ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 257 



scheme of joint regulation for the Newfoundland coast, but which 

 was rejected by Newfoundland, and as at last they have done under 

 their treaty of 1904, which was finally accepted by Newfoundland. 

 You will remember that in 1889 Lord Knutsford wrote to 

 Governor O'Brien, of Newfoundland, when the colony had been 

 particularly insistent upon its very extreme views of its own rights 

 and convenience: 



"There is no reasonable ground on which the government of Newfound- 

 land can object to the introduction into that colony of Regulations similar 

 to those which the governments interested in the North Sea fisheries have 

 agreed upon as best calculated to insure proper police and to prevent the 

 occurrence of disputes among rival fishermen." 



That is dated the 31st May, 1889, and is found in the United 

 States Counter-Case Appendix, p. 325. He says that there is no 

 reasonable ground. The only obstacle lies in the fact that Great 

 Britain has no measure of control over Newfoundland except her 

 own will, and Newfoundland would naturally resent any restraint 

 on what she beheves to be necessary for her prosperitj^ at the mere 

 uncontrolled will of the mother country. If you give a clear, 

 definite Hne of right, such as we are contending for, all that diffi- 

 culty is obviated. 



There would be no trouble with the United States. We have 

 here, and I have already referred to it, an Act of the Congress of 

 the United States, passed on the isth March, 1862, and presented 

 in the British Case Appendix, at p. 787, authorizing the appoint- 

 ment by the President of a representative of the United States to 

 take part in a joint commission with France and Great Britain for 

 the regulation of the fisheries. I think that it probably referred to 

 the outside bank fisheries, but my purpose in referring to it now 

 is to show the spirit and the ease with which such a matter can 

 be arranged if people know what their rights are. The practical 

 adaptation is comparatively simple. The Chamberlain-Bayard 

 treaty of 1888 contains a series of agreed regulations regarding the 

 enforcement of Canadian laws and regulations for the preservation 

 of their fishery. That treaty failed of confirmation not because of 

 these features at all, but because of other features, and the treaty 

 illustrates how easy it is for two friendly nations, who are familiar 

 with the case and adopt a moderate attitude with respect to inter- 



