ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 1969 



Treaty to the Subjects or Citizens of any State or Power in amity 

 with Her Majesty." 



I must say, and I think the Tribunal will agree, that the legisla- 

 ture of Newfoundland in passing that statute considered that that 

 saving clause excluded Americans from the purview of the Act. 

 What it did was to put the prohibition down during the French off- 

 season. I hope the Tribunal will understand what I mean by the 

 " French off-season." 



THE PRESIDENT: The season in which the French are not per- 

 mitted to fish the winter season ? 



SENATOR ROOT: Yes; the season closes the 20th October. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 



SENATOR BOOT : From the 20th October until the French come back 



again they put down this statute. 



1192 THE PRESIDENT: Yes. One section begins with the 20th 

 October, and the second section begins with the 20th December. 

 The first section would coincide with the French off-season, whereas 

 the second section would, perhaps, not totally coincide with it. 



SENATOR ROOT: I do not know why they fixed those dates in this 

 second section. 



THE PRESIDENT. You do not know why the dates are fixed? 



SENATOR ROOT : No, I do not. I merely observed that the first sec- 

 tion did coincide with the period during which the French do not fish. 



THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 



SENATOR ROOT : It is a shore-protection statute, because it is limited 

 to seines; and it is expressly provided that it shall not prevent the 

 taking of herrings by nets, which is the natural and customary im- 

 plement of the shore fishery not necessarily exclusive, but the cus- 

 tomary and ordinary implement of shore fishery. It would have ex- 

 cluded Canadians and it would exclude from the shore fishermen, 

 Newfoundlanders, coming from other parts of the country. Such 

 is the nature of fishermen that they do not like to have their own 

 local fishing interfered with by anybody. He may be friend and 

 brother, but they want their own fishing for themselves ; and this is a 

 shore-protection statute. As I go on with these I am not going to 

 contend that they had specific interference with the American right 

 in their minds in passing each of these statutes. In some of them 

 later I think they included American rights in what they meant to 

 exclude, to bar out; but they are following, in all this series of stat- 

 utes, the natural impulse of mankind, of fishermankind, to protect 

 their own fishing at their own doors. It is the same impulse that 

 every boy has about the stream that runs through his father's farm ; 

 and it is an impulse that is inevitable, and not at all discreditable. 



The next statute that I would like to bring to the attention of the 

 Tribunal is the provision which now exists as section 25 of the regu- 



