PEEIOD FROM 1905 TO 1909. 969 



makes the presence on board the vessel of the fish which the vessel 

 has a right to take under Treaty prima facie evidence of a criminal 

 offence under the laws of Newfoundland. This certainly cannot be 

 justified. It is, in effect, providing that the exercise of the Treaty 

 right shall be prima fade evidence of a crime. 



I need not argue with the Government of Great Britain that the 

 1st section of this Act purports to authorize the very kind of official 

 conduct which led to the establishment in England of the rule against 

 unreasonable searches and seizures, now firmly embedded in the 

 jurisprudence of both nations. Nor need I argue that American 

 vessels are of right entitled to have on them in the waters of the 

 Treaty Coast both fish of every kind, and the gear for the taking of 

 fish, and that a law undertaking to make that possession prima facie 

 proof of crime deprives them of that presumption of innocence to 

 which all citizens of Great Britain and America are entitled. When 

 the Legislature of Newfoundland denies these rights to American 

 fishing-vessels, it imposes upon them a heavy penalty for the exercise 

 of their rights under the Treaty, and we may reasonably apprehend 

 that this penalty will be so severe in its practical effect as to be an 

 effectual bar to the exercise of the Treaty right. 



I feel bound to urge that the Government of Great Britain shall 

 advise the Newfoundland Government that the provisions of law 

 which I have quoted are inconsistent with the rights of the United 

 States under the Treaty of 1818, and ought to be repealed; and that, 

 in the meantime, and without any avoidable delay, the Governor in 

 Council shall be requested by a Proclamation which he is authorized 

 to issue under the 8th section of the Act respecting Foreign Fishing- 

 Vessels, to suspend the operation of the Act. 



There is still another phase of this subject to which I must ask your 

 attention. I am advised that there is a very strong feeling among 

 the Newfoundland fishermen on the Treaty Coast against the enforce- 

 ment of the Newfoundland Act prohibiting the sale of bait, and that 

 at a recent mass meeting of fishermen at the Bay of Islands, Resolu- 

 tions were adopted urging the repeal or suspension of that Act, and 

 containing the following clauses: 



"If our requests are not granted immediately we shall be com- 

 pelled, in justice to ourselves and families, to seek other ways and 

 means to engage with the Americans. 



"We would also direct the attention of his Excellency the Governor 

 in Council to what took place in Fortune Bav^ a few years ago when 

 Captain Solomon Jacobs seined herring against the washes of the 



Eeople, and the result. If a similar occurrence should take place 

 ere, who will be responsible ? " 



This resolution indicates the existence of still another source from 

 which, if not controlled, may come most unfortunate results when the 

 American fishermen proceed to the exercise of their Treaty rights, 

 that is, the Newfoundland fishermen themselves acting indepen- 

 dently of their Government. 



You are aware that for a considerable period American fishing- 

 vessels, instead of themselves taking herring, caplin, and squid upon 

 the Treaty Coast, have been in the habit of buying those fish from 

 the Newfoundland fishermen. For many of the Newfoundland 

 fishermen this trade has been a principal means of support. That 

 has been especially so in and about the Bay of Islands. It has been 



