CORRESPONDENCE 445 



sary to discuss any question as to the extent to which American vessels may be inter- 

 fered with in the exercise of their Treaty rights pursuant to judicial proceedings based 

 upon a charge of violation of law, or even upon reasonable ground to believe that 

 any law has been violated, for the authority of the Acts authorized appears to be part 

 of no such proceeding. 



When we consider that the minor officials named in the Act, invested with this 

 extraordinary and summary power, are presumptively members of the fishing com- 

 munities, in competition w th whch the American fishermen are following their calling, 

 it is plain that in denying the right of he Government of Newfoundland to do what 

 this section provides for we are not merely dealing with a theoretical question, but 

 with the probability of serious injustice. 



The 3rd section of the Act, above quoted in full, makes the presence on board 

 of an American vessel of the fish, gear — the implements necessary to the exercise of 

 the Treaty right — primd facie evidence of a criminal off.nse against the laws of 

 Newfoundland, and it also makes the presence on board the vessel of the fish which 

 the vessel has a right to take under Treaty primd facie evidence of a criminal offense 

 under the laws of Newfoundland. This certainly cannot be justified. It is, in effect, 

 providing that the exercise of the Treaty right shall be primd facie evidence of a crime. 



I need not argue with the Government of Great Britain that the ist section of 

 this Act purports to authorize the very kind of official conduct which led to the estab- 

 lishment in England of the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures, now firmly 

 embedded in the jurisprudence of both nations. Nor need I argue that American 

 vessels are of right entitled to have on them in the waters of the Treaty Coast both 

 fish of every kind, and the gear for the taking of fish, and that a law undertaking to 

 make that possession primd facie proof of crime deprives them of that presumption 

 of innocence to which all citizens of Great Britain and America are entitled. When 

 the Legislature of Newfoundland denies these rights to American fishing-vessels, it 

 imposes upon them a heavy penalty for the exercise of their rights under the 

 Treaty, and we may reasonably apprehend that this penalty will be so severe in its 

 practical effect as to be an effectual bar to the exercise of the Treaty right. 



I feel bound to urge that the Government of Great Britain shall advise the New- 

 foundland Government that the provisions of law which I have quoted are inconsistent 

 with the rights of the United States under the Treaty of 1818, and ought to be repealed; 

 and that, in the meantime, and without any avoidable delay, the Governor in Council 

 shall be requested by a Proclamation which he is authorized to issue under the 8th sec- 

 tion of the Act respecting Foreign Fishing- Vessels, to suspend the operation of the Act. 



There is still another phase of this subject to which I must ask your attention. 

 I am advised that there is a very strong feeling among the Newfoundland fishermen 

 on the Treaty Coast against the enforcement of the Newfoundland Act prohibiting 

 the sale of bait, and that at a recent mass meeting of fishermen at the Bay of Islands, 

 Resolutions were adopted lurging the repeal or suspension of that Act, and containing 

 the following clauses: 



"If our requests are not granted immediately we shall be compelled, in justice 

 to ourselves and families, to seek other ways and means to engage with the Americans. 



"We would also direct the attention of his Excellency the Governor in Council 

 to what took place in Fortune Bay a few years ago when Captain Solomon Jacobs 

 seined herring against the wishes of the people, and the result. If a similar occur- 

 rence should take place here, who will be responsible?" 



This Resolution indicates the existence of still another source from which, if not 



