35° FISHERIES ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE 



get a special benefit for their vessels, and if the St. John's man is 

 exempted from it there is a discrimination in his favor and against 

 the Gloucester man. 



Now, that leads me naturally to the further question, not of 

 strict right, but whether it is quite reasonable for us to insist on 

 our right not to pay for these privileges. Upon that the fact that 

 the fishing vessels of Newfoundland are exempted and that under 

 this old British statute fishing vessels were exempted is very cogent. 

 The fact is that these little fishing vessels ought not to have to pay 

 for the burden created for the benefit of commerce. They feel 

 along the coasts, they know the ground, they have but little use 

 for lighthouses, they have no use for port privileges, and this provi- 

 sion of the statute of Newfoundland which exempts her fishing 

 vessels and coasting vessels is an expression of the real common- 

 sense of things, and our position, quite apart from the strict, 

 technical, legal right, is that common-sense ought to be exercised 

 for our benefit, as well as for the benefit of her own vessels. 



Passing to Question 4, it is as follows : 



"Under the provision of the said Article that the American fishermen 

 shall be admitted to enter certain bays or harbors for shelter, repairs, wood, 

 or water, and for no other purpose whatever, but that they shall be under 

 such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing 

 fish therein or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges thereby 

 reserved to them, is it permissible to impose restrictions making the exercise 

 of such privileges conditional upon the payment of light or harbor, or other 

 dues, or entering or reporting at custom-houses or any similar conditions?" 



You will perceive that that is a much narrower question. It 

 relates solely to the right, under the treaty, to impose such restric- 

 tions as may be necessary to prevent the taking, drying, or curing 

 of fish, or in any other maimer whatever abusing the privileges 

 reserved. It does not trench upon this ground that I have been 

 discussing under Question 3. It does not involve, or relate, in any 

 manner whatever, to any general rights to impose light or harbor 

 dues. It relates solely to the exercise of the power to impose 

 restrictions necessary to prevent the taking, drying, or curing of 

 fish, or other abuse of the privilege of entry. 



What I have said about the reasonableness of a vessel declaring 

 itself, reporting where there is somebody to report to, and about 



