2212 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



lives in St. John's, Newfoundland, and owns a fishing-vessel that 

 comes to the same coast; if one of them is exempted and the other is 

 charged, there is a discrimination that is not made up by the fact that 

 the Newfoundland man has paid his share of the benefit that his 

 country gets. The Gloucester man has not got any part of the benefit. 



and therefore he has paid no part of it ; but the Gloucester man 

 1337 and the St. John's man both get a special benefit for their 



vessels, and if the St. John's man is exempted from it there is 

 a discrimination in his favour and against the Gloucester man. 



Now, that leads me naturally to the further question not of strict 

 right, but whether it is quite reasonable for us to insist on our right 

 not to pay for these privileges. Upon that the fact that the fishing- 

 vessels of Newfoundland are exempted and that under this old British 

 statute fishing-vessels were exempted is very cogent. The fact is that 

 these little fishing-vessels ought not to have to pay for the burden 

 created for the benefit of commerce. They feel along the coasts, they 

 know the ground, they have but little use for lighthouses, they have 

 no use for port privileges, and this provision of the statute of New- 

 foundland which exempts her fishing-vessels and coasting-vessels is 

 an expression of the real common-sense of things, and our position, 

 quite apart from the strict, technical, legal right, is that common- 

 sense ought to be exercised for our benefit, as well as for the benefit of 

 her own vessels. 



Passing to Question 4, it is as follows : 



" Under the provision of the said Article that the American fisher- 

 men shall be admitted to enter certain bays or harbors for shelter, 

 repairs, wood, or water, and for no other purpose whatever, but that 

 they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent 

 their taking, drying, or curing fish therein or in any other manner 

 whatever abusing the privileges thereby reserved to them, is it per- 

 missible to impose restrictions making the exercise of such privileges 

 conditional upon the payment of light or harbor, or other dues, or 

 entering or reporting at custom-houses or any similar conditions? " 



You will perceive that that is a much narrower question. It relates 

 solely to the right, under the treaty, to impose such restrictions as 

 may be necessary to prevent the taking, drying, or curing of fish, or 

 in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges reserved. It 

 does not trench upon this ground that I have been discussing under 

 Question 3. It does not involve, or relate, in any manner whatever 

 to, any general rights to impose light or harbour dues. It relates 

 solely to the exercise of the power to impose restrictions necessary to 

 prevent the taking, drying, or curing of fish, or other abuse of the 

 privilege of entry. 



What I have said about the reasonableness of a vessel declaring 

 itself, reporting where there is somebody to report to, and about such 

 regulations as those regarding a special flag, or bearing a number, 



