CO885-(16-18) — Page 807

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ת!!,

Reference :-

C.O.885

18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

Fifteenth Day.

14 May 1907.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY.

(Sir R. Boud.)

•

(L

C

186

that I did not see what there was to arbitrate upon. My words were "It "has been suggested to me by His Majesty's Government that the matters in dispute might properly be submitted to arbitration. I cannot see what there "is to arbitrate upon. To my mind, the only question is as to the binding effect of Colonial laws upon American citizens when they come within British jurisdiction. If it is intended to submit the Treaty to arbitration, then I contend that its terms are clear; that the privileges granted to the "inhabitants of the United States thereunder are not set forth in language that is ambiguous." Then I went on to quote an authority, Vattel, who says "The first general maximum of interpretation is, that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When the wording is in clear and precise terms, and its meaning is evident and leads to no absurd conclusion, there can be no reason for refusing to admit the meaning which such treaty naturally presents, and to go elsewhere in search of conjectures in order to restrict or extend it is but an attempt to elude it." Then I further said; "If, on the other hand, it is intended to submit Colonial statutes to arbitration, then I respectfully contend that it would be "derogatory to the Crown and in direct contravention to the constitutional rights of the self-governing Colonies to submit their statutes to the "arbitrament of any foreign power, or of any person or body of men.' It was only when Sir Edward Grey suggested arbitration that I said if all the questions in dispute are submitted then I should be perfectly satisfied-all questions.

(C

看感

"

Sir EDWARD GREY: I have always admitted that that course Sir Robert Bond now states is a possible course, but I think it is undesirable. To put it in plain words-or at least in my words-what it comes to is this: We should say to the United States, this Treaty is so perfectly clear that there can be only one possible interpretation of it, and that is our interpretation, and we intend to make you accept that by force. But I do not think on a question of this kind, when it is a question of the interpretation of a treaty, it is really a matter which ought to be carried to that length.

Sir ROBERT BOND: I ventured to express the opinion to the Earl of Elgin, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Winston Churchill on Friday last, that if His Majesty's Government will assent to the Act of 1906, which enables us to deal with our own people, you will hear no more of this fishery difficulty. I stated the same 12 months ago, and from a knowledge of all the circumstances of this case I am convinced that is the proper course.

CHAIRMAN: We have now got this resolution, which evidently could I do not know how those not be adopted unanimously by this Conference. who have not taken a part might view it, but I suggest to Sir Robert Bond that he should not press it further. If he wishes it may be regarded as having been submitted.

Sir ROBERT BOND: I would like to have on record that I at least have done the best I can in the interest of those I represent. My opinion is embodied in that resolution, and I hope that my colonial colleagues will feel that there is nothing contained in that resolution to which they cannot assent. It is a mere assertion really of colonial rights.

Mr. DEAKIN: I understand Sir Edward Grey to say that the course which you propose to take in order to give effect to that law with reference to the employment of Newfoundlanders is not possible without grave consequences.

187

Fifteenth Day.

14 May 1907.

Sir EDWARD GREY: The law of 1906, yes. I have not a copy of We should have to be the law before me, but it is a pretty strong Act. prepared to carry it out by force; that is to say, the United States would either say, No, we cannot be bound by this, and we shall resist it, in which NEWFOUNDLAND case we should have to reply, and use force too; or else they would say: We cannot stand this; we must have arbitration.

Sir ROBERT BOND: The fact is: The Act of 1906 simply enables us to deal with our own people, not American citizens. Under it we cannot seize American vessels or arrest American citizens on the Treaty shore; it simply enables us to take action against our own people-British subjects. Further, it repeals the objectionable sections in the Act of 1905, which His Majesty's Government asked us to repeal out of deference to the wishes of the American Government.

Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Does it not make it an illegal offence if an American vessel arrives in Newfoundland waters with certain apparatus to take fish on board?

Sir ROBERT BOND: No. You are thinking of the Act of 1905. Those objectionable clauses are repealed by the Act of 1906.

Mr. DEAKIN: With every possible desire to assist Sir Robert Bond, especially after listening to this argument and making myself acquainted with his case by reading, does it not come round to the old issue-arbitration or no arbitration? Are not the interests of Canada indissolubly bound up with those of Newfoundland in that question, and has not the Prime Minister of Canada intimated that at present he is unable to say whether he would be prepared for arbitration without further consideration? Is it not desirable that he should be satisfied that arbitration upon all these questions would satisfy Canada before you take action which must either precipitate arbitration or an appeal to force? So long as you begin prepared for arbitration you begin knowing that in such a case no appeal to war could follow; but you must be prepared for the other alternative. If we cannot to-day decide whether it is judicious to enter upon this arbitration, why submit a proposal in anticipation? May there not be, with the concurrence of Canada, a short cut out of this difficulty?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: No. The position of Canada is that we have always thought there was nothing to arbitrate upon, but our views on this matter have been for the last 10 years rather platonic, because we have no serious grievance. Therefore it would come as a shock to the people of Canada if we said we had gone into arbitration upon this matter. We would have to look into this point.

Mr. DEAKIN : I hope that nothing I have said seemed even to imply that you ought not to take everything into consideration; but as Sir Edward Grey has forcibly put it, if you take this line compelling the Americans to adopt one of two courses, either an appeal to force or arbitration, you must be ready for both; now, unless you are ready for arbitration, you limit yourselves to the other alternative, which is a matter of the gravest character. I do not know that you would wish that.

FISHERY.