ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 67 



the American or French fishermen on an equal footing. The object of every 

 bill that has been introduced into this Legislature in relation to foreign fisher- 

 men has been with the sole view to bring about an alteration in the foreign 

 bounty system or the reduction of prohibitive duties." 



I am not finding fault with Sir Robert Bond or with Newfound- 

 land for attempting to bring about a change in the bounty system 

 or in the protective duties of another country. I am urging upon 

 you that this is not the attitude of a judge, that that purpose which 

 has inspired the consistent policy of the goverrmient of Newfound- 

 land for a quarter of a century, as Sir Robert Bond says, is wholly 

 inconsistent with what my honorable friends on the other side call 

 the fair regulation of our rights. I am saying that if there is no Une 

 of demarcation set by this treaty grant upon our rights, but they 

 are left to the unrestrained judgment, the discretion, the legislative 

 authority of the government of Newfoundland, our rights are gone; 

 and all this right, for which John Adams was wilhng to refuse peace, 

 for which John Quincy Adams threatened war to Bagot in 1816, 

 was an idle fantasy, a delusion, unprotected by the terms of the 

 instrument they were so insistent upon. 



Still further, what is the meaning of these laws about the employ- 

 ment of Newfoundland fishermen, about the shipment of New- 

 foundland fishermen, or of any fishermen within the jurisdiction? 

 What is the meaning of the provisions of the Acts of 1905 and 1906 ? 

 They do not relate to the purchase of bait. Here the two Unes 

 come together. They relate to the taking of fish. Let us, for the 

 present, assume that they were justified — under some construc- 

 tion of the treaty they would be justified — let us assume that 

 Newfoundland had a perfect right to prohibit the shipment of any 

 sailor, of any fisherman in a fishing crew within the territory of 

 Newfoundland, let us assume that they had a right to prohibit any 

 British subject from fishing from an American vessel within the 

 territory of Newfoundland, let us assume that they had a right to 

 prohibit any Newfoundlander to go outside of Newfoundland 

 territory for the purpose of shipping upon an American vessel — 

 why did they do it? They did it for no other purpose, or conceiv- 

 able purpose, than to limit, restrict, interfere with, and prevent the 

 successful prosecution of the American fishery. It was the spirit 

 of competition, it was the determination to destroy a competitor's 



