The Newfoundland Fisheries Question

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,--I have so recently been an active politician in the Colony of Newfoundland that I feared in speaking here today upon a subject which is just now a matter of active politics, I might, if I spoke extemporaneously, let fall something which might be misunderstood and which might hurt the feelings of some of the people in the Colony which I so recently left, and therefore I have submitted what I have to say in the main to writing, a custom which is not usual with me. However, I had another reason, and that was that the subject was so extensive that if I started to talk about it offhand I might take too much of your valuable time.

You have noticed in the public press a considerable amount of discussion with regard to the present position of affairs between the United States of America and Great Britain over what is called the recent modus vivendi on the herring situation, and I propose to put you in possession of certain facts so that you may read and understand. The fishermen of the United States resort to Newfoundland for two purposes, first, to secure bait for carrying on a deep sea fishery on the Grand Banks; secondly, to obtain herring for food purposes in the autumn and early winter, which fishery is known as the "herring fishery," or the "winter herring fishery." It is this latter fishery about which the modus vivendi has been made. With reference to the bait I might explain briefly that bait means caplin, quid and herring, all of which are small fish and used in catching cod, I need say nothing on this question because it is not the subject of the present disturbance between the countries.

In order to understand the position I must draw your attention to the shape of Newfoundland. It is triangular and on the east, facing the Atlantic, the great mass of population resides. It is there where the Capital City is situated, and it is not resorted to for bait by the Americans very much. The south side of the Island, facing the Grand Banks, between Cape Race at the southern extremity and Cape Ray as you enter into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, is best known, and it is here where the Americans come to secure bait. They have no treaty rights in any of the harbours along that shore. The West Coast, Cape Ray to the Straits of Belle Isle, which is washed by the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, supplies the herrings for the winter fishery. The Bay of Islands is the centre of this traffic. The matter of bait fish is not a matter of treaty at the present time. Now, the winter herring fishery--so called--is therefore different from the bait fishing, and is conducted in October, November, December and January. This is carried on in the main on the west coast of the Island--that is, the coast which faces the Gulf of St. Lawrence and which faces Canada.

By the Treaty of 1818 'the Americans have certain rights on that coast. The words of the Treaty are as follows: "It is agreed that the inhabitants of the United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, on that part of the coast"; meaning the north part. Prior to the season of 19056, no attempt was made to interfere with American fishing vessels in the prosecution of the winter herring fishery in Newfoundland waters. The method of prosecuting the fishery was as follows: American vessels cleared from ports of the United States with a fishing license. In Newfoundland they bought the herrings from the Newfoundland fishermen. The cargo so purchased when carried in American vessels was allowed free entry into American markets as the produce of American fisheries, which was a definition winked at or legalized by the State Department. Herrings carried in Newfoundland vessels would be charged about seventy-five cents a barrel, the result being that the Americans monopolized that trade and the Newfoundland fishermen, were entirely excluded. But you must not carry away the impression that that was altogether unsatisfactory to the Newfoundland fisherman because so far as they were concerned, on that part of the coast, they were more pleased to deal with the Americans than they would be to deal with their own people.

However, the Americans as a matter of fact did not catch the herrings; they simply bought the herrings after they were caught by the local fishermen. Up to 1898 the Americans had been buying these herrings at any price they chose to give, and they were in the habit of throwing the small ones away and wanton destruction prevailed. At that time I was the Minister of Fisheries and I refused to allow this to go on by invoking an Act, and I succeeded in establishing a fixed price with a stricter measure, payment in cash and more economical methods, and other regulations, for the preservation of the fishery, and since 1898, about seven years of business has been carried on to the satisfaction of all concerned and to the great profit of the local fishermen.

Now, then, I must take you over a little history in which Canada had played some part. In 1890 the present Premier of Newfoundland succeeded in negotiating with the late James G. Blaine an arrangement known as the Bond-Blaine Convention. Its main object was to give free entry into American markets of fish exported from Newfoundland in return for free entry of certain American products into Newfoundland and for the right to purchase bait in Newfoundland waters, that is to say, chiefly on the southern coast. It was a measure of reciprocity. The Macdonald Ministry of that date--I mean the Ministry of Sir John Macdonald--opposed the ratification of the Treaty by the Queen on the ground that it was intended to injure Canada incidentally by affecting the position then existing between her and the United States. As a result it was not accepted, but in 1904 negotiations were renewed by the present Premier of Newfoundland with the late John Hay, Secretary of State, which resulted in an amended arrangement known as the Bond-Hay Treaty. His Majesty's Government assented to this arrangement, but owing to pressure of American fishery interests the United States failed to adopt the Bond-Hay Treaty. Thereupon the Newfoundland Legislature, under the influence of Sir Robert Bond's Government, annoyed by what they considered the unfair conduct of the American fishermen and Senate, changed their policy and legislated, first, to prevent the sale of bait fishes to Americans, a matter perfectly within their power and not affecting any Treaty, and in the second place to prevent the sale of herrings to American fishing vessels pursuing the winter herring fishery.

They simply said it shall be unlawful for the Newfoundlanders to sell to American vessels for any price or under any conditions whatever. You can easily see that the Americans would immediately turn to the exercise of their Treaty in an endeavour to evade this rather drastic legislation. They said, if we cannot buy we at least have a right to catch and we will send our own vessels fitted up to take the herrings for our own use; and the local fishermen became alarmed because they depended on the trade with the American vessels, and I think the people of that part of the coast were very much incensed against their own government. When the Americans came down they found it was not so easy as they supposed to catch, because they,, had very small crews and it would take them a very long time, and instead of filling up their vessels by the help of Americans they got hundreds of people residing on the Coast. As it was very difficult to fill their vessels, in the short time, they induced the fishermen to go outside the three-mile limit and come back as part of the American crew. You perceive at once that was not very difficult when they had the favour and sympathy of the people themselves. The result was that a great number of the population would sail out and ship on the American boats and then sail in to conduct the fisheries in Newfoundland waters, and the result was to a great extent to make the restrictive legislation inoperative.

That resulted in further legislation in the winter of the present year, 1906, making it unlawful for Newfoundlanders on board American vessels to fish in Newfoundland waters, and declaring that fishing from on board American vessels was confined to the "inhabitants of the United States," according to the Treaty, in the strictest sense of those words. They said then that a Newfoundlander hired on board an American vessel was not an inhabitant, but the Legislature said, if lie takes fish in Newfoundland waters he becomes liable to our law, and not only that, but he can be punished by confiscating the vessel on which he is working. I occupied a position in the Legislature at the time and I pointed out the extreme danger of such a course, because it seemed very unlikely that the American Government would allow us to board one of their vessels for the purpose of taking one of their crew, and certainly that Government would not allow them to confiscate an American vessel on account of a local regulation to which they had not been a party. This Act was to come in force by the proclamation of the Governor, which practically meant it was suspended for the assent of His Majesty's Government.

Now another difficulty arose. When the Newfoundland fishermen were fishing for the herrings they used ordinary nets, but when the American found he was driven to have a small crew, he turned to the use of what is called a " purseseine," which is an immense net. It is as large as a hundred ordinary nets, and the use of it is not allowed by the local laws of Newfoundland, for this reason, that in taking so many hundreds of fish in such a large net only a very few are saved and the remainder of them fall to the bottom and die and foul the grounds, and so the local Legislature in Newfoundland have prohibited its use. The Newfoundlanders protested against the use of it by the Americans and consequently this question arose, and it is one which will prove of great interest to the lawyers, no doubt: Can a local Legislature, a part of the Empire, pass a local law contrary to a Treaty which has been passed by the Empire as to a foreign country. Can the Empire itself pass a law affecting a right it has previously conceded by Treaty to a foreign country? The empire is one of the countries and the foreign country is the other--doesn't it occur to you that that arrangement having been made, that a modification or anything affecting it must also be consented to by the two parties? In any case, Newfoundland said, you must pursue the fisheries in the waters of Newfoundland as the Newfoundlanders pursue it; and the Americans said, we will pursue it as we like.

The result was that the Imperial Government took the matter up and the outcome is the modus vivendi; the result of which is simply this, that the Act to prevent the Newfoundlanders hiring on American vessels was not to be put in force at present, the Americans on, the other hand to be allowed to use the purse-seines, but they have agreed to use them with as small interference as possible with the local fishermen; the local fishermen, on the other hand, being perfectly agreeable to the American procedure. The American fishermen have agreed that the purse-seines shall not be used at all, and the Newfoundlanders are going outside the three mile limit and becoming part of the crews of the American vessels, and are now peacefully fishing for herrings in their own waters. Now this agreement with His Majesty's Government is what you have seen in the papers, called the modus vivendi. It appears that this was the subject of lengthened correspondence between the Government of the United States and His Majesty's Government on the one hand and between His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government on the other.

His Majesty's Government informed the Colonial Government from time to time on the course of proceedings and asked them to make the concession, and when they refused told them the concession must necessarily be made in the interests of the Empire, and when the modus vivendi was decided, they telegraphed the fact to the Colonial Government, and therefore I think the Colony of Newfoundland has no just reason or cause of complaint so far as His Majesty's Government is concerned in this matter except if it be that His Majesty's Government have not adopted the views of the local Government as to the meaning of the Treaty and have not agreed to uphold the interpretation which the Local Government has put upon that Treaty by force of 'arms if necessary. If the Colonial Government has any cause of complaint it is wholly this, that the British Government has not said, we put ourselves in your hands and we are willing to go to the verge of war to enforce your opinions. I think His Majesty's Government must be excused from the charge of having done anything which is unjustifiable towards the Colony in this particular matter. I may tell you, too, that the so-called excitement which you see spoken of in the newspapers is largely a matter of newspaper making. It is felt in the Colony by the politicians and to some extent by the mercantile men who are deeply interested in the attempt to obtain a market for their fish in the United States and who look upon this as a part and parcel of the policy to bring that about; but so far as the mass of the people are concerned they are quite favourable to the traffic with the Americans going on as it has gone on for so many years, or they are careless what becomes of it.

Now it cannot be denied that the United States on their part have acted ungenerously and unfairly towards Newfoundland. They have accepted for a number of years the privilege of obtaining bait in Newfoundland waters to carry on their own fisheries on the Grand Banks without any return whatever; for during the long period while they have been obtaining the privilege in Newfoundland waters they have imposed a very severe duty upon all Newfoundland products of the fisheries going into their ports: It has been a one-sided bargain. The Newfoundland Government have endeavoured to get a reciprocity treaty with them; and they have always held out that a treaty would be sometime made, but when it came to the final pinch they rejected it; and therefore I think it is fair to say that the United States have been unfair to the Colony. It is impossible on the other hand not to sympathize with the Colony in its resentment of the treatment received by the United States. It is not difficult to understand that this recent legislation has been productive of a very great deal of just annoyance on their part about the treatment they have received, and it is not difficult for you to understand that the very existence of American rights in these Treaty waters must be a constant source of annoyance; but when you have said so much I think it must also be said that our sympathy cannot go with the Government of Newfoundland to the full extent of the policy they have adopted.

I, for one, think they have been perfectly justified in refusing to give up to the Americans the bait to carry on their Grand Bank fisheries because the control of the bait is a matter entirely within their legislative competence. I do not think, however, they have been wise in endeavouring to restrict the Americans in those rights which they enjoy by Treaty. I think it becomes a Nation and every part of a Nation to give to treaties with other countries a high and generous interpretation, and therefore when I see the Government of the Colony in a spirit of annoyance and irritation endeavouring to whittle down or to lessen or destroy the rights which the treaties give to the people of the United States, I feel my sympathy with the Government must terminate at that point on that particular part of their policy. I think with reference to the exercise of the rights of the inhabitants of the United States that the correct policy is to admit those rights and to give them a broad and generous construction and to administer them in a friendly manner, but at the same time to turn to the mother country as the Colony did in the matter of the French Treaty rights in the same waters, and say to the mother country that these rights were first given to the people of the United States as a debt on the part of the Empire at large and the price is not being paid by the Empire at large, it is being paid by a small community, and it is the duty of the Imperial Government by all means in its power to terminate those rights by negotiation or otherwise with the United States and until they are terminated to compensate the Colony from year to year for the loss.

I think it is fair for the Colony to say to the mother country, it is quite true it is our duty as part of the Empire to submit to the burdens which are imposed for the benefit of the Empire, but it is the duty of the Empire to bear part of the cost. The mother country has admitted that very generously in the matter of the French treaty rights that existed there a short time ago. The Imperial Government has paid the price and the tax-payer at home has been asked to furnish a very handsome sum to the French people to concede the rights they formerly enjoyed, and it ought to be an example and an inspiration to the Colonies as to the correct course to pursue in this matter.

I want to draw your attention for one moment to the interest of the Dominion in this matter in particular. The fisheries of British North America are held as a common right by all British subjects. The fisheries of Newfoundland are not solely the property of the Newfoundland people, neither are the fisheries of Canada the sole property of the Canadians. They belong to all British subjects alike-the fisheries of each are the property of the whole. They are of vital importance to the whole Eastern seaboard of British North America, and free entry into the American market is of vast importance to all British North America. Free entry granted to one section would lessen the chances that other parts would obtain free entry. In 1890, Sir John Macdonald said that Newfoundland had no right to make a treaty with the Americans on fishery matters when Canada was not a party to such a treaty. By Newfoundland putting certain privileges in the hands of the people of the United States, Canada is debarred from making a treaty which she might otherwise make. In other words, one part of the Empire should not hold the key to the situation, and so, he said, that Newfoundland had no right to make a treaty with the people of the United States of America to which Canada was not a consenting party, because if she made such a treaty, Newfoundland would not only be giving away what belonged to herself, but that which equally belonged to Canada, and it would be directly affecting the policy of the Dominion of Canada towards the United States in reference to those fisheries which are in the Dominion itself.

Now the position is that, the United States in fishery matters is seeking after something which can be given by Newfoundland or Canada. If one gives it without the other it is the loss of the other and, therefore, the two should work together. The fisheries being one in ownership and largely one in use, and all being affected by the manner in which they are controlled, should be governed and administered by one central authority. Newfoundland should make no arrangement to which Canada does not consent and Canada none to which Newfoundland does not assent. They should have one policy. Newfoundland and Canada should be one in sympathy and the Colonies should be confederated.

Now, will you just allow me in conclusion, a few words with reference to moralizing a little bit upon what I have seen in the press, or at any rate of what is put forward by certain politicians in the Colony. I think that patience ought to be exercised towards the mother country in dealing with matters of this kind. I think Imperial Statesmen must consider international questions from a national and often from a worldwide standpoint. They must be often actuated by motives we are unable even to conjecture, so intricate are the questions of statecraft and so meagre are our sources of information as to the undercurrents. Local politics should not intrude into consideration of Imperial questions. We are too often inclined to magnify our local interests in comparison with those of the Empire and of the world at large. Are we as considerate-as patriotic-as we ought to be? Are we not too ready to complain of the Imperial Government, and too prone to represent it as cringing to foreign powers? How often do we say, not understanding the situation, that the Imperial Government is gradually losing ground? Well, admit it is true, is it the part of the patriot to be saying so even to his next door neighbour? Ought we not to show our pride in the Empire and not be willing to admit such a thing even to ourselves? After all, is it true?

Great Britain has a habit of conceding non-essentials, but has she ever been willing to concede essentials? Look at all history. Does any country in the world show more courage in fighting for abstract rights than the very country whose flag so proudly flies over us? I think, too, in this matter of dealing with the United States, that we ought to be equally generous to the great country which lies to the south of us. They are not always considerate. They are very often grasping and ready to drive a hard bargain, but after all, instead of getting impatient, ought we not to consider that they are only the faults of early youth in a very young nation just feeling its strength; that they haven't got big enough and heart enough to show their generosity? Ought we not by our patience to try and teach them a better way? Is there any reason why we should drive a hard bargain with them if they are ungenerous with us? Is that any reason why the British Government should act harshly with them? Is it not better to meet generously those who are not generous. The flag that flies over us is surely more dignified when it does not emulate this spirit; but by the force of example teaches a better way than if it adopted the methods, the use of which by our neighbours we so often and strongly condemn.

Now, in conclusion, on this particular matter of the present difficulty between the Colony and the United States, it is a matter of much less importance than we might think by looking at the newspapers. It is not likely to be the matter of great excitement in the Colony. I think such excitement that does exist and which does not arise from politics purely and simply is due to a condition of things which cannot be made better by quarrelling, but which must be met by negotiating. The cure of the position is some new arrangement, some new treaty. So far as Newfoundland is concerned they will have no grievance if the, United States permits the free entry into the markets of the United States. I think that is a matter of much wider importance and much wider interest than the mere fishing itself. It is a matter which the Dominion of Canada ought to deal with, and I for one am tired of hearing about Confederation in Canada and doing nothing. I am tired of hearing Party after Party saying they are favourable to it and yet doing nothing; I am tired of hearing them say, we are going to wait until somebody in the Colony is in favour of it, which day may never come. I consider that the position of Newfoundland, lying out in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, is such an important one that it is a national question, and a very important national question, and much more so by this very fishery question. We are constantly on the verge of making some arrangement between Canada and the United States, and that can never be done satisfactorily unless the interests of Newfoundland are made a part and parcel of it.

Now, Newfoundland ought to be a part of Canada. Her interests ought to be represented by the Government of the Dominion, and the Government of Canada ought to take some active steps to bring about the confederation of the two Colonies. Canada ought to go to the Imperial Government and say that we consider the outstanding of Newfoundland as a menace and as an act of hostility to the Dominion. The Dominion of Canada cannot afford to have the Colony standing out in that way, and some arrangement must be made, and the day must come when this will no longer stand in the way of the wheels of progress of this great Dominion.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that this subject is not one that I can expect very great interest in amongst the members of this Club and in this city. I have come here now to make this my home, and I am speaking no longer as a Newfoundland politician. I have tried today to avoid any prejudice in the matter. Possibly if I expressed my own sentiments as they exist I might have been more pronounced, but I speak as a patriotic Canadian, I speak as a citizen of the Queen City of Ontario, when I say that some active steps ought to be taken to bring about the confederation of the Colonies of Newfoundland and Canada.