CO885-(16-18) — Page 803

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY.

(Sir

Wilfrid Laurier.)

178

Fifteenth Day. Newfoundland has passed a law to prohibit fishing on Sunday. The 14 May 1907. Americans I know have complained of that law. In my humble judgment they have no right to complain of that law. It places them absolutely on a par with the British fishermen, and if the Legislature of Newfoundland for reasons of its own (which are not appreciated, but which, I think, we all agree about) has prevented its own fishermen from fishing on Sunday, certainly it is no complaint of the Americans that they should not be allowed to fish on Sunday. In the same way the Newfoundland Législature have passed a law to prohibit fishing in its own waters with certain engines-purse seines, for instance. That is not hurting the Americans, but puts upon them certain regulations and restrictions which are placed on Newfoundland's own subjects, and there again they are allowed to fish in common with British subjects. Therefore it seems to me there is no possible complaint.

There is another question, and as to that, perhaps, the position may not be so clear as it is upon the other two points. The Newfoundland Legislature has passed a law prohibiting its own people from engaging to fish on board American fishing schooners. As a general proposition there can be no doubt whatever that the Legislature of Newfoundland can say to its own people; You shall not engage yourselves to fish on board American, French, Gerinan, or Scandinavian vessels; and they are certainly within their rights. The Americans some years ago passed a law forbidding their own subjects pursuing what we call pelagic sealing in the Pacific seas; that is to say, hunting for seals on the high seas, and they certainly were within their rights. Nobody questioned it. Now perhaps the question will be raised whether the Legislature of Newfoundland in passing such a law has invaded the rights of American fishermen. For my part, I do not think it has. I do not think that if a Newfoundlander engages to a man in Gloucester and becomes a fisherman on board his ship that it would be in the power of the Legislature of Newfoundland to prevent that vessel coming and fishing in Newfoundland waters; but if it undertakes to punish that man for having violated that law, is that a contravention of the law of the Legislature? The point, I must say in all candour, does not seem so clear as the other two points. I agree, for my part, with Sir Robert Bond, that in passing that law the Legislature have not at all invaded the rights conferred upon the Americans by the Treaties of 1783 and 1818, but the point is not so clear as the others. It seems to me there is nothing at all to arbitrate on as to the other two points, that Newfoundland has powers to make regulations in its

own waters.

The difficulty is a very serious one indeed. What is to be done? That question is one which concerns Sir Robert Bond and also concerns Sir Edward Grey, who is responsible for the peaceable_relations now happily existing between the two countries. If Sir Edward Grey tells us that he does not intend to refer to arbitration the question of rights, for my part I would hesitate very much if Canada had feel very much relieved, because

to negotiate on the matter.

Sir EDWARD GREY: I said I thought it better not to raise the question of arbitration, but if the United States propose it I think it is very difficult to refuse arbitration.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Of course, it is always difficult to refuse arbitration when there is a point which in the mind of a reasonable man is the subject of contention; but when the Americans raise the issue that they have a right to legislate, to pass regulations, or to have a voice in a position which is absolutely the making of regulations, it seems to me untenable with the letter of the Treaty. All they claim is the right to fish in common with British fishermen. They cannot ask more than that, and

179

it is inconceivable to me that, because they have a right to fish in common with British fishermen, they can have a right to have a voice in the regula- tions which the Legislature has the right to make with regard to peace and good government in those territorial waters.

But as I said before, the other point which is now in issue is a point which is not so clear to me, as to whether the Legislature of Newfoundland has invaded the rights of the Americans in preventing their own people from engaging as fishermen on board American schooners. That does not seem to me so clear, although, for my part, I feel altogether as Sir Robert Bond feels on this point.

Sir ROBERT BOND; Lord Elgin, I think my friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, has perhaps not quite understood the position I put forward in referencó to the engaging of American fishermen. There was no specific Act passed by the Newfoundland Legislature dealing with the engaging of crews by American fishermen. The Bait Act, so called, of 1887, provided that no fishermen should engage in catching bait fishes without a licence, not even the people of the Colony, when engaged in the fisheries on their own behalf, The Act of 1906 was passed simply for the purpose of enabling us to deal more effectively with our own fishermen. It was not aimed specially against the Americans; it was passed for the purpose of enabling us to enforce more rigidly the Bait Act of 1887 against the fishermen of Newfoundland.

Sir EDWARD GREY: The Americans have an answer to that. They quote your words that this Bill is framed specially to prevent the American fishermen from coming into the bays and harbours.

Sir ROBERT BOND: I have answered that through the House of Assembly, and I pointed out in a despatch which is in the Department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that those remarks did not apply to the Treaty shore at all, but applied to Americans coming into all the other parts of the Colony where they have no rights whatever. My remarks had no relevancy to the Treaty shore, so the point is not well taken by the Americans. Really the regulations to which they object have been in force for 20 years as against all foreigners, and the operation of the same was only suspended during the last 16 years, because the Americans had led us to suppose that as soon as His Majesty's Government consented to a trade convention between the Colony and the United States the American Senate would assent to the same. If it had not been for that undertaking on the part of the American Government they would have been placed in precisely the same position as the French fishermen.

But with regard to the shipping of Newfoundlanders by Americans, the Americans themselves have disposed of that question, because Mr. Gardner, in the communication I read this morning to the Conference, stated that he had received an intimation from the Secretary of State at Washington to the effect that the Americans had no right whatever to engage Newfound- landers, that their fishery was one in common with British subjects to be performed exclusively by the inhabitants of the United States of America, and that therefore the Americans would have no right under the Treaty of 1818 to come down and engage our people to perform that work for them. I think they have disposed of that phase of the question themselves, and I do not know why we should raise it again, or why it has been raised by His Majesty's Government.

Then again, I might observe that rot only do the Americans object to our fishery laws, but they have absolutely refused to enter or clear at Customs or to pay light dues, and in fact Mr. Root set out in his Memorandum to the Foreign Oflice that they are not amenable in any way to the laws of the Colony. We have had murder committed by American citizens within

Fifteenth Day,

14 May 1907.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY. (Sir Wilfrid Laurier.)