8o FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



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 purpose of deahng with a practical situ- 

 ation it must be realized that they are far from one; that Great 

 Britain has handed over general legislative power to this other 

 body, this self-governing colony of Newfoundland, which pro- 

 ceeds in accordance with its will, and if ofl&cers of the govern- 

 ment of Great Britain undertake to interfere, talks about 

 violation of the constitution of Newfoundland, and talks pretty 

 sharply and stifHy, too. 



Great Britain has vested in the government of this self-govern- 

 ing 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 Newfound- 

 land 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 Britain to do ? Take away her constitu- 

 tional 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 viola- 

 tion of the treaty, because the treaty is subject to the exercise of 

 that very power. 



Suppose Great Britain were of the opinion that comity, kindly 

 feehng, good relations with the United States called upon her to 

 review the action of the self-governing colony of Newfoundland as 

 to whether this power with which the colony had been invested 

 had not been abused. Ah! There we have it. We have to prove, 

 and to secure any action from Great Britain we must prove, that 

 there has been an abuse of the power, and that is very difficult. It 

 must be a case gross, extreme, outrageous, to lead the mother 

 country to face the inevitable resentment of her colony which would 

 follow a condemnation for an abuse of its constitutional powers. 

 Hardly a practical rehef . 



