ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 197 



"The observations which suggest themselves to me, however, on the 

 perusal of the draft bill are — ■ 



" ist. That if any misconception exists in Newfoundland respecting the 

 limits of the colonial jurisdiction, it would be desirable that it should be put 

 at rest by embodying in the act a distinct settlement that the regulations 

 contained in it are of no force except within three rmles of the shore of the 

 colony." 



I would stop on that if I were arguing Question 5 now; but I 

 am not. 



"2nd. That no act can be allowed which prohibits expressly, or is cal- 

 culated by a circuitous method to prevent, the sale of bait. 



"3rd. That all fishing acts should expressly declare that their provi- 

 sions do not extend or interfere with any existing treaties with any foreign 

 nation in amity with Great Britain. 



"4th. That, in any part of the colonial waters, it would be highly unjust 

 and inconvenient to impose upon British fishermen restrictions which could 

 not, without violating existing treaties, be imposed upon foreigners using 

 the same fisheries. On this point, however, I would refer you to my despatch, 

 marked 'confidential,' of the 2nd of February." 



That we have not. 



The Tribunal will perceive there that the Colonial Office con- 

 sidered that the saving clause, which was made peremptory, pre- 

 cluded non-discriminating legislation affecting foreigners using 

 fisheries under treaties: 



"it would be highly imjust and inconvenient to impose upon British fishermen 

 restrictions which could not, without violating existing treaties, be imposed 

 upon foreigners using the same fisheries." 



That is non-discriminatory. His observation is that there 

 should not be any regulation imposed upon British fishermen which 

 could not extend to and cover foreign fishermen. And he manifestly 

 understood that the fishermen under these treaties were outside of 

 the power of regulation, and that that fact was good reason for not 

 imposing a regulation which would apply to the British fishermen 

 and could not apply to them. 



The next circumstance is the correspondence and action in 

 regard to the Newfoundland treaty legislation of 1873 and 1874. 

 I have referred to that for a specific purpose, and I am going to ask 

 the members of the Tribunal to bring their minds back to it in 

 order to indicate another aspect of the correspondence and legisla- 



