REPOET OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 57 



In accordance with the terms of this part of the award, the court 

 named as the nonnational member of the expert commission to pass 

 on the existing fishery laws and regulations Dr. P. P. C. Hoek, scien- 

 tific fishery adviser of the Dutch Government, and within the time 

 specified the British Government named as its representative Hon. 

 Donald Morison, minister of justice of Newfoundland, and the United 

 States Government nominated Dr. Hugh M. Smith, deputy fish com- 

 missioner. 



The principal issue in question 2 was whether American fishing 

 vessels intending to operate on the treaty coasts might sail from the 

 home port with skeleton crews and then take on board in Canadian 

 or Newfoundland ports enough men to fill out their complement. 

 The award was that inhabitants of the United States, while exercis- 

 ing their liberties under the treaty, have the right to employ, as 

 members of the fishing crews of their vessels, persons not inhabitants 

 of the United States; but, in order to prevent any misunderstanding 

 as to the effects of its award, the court expressed the opinion that non- 

 inhabitants employed as members of the fishing crews of United 

 States vessels derive no benefit or immunity from the treaty. 



AVith regard to question 3 the tribunal decided that the require- 

 ment that an American fishing vessel, while exercising its rights under 

 the treaty, should report at the customhouse is not unreasonable, but 

 there should be no such requirement unless there be reasonably con- 

 venient opportunity afforded to report in person or by telegraph 

 either at a customhouse or to a customs official; and that the exercise 

 of the fishing liberty should not be subjected to the purely commer- 

 cial formalities of report, entry, and clearance at a customhouse, nor 

 to light, harbor, or other dues not imposed upon Newfoundland 

 fishermen. 



Question 4 is closely related to question 3, and the award there- 

 under follows the same lines. The tribunal held that the provision 

 of the treaty of 1818 admitting American fishermen to enter certain 

 bays or harbors for shelter, repairs, wood and water, and for no 

 other purpose Avhatever, is an exercise of those duties of hospitality 

 and humanity which all civilized nations impose upon themselves 

 and expect the performance of from others; that the enumerated 

 purposes for which entry is permitted all relate to the exigencies in 

 wdiich those who pursue their perilous calling on the sea may be in- 

 volved ; and that to impose restrictions making the exercise of such 

 privileges conditional upon the payment of light, harbor, or other 

 dues, or entering or reporting at customhouses, or any other similar 

 conditions, would be inconsistent with the grounds on which the 

 privileges rest, and therefore is not permissible. The tribunal further 

 held, however, in order that these privileges should not be abused, 

 that American fishermen availing themselves thereof should not 



