92 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J PHELPS. 



drawn, I suppose it would have said so; it would have said that it 

 shall api)ly to any fishing boats in respect to which any convention 

 or Treaty may be entered into; but we are still short of the practical 

 question; what has become of the fisheries? While we may be dis- 

 cussing the technical operation of a Statute that authorises Orders 

 in Council — while we may be considering whether in fact any such 

 Order in Council has ever been issued — and if my friends say it has 

 not I of course take their statement because they know very well — 

 while we are discussing that, what has become of the fish — the 

 oysters'? There again is it shown, in this exhaustive preparation, ihat 

 notwithstanding the language of this Statute the beds have been open 

 to all the world up to the extent of the tliree mile limit? Has any 

 instance of any infringement been shown, or does the same conclusion 

 come as in every other one of these cases? The Government take the 

 business in hand as they ought to do — as they are bound to do in jus- 

 tice to their subjects and themselves— they take the business in hand 

 by making a revenue and making an industry, and they pass a statute 

 that on the face of it says to the world: " Stand off; you cannot come 

 here within 20 miles and take these fish". 



My friend says that that statute would not do any good if the world 

 came. Did they ever come? 



Has any body attempted it? Has any nation asserted it, or has it 

 resulted in a complete protection of that industry? And what would 

 have happened if they had come? 



The President. — War. It has perhaps not been challenged, but it 

 is a challenge. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes, if it can be dignified with the name of -"war"; 

 but it is unquestionable that if any foreign vessel had undertaken to 

 come there and destroy the fish, that vessel would have been taken and 

 prevented from going on in the business. If that is war, then call it so. 

 But what nation would have backed up its citizens in any such attempt? 

 What nation, I repeat, ever made such an assertion? It is the practi- 

 cal result of those acts by the exclusive acquiescence of nations that I 

 am dealing with. 



The Scotch Herring Fishery Act is a provision of a very similar kind. 

 The map will be found opposite page 458 of the 1st volume of the 

 United States Appendix, showing the extent of the sea. It is a very 

 large one and covers a very large tract of sen, extending some thirty 

 miles from land. It applies in its terms to " any person ". My friend 

 says "any person" means any person within the jurisdiction of Great 

 Britain and, for certain purposes, when that language is used in an 

 Act, tliey are undoubtedly right. But here again comes the same ques- 

 tion as to the i)ractical result that has taken place. 1 do not know, 

 Sir, that, aside from these Herring Fislieries, Oyster Beds, Pearl Oys- 

 ters, and Coral, there is any other description of proi)erty now known 

 in the world that comes within the purview of this priucij)le, except it 

 be the seals. 



Now what about the seals? What is the protection that has been 

 extended to them? And before entering upon that branch of the sub- 

 ject, as it is within two or three minutes of the time of adjournment, 

 perhaps it would be convenient for you to hear me afterwards. 



The President. — Quite so. 



The Tribunal then adjourned for a short time. 



Mr. Phelps. — I hope. Sir, I shall not be found tedious iii pursuing 

 this line of illustration, or rather of historic precedent, over which I 

 shall pass as fast as I can. I now come to the particular point of the pro- 



