"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 self-governing Colonies, to submit their statutes to the arbitrament of any foreign Power or of any person, or body of men." In the light of the suggestion now urged upon us, under two at least of the questions, that colonial statutes are to be interpreted by this Tribunal, this remark of Sir Robert Bond is instructive. In the end, however, the arbitration became necessary. It seemed to be the only way out. And, various of the questions, and those to a considerable extent with which I have to deal, or with which I shall ask the Court to deal, came at the last moment into the arbitration in a most instructive way, namely, as the terms upon which Sir Robert and his Government would allow the modus vivendi of 1907 to have their approval. At the bottom of p. 1013, Appendix to the Case of the United States, you will find this: "My Ministers, however, still desire to aid His Majesty's Government as far as possible consistently with their duty to this Colony, and the preservation of its rights; they will, therefore, grant permission to the fishermen of the Treaty Coast to sell to Americans during the coming season on the receipt of an assurance from His Majesty's Government that the terms of reference to the Hague Tribunal shall include the question of the right of American vessels to fish or trade in any of the bays, harbours, or creeks of that portion of Newfoundland Coast between Cape Ray and Quirpon Islands, together with all other questions that may be raised." And suggesting that the United States must be consulted before the questions to be submitted could be determined upon, the Government of Great Britain conceded that it would include in the terms of arbitration the matters which were insisted upon by Newfoundland. I refer to the top of p. 1017 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States: "I may add that His Majesty's Government will urge the United States Government to submit to arbitration any point on which your Government and the Government of Canada are agreed. They cannot, however, give a pledge as to any one point until the views of the Dominion Government are known." As to one of those questions, namely, Question No. 6, on which the Prime Minister insisted, the Government of Great Britain had never said a word to the Government of the United States. It was a question which all the years of debate had never brought to the surface, not even after the time that Sir Robert Bond himself had presented it in 1905; but, nevertheless, that was included, and for greater ingenuity, the provision was also put into Sir Robert Bond's letter, 'any other questions which may be raised." 66 I do not mean, in saying this, to minimise the dignity and importance of the questions here submitted. It is only another illustration of the fact, which has so frequently occurred in history, that either the ambition, or the zeal, or the vanity of men, has been overruled to the greatest purposes. 875 As the result of the difficulty between Great Britain and this colony, and as the result of a difficulty between the United States and Great Britain, brought to a climax in this manner, we have the honour of standing here and presenting to this distinguished Tribunal questions which, for nearly fifty or sixty years, have failed of solution by ordinary diplomatic means, as well as questions of detail and of the highest practical importance to both countries. We have the great advantage of discussing them at a time of the profoundest peace, at a time when counsel on one side and the other, can come together as brethren of a great profession, not acting under any excitement or exacerbation of the home press or the home people, and under conditions which call for nothing but a statement in the calmest way of the contentions on one side or the other. We come here at an opportune moment when the entire press of the United States, from one end of the country to the other, is echoing the brilliant words of the President of this Tribunal at its opening session, and approving of the doctrine set out of the arbitral determination of international disputes. We may well believe that we are rearing a great white pillar, marking the progress of the principle of international arbitration. Nor must we fail to note that in Great Britain as well the same condition prevails. If these proceedings result, as they surely will, in bringing the contentions of the parties to a peaceful adjustment, we shall be able to record of this arbitration what was recorded of the first arbitration between these two countries; I refer to the arbitration with reference to the St. Croix River boundary. I do not quote accurately, but one of the arbitrators, in substance, said: "In this quiet chamber we have settled the boundaries between two great nations, and have seen to it that the land was not deluged with the blood of our sons or our rivers choked with their dead bodies." I have already intimated that what I had to deal with were the questions of more recent origin and, to some extent, of more practical importance--Questions 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7; not questions involving such recondite considerations of international law as Nos. 1 and 5, but yet questions of the most vital importance to the conduct of the fisheries between these two nations. I have found it to be of distinct service, Mr. President, to arrange in order the events of the last few years which lead up to the arbitration, and I hope that it will not be without service to the Tribunal, if I review, as briefly as I may, those circumstances. In using the word "briefly," which has been so frequently used in the course of these proceedings, I cannot hope that any member of the Tribunal, or any one of our friends upon the other side, will say to me what a Scotch juror said to a distinguished Scotch advocate some years ago, a man of great eminence, native of that country which has produced so many of the greatest advocates in the world, which has given to Great Britain and to our own United States men distinguished by their eloquence and attainments at the Bar. He had come to be known in Edinburgh to everyone as "Harry," and, in opening his argument to a jury, he once said: "I shall briefly review the circumstances of this case." One of the jurors, brought up in the forensic, almost casuistical, school of the Scotch, loving debate and fearing that what had promised to be a great intellectual treat would fail him, cried out: "Dinna be brief, Harry; dinna be brief. What 'a ye do, dinna be brief." My friend, Mr. Warren, brought the consideration of the history down to 1886, having in mind, of course, Question No. 5. Sir Robert Finlay, whom I hope I may also speak of now and always, as my friend, dealt with the subsequent period much more briefly than the earlier history, which facts may be my two excuses for going a little more into detail with reference to this subsequent period. The Treaty of Washington terminated on the 1st July, 1885, but was continued. in force by modus until the 1st January, the following year. During 1886, however, notices were served on American vessels, upon two of which I shall have occasion to comment more at length later. The "Thomas F. Bayard" was notified at Bonne Bay that American fishermen could not fish on that shore, and the "Mascot " was notified at Port Amherst, in the Canadian jurisdiction, to the same effect. The form of the notices in each case was that they could neither fish nor trade at either of these places. Upon reference being made to Great Britain both of these notices were withdrawn. Both of these notices, you will observe, were upon the treaty coast, and these fishermen were seeking to exercise what were believed to be their treaty rights on this coast. The position assumed by Canada and Newfoundland was such that the President of the United States was authorised, by an Act of the 3rd March, 1887, United States Case Appendix, p. 96, to terminate relations with Canada and with the colony, if he was convinced that they were unreasonably interfering with the rights of American fishing-vessels. One of the significant. things about it was that if the vessels of the United States were unreasonably crippled, even in their commercial relations, it would be regarded as a ground for putting the Act into operation. That authority President Cleveland never exercised, because, almost immediately, negotiations for what proved to be the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty were entered upon, and these negotiations promised at one time to serve as a way out of the entire difficulty. 876 I shall now advert to the Newfoundland Act of the 21st February. 1887, United States Case Appendix, p. 170, and British Case Appendix, p. 711. The statute of Newfoundland provided that no person without a license should export, catch, or sell for the purpose of exportation, any herring, caplin, squid, or other bait fishes. It will be noticed that neither that nor the statute of Canada prohibited commercial transactions in general, but merely prohibited the sale of certain specified articles which related directly to fishing. Concerning this Act of Newfoundland, it is to be noticed that we have the advantage of having heard from Sir James Winter, whom we had the pleasure of hearing before this Tribunal, in an interview which he granted to a London paper during a controversy which had occurred with Sir Robert Bond. The wise man of old said: "Would that mine enemy would write a book." If he had lived at the present time I am very confident that he would have changed it and would have said: "Would that mine enemy would grant an interview." I must stop to apologise for having used the word "enemy " with reference to so genial and kindly a friend as Sir James is to all of us. I want you to turn to p. 404 of the United States Counter-Case Appendix because there we will find something concerning this very statute. The interview to which I have referred was published in the London "Morning Post." It will appear a little later that Sir Robert Bond had been conducting something of a campaign in England and kindling a back fire on the British Government as to its attitude toward Newfoundland. It was in response to this that this interview was granted by Sir James Winter, who was in England. I read at the bottom of p. 404: "Sir Robert Bond's ultimate object is reciprocity with the United States that is, of course, access to American markets for our fishery products and he hopes to force the Americans to give us this reciprocity by shutting off the sale by our West coast fishermen of herring to the Americans. Whether his ultimate object-reciprocitywould be promoted by this policy is, to say the very best for it, extremely doubtful. I for one do not believe that there is any chance of its succeeding, or that the Americans will be forced by any such means to give us reciprocity. In the meantime his policy is only bringing ruin upon our herring fishermen. It is nothing but an experiment on his part, and I believe will end only in failure, even if he were permitted to carry it out. That is the opinion of many practical men. And certainly this reciprocity is not worth causing the least possible trouble either with the United States or the Imperial Government. The chances of success cannot be weighed in the balance against the grave difficulties that must arise out of any endeavour to force these measures.' Then, we have the Bait Act: "Permit me to go a little into details. In 1886 a Bait Act was passed There I think Sir James was in error and that the reference was to the Act of 1887 because I do not find in either Appendix any Act of 1886. I may be in error. "In 1886 a Bait Act was passed for the purpose of preventing the supply of bait to the French fishermen who used it for the purpose of catching cod-fish on the Banks of Newfoundland. They took the cod into our markets, and by means of heavy bounties were able to undersell our fishermen. This Act was clearly intended to be used, first of all, to prevent foreigners from using our bait against us, and, secondly, it was enforced only against Frenchmen on account of their competition in the matter of cod-fish, which was then almost our sole means of livelihood. It was never intended to interfere with the ordinary catching, sale, and exportation of herrings as articles of consumption-a consumption that has always been going on, and, as far as the sale to the Americans is concerned, with considerable profit to our people. It is by what I can call only a perversion and misapplication of the spirit of that Act (although it may be according to the strict letter) that Sir Robert Bond is endeavouring now to interfere, as he has done, with the traffic with the Americans. In fact, the very same Act contains provisions for facilitating and securing the continuance of the traffic in herrings as articles of food. When that Act was passed in 1886 the country was on the verge of starvation on account of French competition; it was passed as a measure of self-preservation; the very life of the colony was at stake. But at the present moment there is no necessity for the application of that. Act in the case of the United States. There is no strong public demand for reciprocity with the United States. We never had better markets for our cod-fish than at present. The Americans are doing us no harm whatever; there is only a desire on the part of some people to obtain an entrance into American markets for the sale of cod, and there is the widest difference among practical men on that point. The best opinion is against it. Americans are not likely to be consumers to any large extent of our codfish. Our best markets are the Roman Catholic countries that buy our salted fish-Brazil, Spain, and the countries of the Mediterranean-and our markets in these countries were never better than they are now." It will be seen that the Act of 1887, if I correctly read what Sir James said-and interviews have been known to be not absolutely in accordance with the statements made-was intended against the French, and it will appear that it was never until 1905 enforced against the Americans. On the 15th February, 1888, the Chamberlain-Bayard Treaty was agreed upon. It provided for a commission to delimit the places in which, under the renunciatory clause, the |