ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. 2203 



ment of foreigners, but I was speaking of the commerce of Great 

 Britain generally. I distinguished between these statutes that dealt 

 with our general commerce and statutes which, like those referring 

 to Newfoundland, are dealing with a particular trade, in which only 

 a particular class of foreigners is entitled to be engaged. The 

 learned Senator is putting what he calls my admission to a pur- 

 pose to which I never applied it. I drew a distinction between the 

 general trade of shipping over the whole world and the particular 

 industrial right exercised in this particular part of the world, which 

 is not an industry at all, but a mere right in an industry. 



SENATOR ROOT: I quite agree with the Attorney-General in the 

 limitation which he has stated. I am talking about the same thing 

 he was talking about. I am talking about the general right of 

 employment. I shall speak hereafter as to the question whether 

 there is any particular ground of exception from that general right. 

 I hope the Attorney-General will realise that I was not intending to 

 impute to him any observation regarding this particular instance. I 

 was establishing the existence of the general practice of employing 

 foreigners. 



The Attorney-General says [p. 1058, supra] : 



" He (Mr. Elder) wants to show, of course, that in 1818, when there 

 is a right given to take fish, that according to the custom of that 



time that right was exercised, not by Britons for themselves 

 1332 alone, but by Britons employing foreigners. Well, he does not 



show it. He does show this, that according to the law in Asia 

 and in Africa and in different parts of the world, Britons were 

 allowed to employ on their ships a certain proportion of foreigners." 



That is the proposition to which I refer. And he says : 



" I am afraid, in those days, when maritime troubles or naval wars 

 came on, we were not very particular about the nationality of those 

 whom we impressed, but still we did not want those, of course, who 

 could not be trusted to fight in our interests, so we did not discourage 

 the system of foreign seamen in England, if it was found convenient 

 for their employment. So that you see here where we say three- 

 fourths of them must be British subjects, we did not say the other 

 fourth may be foreigners. "\Ye do not forbid the employment of 

 foreigners, because that would be in particular cases to handicap an 

 industry. But, we say each vessel must be fitted out at a British port, 

 and you are not likely at a British port to set any foreigners, except 

 those who are inhabitants or domiciled in England." 



I make this observation upon that : that we have just as much right 

 to say that you cannot take this industry out of the general and uni- 

 versal practice and make it an exception for the purpose of handi- 

 capping it, as the Attorney-General has to explain that they do not 

 prohibit the employment of foreigners in other particular cases be- 

 cause that would be to handicap an industry. It is very well to re- 

 frain from handicapping British industries by not making them 



