goes. What kind of right does it confer? Upon 

 whom does it confer them ? That is the point. Does it confer 

 1163 a right to trade permanently? We say that no such agree- 

 ment can be found, and not only can no such agreement be 

 found, but the only evidence before the Tribunal is that the trading 

 privilege, which they say they want under this question, is forbidden 

 by the law of Newfoundland. The Bait Act applies to both trading 

 vessels and fishing vessels both. They have no right to buy bait 

 under either their trading privileges or their fishing privileges. But 

 we know that it is the purchase of bait they want to get at. What, 

 therefore, is the motive of the question ? They want, if they can, to get 

 an affirmative answer to this question as to which they offer no proof, 

 so as to be able to turn around afterwards to Newfoundland and say : 

 " Now, then, the Tribunal has given an affirmative answer to this 

 question, and having got an affirmative answer to the question, we are 

 entitled to have commercial privileges accorded by grant." New- 

 foundland would say: " Where is your grant? " You still could not 

 show it, because there is none. But they say : " We are entitled to 

 have commercial privileges, by agreement or otherwise." And they 

 would point to our Order-in-Council and say : " Now, then, you are 



