ARGUMENT OF ELIHU BOOT. 1991 



than I have for the Government of Great Britain; and no one, cer- 

 tainly, could ever have experienced more courtesy or kinder treat- 

 ment than I have always experienced from the representatives of 

 that great Power. Nevertheless, one cannot blind himself to the fact 

 that a change has taken place in the relations between the Govern- 

 ment of Great Britain and her colonies in recent years. The change 

 began with this American revolution, which was ended by the treaty 

 of peace in 1783. The Attorney-General, I think it was, referred 

 to it as the civil war, and I rather like that way of describing it; 

 for it was a civil war among the people of Great Britain. It was 

 that which, first taught Great Britain how to treat colonies. She 

 has profited by the lesson, and our friends in Canada and New- 

 foundland and Australia and all over the world have been benefiting 

 by it. And from that time to this the colonies of Great Britain 

 have gradually grown more and more self-governing, and nearer 

 and nearer to an independent attitude. The ties between them and 

 Great Britain have come to be largely voluntary ties of voluntary 

 adherence, of sentiment, of loyalty. And it has become more and 

 more evident that they would not survive deep and long-continued 

 resentment. 



Sir Robert Finlay rather protested against reference to the colonies 

 as being different from Great Britain, and said they are one. They 

 are one, in a juristic sense. They are one as they appear in this 

 proceeding and before this Tribunal. Nevertheless, for the purpqse 

 of dealing with a practical situation it must be realised that they are 

 far from one ; that Great Britain has handed over general legislative 

 power to this other body, this self-governing colony of Newfound- 

 land, which proceeds in accordance with its will, and if officers of the 

 Government of Great Britain undertake to interfere, talks about vio- 

 lation of the constitution of Newfoundland, and talks pretty sharply 

 and stiffly, too. 



Great Britain has vested in the Government of this self-governing 

 country the power to exercise the discretion of sovereignty; that is 

 to say, the power to exercise this very discretion subject to which the 

 British Argument places our treaty grant. It is not quite, but 

 almost, equivalent to a change of sovereignty. And when we appeal 

 to Great Britain against a decision by Newfoundland in a certain law 

 establishing a close season, prohibiting us from fishing thus and so, 

 or now and then, what do we find? We are appealing to Great 

 Britain against the exercise by this self-governing colony of the very 

 power that Great Britain has vested her with. What is Great Brit- 

 ain to do? Take away her constitutional power, or declare that the 

 exercise of it has been a violation of the treaty ? Ah ! But on the 

 British theory it is not a violation of the treaty, because the treaty is 

 subject to the exercise of that very power. 



