A.—s

600

Fifteenth Day. 14 May 1907.

representative for Gloucester in Congress, writing to the " Boston Herald," of July 9th, under date of July 7th, said as follows : — " I am in receipt of a letter, dated July 2nd, from the Secretary of State (that is Secretary of State for the United States) answering a large number of questions raised in my Memorandum to Mr. Alexander, of the United States Fishery Commission. The State Department believes that Newfoundland has the right to prohibit its own citizens from engaging m or prosecuting the fishery unless they are inhabitants of the United States. If they are inhabitants of the United States we are entitled to have them fish from our vessels regardless of their citizenship." The State Department of Washington having thus placed this interpretation on the Treaty, it is difficult to conceive why the Newfoundland laws were over-ridden last year under the- modus vivendi, or why the Act of 1906 which merely enables the Colony to more effectively enforce the Bait Act of 1887 upon its own citizens is still held in abeyance by His Majesty's Ministers. What I have asked for at the hands of His Majesty's Government is : — Ist. The Assent of the Crown to the Act of 1906. 2nd. That the Colony be permitted to carry out those laws that have been approved by the Crown. 3rd. That His Majesty's Government define the rights of AmeriGan citizens under the Treaty of 1818. The Colony does not desire to limit in any way the rights of American citizens under that Treaty. It asks for nothing but justice and responsibility sanctioned by the spirit and forms of the British constitution. We do not think it just that permission should be given by His Majesty's Government to a foreign Power to over-ride or contravene the laws of the Colony, or that an undertaking should be given to a foreign Power by His Majesty's Government not to sanction certain Colonial legislation. It has been suggested 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. Vattel, probably, the best authority upon the interpretation of treaties, says :— " The first general maxim 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." 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 right of the selfgoverning Colonies, to submit their statutes to the arbitrament of any foreign Power or of any person, or body of men. [After a short adjournment, the Conference, after discussion in private, agreed that Sir R. Bond's Statement should be recorded^]

Newfoundland Fishery. (Sir R. Bond )